One of the issues in the election contest is that it's too late to throw out hundreds of illegal votes that were cast because of the section of the contest law which states that "Illegal votes do not include votes cast by improperly registered voters who were not properly challenged under [other sections of the RCW]"
The Democrats are trying to argue that this applies to pretty much every illegal vote, including felons, dead people and people who voted multiple times. Others say this only applies to those who registered at illegal addresses, including people who claim residence at a private mailbox, or out-of-staters who falsely claim a Washington domicile.
In any event, it's not too late to challenge bogus registrations in advance of the next election.
State and county voting officials have already stated that it's not their responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the voter rolls, that duty falls upon the citizens. If you have knowledge of an improperly registered voter then it's up to you to challenge their registration and help clean up the voter rolls. If you don't protect yourself from disenfranchisement by an illegal voter, nobody else will do it for you. You know the Democrats are going to scream about this, but tough toenails. They're addicted to illegal votes so what else do you expect them to do?
Challenging a bogus voter appears to be straightforward. Here's all you need to do:
1) Download and fill out this form, which King County Election director Dean Logan sent me. (It should work for all counties.)
2) If you challenge a registration for giving an incorrect residence address, you must furnish the challenged party's actual residence address for the challenge to be considered. [It's not clear what happens if you can prove that the person does not reside at the address on their registration but that you do not know where they actually live or if you fail to prove that they live at the address you state where they live]
3) Mail your completed and signed challenge affidavit to your county election officials. The addresses for all county election officials are listed here. Be sure to include your own address with the affidavit so you can be invited to the challenge hearing.
4) Attend the challenge hearing to testify in person, or submit an affidavit.
I already submitted a challenge to the registration of the Georgia resident who has been voting in Seattle for more than a decade. Some have argued that his employment with the federal government permits him to maintain his Washington voting residence. Others argue that federal employment by itself is an insufficient standard for maintaining a residence here. I agree. The gentleman in question will have the opportunity to defend his claims to the county auditor.
For more detail on election challenges, see the applicable state laws, here: RCW 29A.08.810 and 29A.08.820.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 07, 2005 11:05 AM | Email ThisSame for Felons new address Walla Walla????
How ridiculous....Or in CG own word(s) Ludicrious..
Posted by: Chris on February 7, 2005 11:26 AMI assume that you would donote those as individuals who are currently being denied their civil rights. I already hear democrats whining about that one though. Or maybe those contest forms being "lost."
Posted by: VaCSProf on February 7, 2005 11:29 AMI say this as a moderate Democrat who voted for Kerry and Rossi (there were quite a few of us you know)... I question whether where I live and in what method I choose to vote is anyone else's business. Doesn't this trouble any of you?
Posted by: Frank on February 7, 2005 11:35 AMAnd the thing is, they do it in a really inefficient way too, scattering the illegal votes across the state -- in solidly Republican counties as well as Democratic ones. Good thing they've got the county governments of all the staunchly Republican counties in their pockets so that they can get away with this scheme. And good thing that they can manage to keep the lid on this whole thing, as they find isolated individuals to cooperate with this scheme, one by one, and never have it be exposed.
Oh, and they were behind the documented cases of all the folks who cast illegal votes for Rossi too (like the people voting for Rossi on behalf of their dead relatives). That's just a clever smokescreen -- but the Dems are careful to keep a master list going so that they always plan to end up with a few more illegal votes than the Republicans. Where is my copy of that master list anyway? Gotta find it -- must be here somewhere.....
And the Dems know too when an election is going to be a once-in-a-lifetime-event and come down to just a few hundred votes, so that this kind of scheme can actually have a theoretical impact. They plan for that moment, and put this centralized/decentralized effort into effect perfectly just to make it all work.
Yeah, the Democrats depend on this elaborate scheme of seemingly scattered, individually-placed illegal votes -- complete with lots of illegal votes for the other guy -- in order to produce the narrowest victory every time once in a century or so when an election is this close.
And to think that our state is just *full* of these Democrats, millions of them, each and every one corrupt to the core with no regard for fairness and democracy. All willing to keep this little secret going, for as long as it takes, so that 200 years from now in another close election, they can depend on Mr. Got-Out-of-Prison-Ten-Years-Ago-But-Didn't-Pay-Restitution to carry them to victory!
Posted by: Mike on February 7, 2005 11:53 AMIt seems to me that Americans have fought and died for more than 2 centuries to prevent just such an attitude of "denounce thy neighbor because you don't like him (or her)!"
Suppose thousands of people take up your totally misguided advice and start denouncing everyone they don't like and force those people to spend time and money proving that they are legally registered voters?
Is that what you Republicans want this country to come to?
Posted by: Nelson on February 7, 2005 11:54 AMI was under false pretense long ago, that if you lived "in" city, you had to be registered "in" city. If you were a county resident, you registered as such. The ballots were different, as "city" issues were for City people to decide. And the County People didnt have the right to vote on those issues, as they didnt reside there.
If you live in Georgia, and vote absentee in Washington, I believe you dont have a right to vote in "WA" elections (unless in Military).
The problem we have is if we had a SYSTEM in place that actually could check the validity of voters, then the public wouldnt be snooping into the Voter Rolls.
The current SYSTEM works if all the counties had followed the rules. They didnt, so we are subject to neighbor snooping, and I dont think it is bad, unless you voted twice, or are dead, a felon, or illegal alien.
But I need to ask a question....
How do we contest a "Double Vote", "Felon Vote", or "Dead Vote" prior to the Election. Dont you have VOTE first?????
Posted by: Chris on February 7, 2005 11:56 AMOh I agree Nelson, it is, but it is what our great leaders of this state have put into law, that makes it so.
If you want to call it ""denouncing your neighbor as an evil person", go ahead. I call it, protecting the legit voters rights.
If these "EVIL PERSONS" took seriously their right to vote, and knew the responsibilty behind it (being registered correctly) we wouldnt be in the "MESS" we are in right now.
Wake Up - This has nothing to do with one political party or another. This is about citizens of this state being represented at the polls as they VOTE legally, fairly, and with TRUST.
IT AINT HAPPENING.....
Posted by: chris on February 7, 2005 12:05 PMIf you are a legally registered voter in this state, there is no concern. If not, reap what you sow.... Ignorance is no excuse....
Posted by: Chris on February 7, 2005 12:10 PMNo one is saying to use this as a weapon of vindictiveness against your enemies, we're only saying if you find that there are four people registered and voting at lonely widow Johnson's house down the street, challenge it. Or, another example I like to use is you see that there is a Stefan, Steven, Stephan and Steve Sharkansky registered and voting from the apartment next door where you know only Stefan Sharkansky lives, challenge them.
Don't you want to make sure your vote isn't cancelled by some cheater?
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 7, 2005 12:15 PM1. Making sure someone is properly registered to vote = "denouncing your neighbor as an evil person" and/or "denounce thy neighbor because you don't like him (or her)!"
2. Knowing or believing that someone is not properly registered to vote = misguided expression that he might be cast an improper vote
3. Making someone show photo identification and a voter registration card at the polls = force those people to spend time and money proving that they are legally registered voters
What a bunch of bogus liberal hooey - but we can thank him for spelling out the Democratic talking points on this particular issue. Dean Logan said it is our job, and we Republicans take our jobs SERIOUSLY.
"Is that what you Republicans want this country to come to?" If you mean that it will be more difficult to cast illegal ballots, and therefore more difficult for Democrats to illegally steal elections - HECK YES!!!
I agree with Larry above, except to add that I don't care who is illegally registered and who they vote for. I don't want anybody voting illegally, even if they vote like I do. I have no idea who the guy from Atlanta votes for. All I know is that I don't want somebody who doesn't live in my community, doesn't drive a car here, doesn't pay sales and property taxes here and doesn't send his kids to the local schools, to be voting for local candidates and ballot measures.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 7, 2005 12:30 PMSeeing right through it....
Posted by: Michele S on February 7, 2005 12:58 PMOr is that misguided?
Posted by: Greg V on February 7, 2005 01:00 PMHaving participated in too many lawyer-to-lawyer meetings, she was never overly impressed with legal analysis. But God! what a stroke of good fortune.
One of the new young attorneys had thought it up. What was his name? Mr. Cipher? Louis? A very good-looking young man. Slick. Christine made a note to remember to have Lou invited to a late night dinner gathering. Ummmm......
What a delicious surprise they planned! The Dems would agree with the Rossi contention about all the illegal votes. Maybe even add to the number. Talk about shock! The stupid Republicans would fall over from disbelief. The court would be in chaos.
The Dems had done their due diligence. Oh, had they ever! They had identified the illegal voters…..thousands of them! There were street people who had voted many times and slipped quietly back into the night. And busloads of illegals who had surreptitiously disappeared across the border. And adding to the number, the soulless ghouls who roamed only at night. They were all ghosts now….leaving behind only the affidavits.
Hundreds of affivadits ……swearing that they were paid to vote multiple times for Rossi! Case dismissed. What a truly delectible victory. They would party for a week!
A bell tolled somewhere in the distance. The ground vibrated with the familiar rhythmic sounds. Savoring the moment in her mind, Christine Gregoire, unfortunately, did not hear the drums.
I encourage all of you to focus your energy on cleaning up voter roles in your community but especially in Democratic Party "strongholds" in KingCo and other county's. It is time for folks to put their energy into something productive. To be effective, apparently you MUST not only confirm the registered voter no longer lives at his/her RESIDENCE ADDRESS but also find out where they do live. If Election Officials force this to be the case, this is a huge undertaking. But it must be done.
Stefan--
I think we need to develop a "form" for voters to challenge registration that works in all 39 County's. Then we need to develop a database to keep track of registrations that have been validated and challenged. A haphazard approach to this might cause more harm than good. If we could get voters to take responsibility for specific "Precindt(s)", it would make control much easier. I'm afraid this might be one area, because it is so frustrating & time-consuming to do it right, might just burn people out UNLESS we can show successes and make sure ALL of KingCo is thoroughly validated.
Frankly, if I were a County Auditor, Secretary of State or Prosecuting Attorney...I would encourage a statewide "RE-REGISTRATION" as opposed to this cumbersome method...wouldn't you?
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 7, 2005 01:59 PM(ii) For purposes of removing names of
ineligible voters from the official list of
eligible voters--
(I) under section 8(a)(3)(B) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(3)(B)), the
State shall coordinate the computerized
list with State agency records on felony
status; and
(II) by reason of the death of the
registrant under section 8(a)(4)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(4)(A)),
the State shall coordinate the
computerized list with State agency
records on death.
I recall some years back that IRS paid a bounty for people squealing on other people they knew if there was suspicion that they were cheating on their income tax. I might be wrong, but I believe the Supreme Court said they couldn't do that any more.
Also, citizens' arrests are not even legal anymore in most states, except for the most serious criminal acts.
What you are proposing is VIGILANTEISM at its very worst because regardless of how YOU think, someone who wishes to do their Constutitonal duty and vote can hardly be called a criminal in this country, despite your view that if they might want to vote for something other than a Republican that YOU support, YOU might think it is indeed criminal behavior!
As for the existing state law, I'm pretty certain the challenge rule is set up to be used by representatives of candidates to challenge certain suspicious voters and is not meant to be a "denounce your neighbor" statute that someone like you could use for your devious and UnAmerican political purposes.
If the law isn't set up that way, it should be the first order of business for someone to change it or to challenge it in court.
We don't need, or want, vigilante brigades of vote challengers roaming our streets. Next thing you know, you'd want to wear a uniform to do it with some symbol.
Oh, you're suggesting an orange pointed hood? And would you also burn an elephant on a suspected offender's lawn?
Posted by: Nelson on February 7, 2005 02:24 PMPerhaps if we go thru the entire state voter list, we will find 20,000 or so voters to challenge. That is significant.
Nelson, rather than lecture those of us who want ONLY legitimate voters to vote, why don't you contact Mr. Logan and your Legislators and encourage a re-registration. As people re-register, folks from both Party's can review and validate each re-registration.
You seem to be parroting the Patriot Act fear-mongering. Yet it is avoidable if Election Officials are empowered to validate their voter registration lists.
Nelson, you seem to be saying that we should all accept what BIG BROTHER tells us is fair...even when we have clear evidence that BIG BROTHER is wrong. I thought folks like you were afraid of Big Brother and for "We the People"? Now you are afraid of "We the People".
I'm understand Nelson that you are interested in a system that preserves the ability of Leftist's to cheat and steal elections. Your message is loud & clear. Let's see what this Election Contest drags out into the light as Election Officials and others are deposed UNDER OATH!!
Posted by: Mr. Cycnical on February 7, 2005 02:45 PMUn-American is soldiers in Iraq not receiving their absentee ballots before the election
Un-American is my friend Vic who is in Iraq as a contractor having served his 30 years too who didn't receive his ballot in time either
Un-American is having criminals vote
Un-American is my homeowners association telling me that I can't have a political sign in my front yard that I pay 175,000 dollars for
Un-American is the attitude of the lazy Seattle Councilman who demanded to know why "HIS" ballot wasn't counted.... He didn't care about anyone else's - JUST HIS~!
Un-American is lying, cheating, and stealing
Un-American is breaking into the RNC offices numerous times, slashing tires and doing all other kinds of criminal behaviors to get our own parties into office irregardless of the laws
It's past time to stand up and do what's right!!
Stephan's on it and IS doing it
Army Rangers have a saying - Rangers Lead the Way! RLTW
Here it is appropriate to say Stephan Leads the Way! and he's doing a bang-up job at it!
STLW
SLTW!!
Posted by: sgmmac on February 7, 2005 02:59 PMI am a liberal Democrat.
I'm not afraid of having only the eligible folks allowed to vote -- I say keep those Rossi-voting felons and dead-folks-for-Rossi out of our elections! (Yes, yes -- let's also disband the unofficial Felons for Gregoire club, though I'd be surprised if it's got very strong membership. But let's not pretend that one side or the other has set up these illegal registrations in order to profit in our elections.)
And I'm not dead set against a system of having citizens report allegedly unlawful registrations -- except for one thing.
Imagine what would happen if some Democrat took the electronic voters list and went ahead and challenged every Republican registered in his neighborhood, just so that some Reps would fail to get their act together in time to preserve their registrations. Or imagine the reverse. Or imagine the person who challenges a neighbor just out of personal vindictiveness, or for the fun of it. We need some protections built into a system of reporting on your neighbor -- because any system like that can be abused, either systematically or by folks who aren't playing w/ a full deck.
Posted by: Mike on February 7, 2005 03:02 PMUm, we already have one. It's that the county auditor rules on the validity of the election challenge and the auditor's ruling can be appealed to the courts. This is not very different from any other mechanism were citizens can report crimes to the authorities.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 7, 2005 03:18 PMYou're forgetting that a person isn't your neighbor if they don't live next to you. You're only denouncing people who claim to live next to you and don't (except in the case of felons...)!
Unless you live next to a cemetary (haha), denouncing a dead registered "neighbor" cannot be considered un-American. Neither if you live next to a Mailboxes Etc.
Posted by: VaCSProf on February 7, 2005 03:20 PMIn order to be a legitimate challenge under RCW 29A.080.810, .820, .830, .840, .850.
Stefan, I think this is definitely something worth keeping on the frontburner.
I'm told The 1993 National Voter Registration Act
requires States and Counties do file maintenance every 2 years. I'm investigating exactly what that means.
Leftists like Nelson are quite peculiar. They have no problem with the "mobius loop" approach to an issue like this where:
1) Leftist Election Official Logan says "You, the citizens, have gotta police voter registration list. It's not my yob mon!"
2) Evil Twin Nelson then says, "you can't do it, you Nazi's!!!"
Let's not get discouraged. Let's get the Voter Registration Challenge Forms from each County (I'm getting one from Jefferson County but not sure if all County's are the same) and let's get very familiar with the RCW's that govern voter registration challenges. Then let's follow the law!!
I'm not about to accept the Leftist banter of "You gotta do it but you can't do it".
That's BS!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 7, 2005 03:34 PM
RCW 29A.84.420
Unauthorized examination of ballots, election materials -- Revealing information.
(1) It is a gross misdemeanor for a person to examine, or assist another to examine, any voter record, ballot, or any other state or local government official election material if the person, without lawful authority, conducts the examination:
(a) For the purpose of identifying the name of a voter and how the voter voted; or
(b) For the purpose of determining how a voter, whose name is known to the person, voted; or
(c) For the purpose of identifying the name of the voter who voted in a manner known to the person.
(2) Any person who reveals to another information which the person ascertained in violation of subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(3) A gross misdemeanor under this section is punishable to the same extent as a gross misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
Posted by: Gil on February 7, 2005 03:47 PMI see what you're saying about the protections already in the voter-challenge system. That may be good enough.
Neither this liberal Democrat nor any one you'll ever find wants illegitimate voters to vote. I assure you that when we have our supersecret meetings to plot strategy, we never talk about getting illegal voters to the polls.
OK, well, we don't even have supersecret meetings. Even if we start having those, I don't think there will be an agenda item on how Mr. Bank-Robber, Ms. Embezzler, and Mr. Child-Abuser might vote if we could just get them to register and go to the polls. Same for the dead folks. Notoriously unpredictable in their voting preferences (despite the fact that I keep hearing about them voting for Rossi), and very hard to call up in order to remind them to vote on election day
Posted by: Mike on February 7, 2005 04:09 PMGood point. There is no way to know for whom potentially challenged voters voted because of the nature of secret ballot voting. The effort to clean up voter registrations - a task left to the electorate by the County Auditors who claim that it isn't in their job description - is a task that should be of a concern to individuals on both sides of the political aisle. I am thankful to hear Mike, a Democrat, acknowledging the importance of clean voter registrations.
Seeing as I presently live overseas, there is not much I can do now to challenge registrations. But I plan to do so when I return in May of 2006. In fact, I would hope to start with my own neighborhood in Clark County. It would be great to organize groups within individual counties who can split the workload and keep from doubling up the efforts of others.
One question I have about the process of challenges: If the County Auditor rules against the challenge brought against a registration, what are the penalties - if any - for lodging a challenge that is denied? Can the individual who is challenged bring a lawsuit against the challenger for any reason? I think this might be an important question in regards to this issue.
---------------------------------------------
The Re-Vote-lution will not be broadcast.
A "New" Vote Is Coming
Mike should check his talking points with the DNC's own Pravda, the New York Times. Today's editorial endorses & demands voting rights for felons, past, present, & presently incarcerated.
Get with the Screamin' Dean Team, Mike, or get out of the way.
Posted by: sandalista on February 7, 2005 05:25 PMThen the winner of the election will not be the best candidate, but rather the candidate of the party whose partisans do the best job in answering the challenges.
And, oh yeah, the Counties will all have to spend untold millions to investigate all those challenges.
What a joke you characters are!
Both UnAmerican AND illogical AND really and totally silly.
But of course since you're all Republicans, those are definitely the traits that should be expected.
Posted by: Nelson on February 7, 2005 05:26 PM"What a joke you characters are!"
Wish I could follow my own advice and ignore some people, but Nelson, why are you here if you believe your two statements above?
I guarantee you will never pull me over to the dark (I mean left) side with your words of "wisdom."
For example, I note Jayne Baggenstos , formerly of Auburn who has been dead for several years. She didn't vote but she could have, she is on the roll.
Posted by: Lloyd Frost on February 7, 2005 06:48 PMFor example, I note Jayne Baggenstos , formerly of Auburn who has been dead for several years. She didn't vote but she could have, she is on the roll.
Posted by: Lloyd Frost on February 7, 2005 06:48 PMYou sure seem defensive to something as non partisan as cleaning up the Voter Rolls.....
Come On Fess UP, are you Scared you will be CAUGHT?
Posted by: chris on February 7, 2005 07:20 PMNow for my dilemma. I have identified almost 70 people registered at PO Boxes in Whatcom County. I have physically confirmed that they are PO Boxes without trailer parks or apartments attached to them. Apparently I can't challenge any of these 70 people, even though they are breaking state law, because I don't know where or who they are?
What now?
A slight aside to Headless Lucy. We aren't, in this instance, opposed to felons voting because they are felons. We are opposed to felons voting because it is currently illegal for felons to vote unless the Governor restores their rights. Simple. If they fill out the request they can get their voting rights restored. If they don't they can't. If anyone thinks they should automatically get their rights back, then that person should attempt to get a bill passed by the legislature. People here might or might not support it on its merits, but it has nothing to do with the current election fiasco.
Posted by: Calvin A on February 7, 2005 07:32 PMLong ago, when I pointed out the requirement to state where the challenged voter actually lives, someone posted a comment saying, in essence, "oh, pooh, pooh; the rules they follow don't require you to do that."
This form underlines "must" to emphasize that Logan's office won't do anything with the challenge unless the person submitting the challenge provides that address.
If that is the way it really works, then it doesn't work. I can tell who is living in my house, but I cannot tell where a lying stranger who claims to be living here actually lives.
Put this on the list of things that need to change. Even if we try to do Logan's job for him, he will toss the challenges into the "round file" unless we figure out where the challenged voter actually lives.
Also, you say that form came from Logan, but was it designed by Sam Reed's office? (I assume the SecState's office would have checked the spelling and caught that misspelling of thirty ("thrity") and the use of "and" for "an", so I figure Logan's office put it together in haste.)
Here's the law:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.08.850&fuseaction=section
RCW 29A.08.850
Challenge of registration -- Forms, availability.
The secretary of state as chief elections officer shall cause appropriate forms to be designed to carry out the provisions of RCW 29A.08.830 and 29A.08.840. The county auditors and registration assistants shall have such forms available. Further, a reasonable supply of such forms shall be at each polling place on the day of a primary or election, general or special. [Emphasis added.]
There are only two types of people who are sniveling about having to provide proof at the polling station:
(1) those people who are either too lazy to get their butts down there (and thus really should not be burdened with having to vote at all), and
(2) those people who have something to hide.
If you are a legal voter, you should be willing to prove it for the sake of a fair and legitimate election. Put your ID where your mouth is, or stay out of the process.
The only persons who should be allowed to vote absentee are shut-ins, servicemen, and persons who can show proof that they will be out-of-state at the time of election.
BANISH PROVISIONAL BALLOTS. If you "lose" your ballot, TOO BAD. No original, no vote. If you can't be trusted show a ballot the same regard as you would a lottery ticket, you shouldn't be voting anyway.
I contend that a legitimately-registered legal voter would be more than happy to provide proof of citizenship (Driver's license, birth certificate, etc.) because he/she would have nothing to hide.
Does the Washington State Dem Party and all who blindly follow it have something to hide?
If not, prove it.
ERNurse wrote:
If you are a legal voter, you should be willing to prove it for the sake of a fair and legitimate election. Put your ID where your mouth is, or stay out of the process.
And who, pray tell, are you to tell a legal voter that they should "stay out of the process'?
I contend that a legitimately-registered legal voter would be more than happy to provide proof of citizenship (Driver's license, birth certificate, etc.) because he/she would have nothing to hide.
Unless, of course, they are poor and homeless, in which case they probably vote Democrat. Now, if we were to provide either a no-cost photo ID, we could potentially help with this problem and additionally help those same people find employment (lack of ID is a problem for some.)
For those that think this isn't a problem, I had a client that had no ID, and needed one to sign some papers. I sprung for the $10, as he didn't have it. As his mail service was rather unreliable, it took three tries to actually get him the ID. Remember, voting is a right and we must not impose obstacles to legal voters.
Also, driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Even my military ID is not proof of citizenship.
"The only persons who should be allowed to vote absentee are shut-ins, servicemen, and persons who can show proof that they will be out-of-state at the time of election."
Fine by me, but I think the RNC will object. Last I heard, absentee voters tend to vote Republican. Still, I haven't done much research, and you are welcome to disagree.
"BANISH PROVISIONAL BALLOTS. If you "lose" your ballot, TOO BAD. No original, no vote. If you can't be trusted show a ballot the same regard as you would a lottery ticket, you shouldn't be voting anyway.
Sorry, again I disagree. Voting, according to the Washington State Constitution, is a right. Now, the idea of making them a different color and size, so that they can be checked first and not (accidently? fraudulently? we can agree to disagree) run through the counting machines seems like a good idea.
"Does the Washington State Dem Party and all who blindly follow it have something to hide?"
Nope.
Now, a bit actually on "Challenging a bogus voter registration"
I was concerned, until I actually read the form. Since the people challenging the registrations have to give their own names and swear under penalty of perjury that the information being given is true, any objection I might have is withdrawn.
Of course, everyone here will agree that someone challenging a legitimate registration should be charged with (and prosecuted for) perjury. This puts a burden on the people challenging the registrations to make sure they get it right.
And on that note, your friendly neighborhood Democrat is going to head down to his polling place and vote in the school levy election.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 8, 2005 10:12 AMThat didn't take long. If someone wants to change the rules about levy elections being held separately from the general election, I'll be all in favor of it. The odds of us getting 40% of the turnout from the last election are miniscule.
Stefan Sharkansky wrote:
Some have argued that his employment with the federal government permits him to maintain his Washington voting residence. Others argue that federal employment by itself is an insufficient standard for maintaining a residence here. I agree.
From the VOTER’S REGISTRATION CHALLENGE FORM:
The State Constitution and state law provide that a voting residence shall not be lost if the voter is absent because of:
A. State or Federal employment, including military service
B. School attendance
C. Business outside the state
D. Confinement in prison
NOTE: Persons in the above categories have the legal right to continue to use their former residence for voting purposes and may continue to vote unless additional conditions or circumstances indicate they have forfeited that right in Washington. Any person instituting a voter registration challenge should be sure of the facts BEFORE signing the challenge affidavit.
(emphasis added)
As an active duty military member, I continued to use an old address, even after the building was demolished, as permitted by law.
From what I see, the law is designed to ensure that the person making the challenge personally knows the facts of the situation. Just saying "that doesn't look right to me" is not sufficient to challenge a registration.
Now, if you have reason to believe that the person in Georgia is a Federal employee, you may have made a serious error, as your sworn statement that "to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above named individual does not fall into any of the protected categories" would be untrue on its face, as your belief that Federal employment should not allow a person to maintain Washington resident status is apparently incorrect according to the very form you submitted.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 8, 2005 11:16 AMCynical,
It appears from your admission that you always vote 'R'. Even when Libertarians have candidates, they aren't viable.
Posted by: Greg V. on February 8, 2005 11:37 AM"unless additional conditions or circumstances indicate they have forfeited that right in Washington"
Indeed. I read through your post, however, and did not see any "additional conditions or circumstances" noted. I presume you must have information (such as a Georgia voter's registration) that would so indicate.
If you have such information, then you are absolutely correct, and are not only within your rights to challenge the registration, but have a civic duty to do so.
If, however, you are merely basing your challenge on the fact that the person has been out of state for several years, that is conjecture. Federal employment often lasts many years, and has no bearing on Washington residency.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 8, 2005 11:46 AMYou bring up some valid points. I agree that voting is a right. But the right exists only to LEGAL citizens- NOT resident aliens, NOT legal immigrants, NOT convicted felons, NOT former citizens who are registered to vote elsewhere, and NOT dead people. And that is how it should be. But in order to prevent legal and legitimate voters from having their rights run roughshod over yet again, we need to change the way things are. And we have to do it before the next election.
There is something seriously wrong with a system wherein the majority of us- off ALL affiliations- who play scrupulously by the rules are run off the road every time by people who play fast and loose with those rules, and yet we are left with the burden of trying to remedy a situation.
I ask the question again: if you can prove that you are a citizen and legal voter in Washington State, what is the problem?
Voting is a right. But it is also a responsibility. You have the right to own an automobile. But you do not have the right to drive recklessly, or you get your license revoked. And if you cannot get a driver's license in Washington State without proof of residency, why should it be so much easier to get a ballot?
If one refuses to treat the exercise of one's power to determine the course of our state or our nation with the same gravity and care that one would demonstrate in getting behind the wheel of a car, then I maintain that that person should think twice about voting, and I make no apologies for that view. That is my view, and I am not asking for anybody to agree with it.
Has it occurred to anyone here that the reason our state has become the political laughingstock of the nation is because we voters have demonstrated an increasingly reckless and cavalier attitude regarding the way we exercise this right?
Come on. 8 million Iraqis, who were threatened with violent death if they attempted to vote, believed that death was a small price to pay in return for asserting their autonomy and freedom. We have people in this state who refuse to even cross the street to vote. Am I the only one who thinks that that is just pathetic?
Would we still have had a political disaster of this magnitude if we had been more vigilant and more willing to remove unethical representatives from office twenty years ago? I believe that it would be different. Again, that is just my opinion.
The majority representatives of this state have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in making any substantive changes to the electoral process. Their public overtures are meant simply to shut us up. And really- why should they change anything? The process as it stands has kept them in office.
The Republicans in this state have abdicated their power to the Democrats for so long that they have no leverage with which to institute change. And the dominant Democrat party in our legislature is willing to maintain the status quo by any means, and they are not about to give the Republican minority any leverage now. And these same illustrious "public servants" have already instituted enough chaos-inducing "election reform" to make sure that the problem will not be solved in the legislative arena.
Were that not so, then pray tell me- would we all be here discussing the issue right now?
No: if change is going to occur, then we legal, legitimate voters are going to have to make it happen. The first step in that process will have to be identifying and differentiating legitimate voters from illegitimate voters.
I reiterate: if the legitimate voters in Washington State are genuine about their desire to fix the problem, then we will be prepared to go to whatever lengths necessary to (1) identify ourselves as legitimate, and (2) identify and root out all illegitimate voters and ensure that they are not allowed anywhere near a ballot.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 8, 2005 04:35 PM"The majority representatives of this state have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in making any substantive changes to the electoral process. Their public overtures are meant simply to shut us up. And really- why should they change anything? The process as it stands has kept them in office."
Hard to argue on this point. I would, however, point out that the situation has less to do with the particular party than with the fact that they are incumbents and as such, have little incentive to take a long hard look at the system that got them elected.
"I reiterate: if the legitimate voters in Washington State are genuine about their desire to fix the problem, then we will be prepared to go to whatever lengths necessary to (1) identify ourselves as legitimate, and (2) identify and root out all illegitimate voters and ensure that they are not allowed anywhere near a ballot
I have a basic, philosophical problem with the citizen having to prove almost anything to the state. Under our system, the state answers to the citizens, not the other way around.
Still, the problems are legitimate and need to be addressed. I've suggested providing (free of charge) photo ID for anyone lacking a driver's license or simply requiring anyone without photo ID to provide a sworn statement with a thumbprint. (I'd be interested to find out how many Washington citizens do not have a Driver's license and would require an ID card.)
There are undoubtably other ideas that would work as well.
For some, the most important goal is to ensure that every vote is legitimate. For others, it is that every legitimate voter gets to vote. I propose that these are not mutually exclusive goals.
If the Republicans can remember that any changes need to ensure that every legitimate voter should be able to vote with an absolute minimum of obstacles and the Democrats can remember that we need some method of strongly discouraging illegal votes, we can find ways of improving things that we can all agree on.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 8, 2005 05:04 PM"I would, however, point out that the situation has less to do with the particular party than with the fact that they are incumbents and as such, have little incentive to take a long hard look at the system that got them elected."
I see your point and raise you a question: why should these incumbents feel the least bit worried about all of our talk when they have essentially legislated themselves into permanent job security?
"Under our system, the state answers to the citizens, not the other way around."
Umm, no. That is how it should be. That is NOT how it is. That is the problem.
"For some, the most important goal is to ensure that every vote is legitimate. For others, it is that every legitimate voter gets to vote. I propose that these are not mutually exclusive goals."
John, I most wholeheartedly agree.
Neither party holds the monopoly on guilt or innocence in this matter.
The operative question is this: how are the voters going to restore legislative accountability without first fixing the system? And how are we going to fix the system unless we first restore legislative accountability?
This is making me dizzy.
How many voters in this state are angry enough to throw out the arrogant incumbent representatives who have forgotten who their employers are? Are there enough? How can we know for sure?
Even if we do vote the bum out, will our votes count? Or will some party lackey at the local precinct simply stuff enough illegal & untraceable ballots into the machine to ensure that the old hack stays put?
I have come to appreciate your insights, John. And so I ask sincerely: where do you think we should start, and how do we all get together on this in a meaningful and effective way?
Very soon, the time for talk will be over, and Washington voters will have to be ready to act. We have to act not as Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians; we have to act as citizens and voters of Washington State. I am willing to help out wherever I can, for what that is worth.
where do you think we should start, and how do we all get together on this in a meaningful and effective way?
Well, these boards are not a bad place to start. While I often find myself disagreeing with Mr. Sharkansky's views, the fact that he is willing to stand up for them, and provide this forum for discussion is a real help. I know that at least a few of our Legislators either personally read this blog, or at least have someone give them the highlights.
Get to know your legislators. (Mine are Pat Lantz and Derek Kilmer.) Campaign for the ones you believe in and hold them to a higher standard than the opposition.
Write to them about the topic, giving ideas and suggestions for legislation. Not surprisingly, letters from people that either campaigned or donated (even small amounts) to the campaign get extra attention. It isn't so much that you're "buying" their vote, as that they know that you're seriously interested. I know that when I whip out my wallet, it shows that I'm serious.
A polite, personally written letter works best. They won't always agree, but at least you will get them thinking about the topic. E-mail campaigns and form letters are far less effective, but if a legislator gets even fifty personally written, polite letters asking for action on a topic, he or she will sit up and take notice fast.
Remember that even a very small step in the right direction is a victory. The problems we face were not created overnight and will not be solved overnight, even though the solutions may seem simple to us.
I don't see incumbency as the issue. Instead, I think RINOs turn a blind eye to Democrat vote fraud because they're even more reliant upon in than the Democrats are.
Imagine that vote fraud were eliminated and this caused the political balance to shift 3 points to the right. Democrats wouldn't be affected too much--they could just run further to their right and still keep their base. But what could RINOs do? The only reason conservatives give them any support is that more conservative candidates "aren't electable". If the political balance were to shift 3 points to the right, the more conservative candidates would become electable and the RINOs would lose their raison d'être.
Posted by: supercat on February 8, 2005 09:01 PMI think the idea of this requirement is to ensure that a person whose registration is challenged has a right to respond. Reasonable notion, but it would seem that a voter has a duty to keep the registration officials informed of how to contact him. If the voter is unable to receive contact in any manner given on the registration form, they have failed in that duty. If the voter is accused of using a non-residential address, their mailing address should suffice to inform them of the challenge and what they must do to respond.
Posted by: supercat on February 8, 2005 09:11 PMProvisional ballots need to be allowed, to prevent election officials from "temporarily misplacing" registration records for people who they don't think will vote the right way. They should only be accepted, however, if the difficulty with validation was not the fault of the voter.
In particular, a provisional ballot should not count...
I don't see incumbency as the issue. Instead, I think RINOs turn a blind eye to Democrat vote fraud because they're even more reliant upon in than the Democrats are.
Let's see. The most conservative Republican I know of in the legislature just lost, despite reports that her husband (a pastor) was strongly instructing his flock that a vote for her opponent was a sin. Some people reported that their voting was watched to ensure they voted for the "right" candidate.
Yeah, it's just Democrats and RINOs that cheat. Getting caught obviously qualifies one as a RINO.
The only reason conservatives give them any support is that more conservative candidates "aren't electable".
Yes, and the fact is that they aren't electable. Ellen Craswell (who is actually a very nice lady, quite honorable and as conservative as you can get) proved that. Not only Democrats but moderate Republicans (is that what you mean by RINOs?) are unwilling to have the agenda of the far right codified into law.
Of course, now that we've got our blanket primary back, they're welcome to run in the primary, even if the Republican party doesn't support them. If you believe that the people of Washington desire that kind of elected official, then they should be able to make it into the general election with no problem, and then the party will be forced to either support them or go without a candidate.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 8, 2005 09:54 PMI called the KC elections office, they said just mail it in we'll fix it, so I did.
I looked up on the voter database, he's still here! Thankfully, he didn't vote her. But now I'm ticked.
Posted by: tinwhistler on February 10, 2005 07:33 AM