As noted earlier, King County Councilmembers Kathy Lambert (Republican) and Julia Patterson (Democrat) together proposed election reform legislation. I spoke with Kathy Lambert and posted her perspective on the legislation here. I also contacted Patterson's office last week to ask for her comments, and she hasn't gotten back to me yet. I still hope that she will share more of her thoughts with Sound Politics readers. In the meantime, having reviewed some of the documents on her website, I have to say we should all be worried about the prospects for election reform in King County if Julia Patterson is leading the charge.
Here are some of the troublesome "facts" that Patterson notes in her "King County Election Reform Initiative Fact Sheet"
First, she lists as "administrative errors" a number of the disturbing irregularities that occurred in the King County Elections department surrounding the election of 2004 and the vote count. I think it's premature to excuse them as mere "administrative errors" before Judge Bridges has a chance to rule on the case.
Patterson also claims that recommendations in the Secretary of State's 2003 audit of King County Elections were "completely implemented". But the county apparently did not completely implement the recommendations to adhere to state law on ballot enhancement, as testified under oath by recount observers.
Finally, in what can most politely be characterized as pure bull extract, Patterson purports to explain the huge unprecedented discrepancy between ballots counted and voters counted:
The discrepancy between these two numbers occurs in every election for a variety of reasons including: votes cast by participants in the Address Confidentiality Program, voters casting federal write-in ballots, and voters on inactive status who cast valid ballots. In each of these cases the voter casting the ballot would not appear on the list used to credit voters with voting.The ACP and federal write-in ballot voters were already accounted for and excluded from the net 1,800 unexplained discrepancy. Inactive status voters who cast valid ballots are, in fact, included in the voter list.
Patterson's misinformation is pretty disappointing. If you live in her district [Normandy Park, SeaTac, Kent, Auburn], contact her office and demand an explanation. In the meantime, any of Patterson's proposals for "election reform" are tainted a priori by her sponsorship.
UPDATE: "bigrob" makes a good point in the comments. Patterson also got the issue of the military ballots wrong. Even if all the ballots went out by Oct. 8 (which has never been established), they still went out later than required by law.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 07, 2005 12:24 PM | Email ThisSomeone needs to call MS Patterson on her disinformation. All of King County's overseas military ballots were late. Federal law says the shall be mailed 45 days prior to the election. The Oct 8 date was a settlement of a lawsuit brought because King County (and I beleive all of Washington state)didn't meet the required mailing date.
Posted by: bigRob on February 7, 2005 12:37 PM
Watch them like a hawk....
Patterson sounds like the parent who excuses her child for beating up another kid by saying "everyone does it". Everyone is not as incompetent or inept as KingCo.
Dean Logan is a professional bureaucrat. He wows all the little old lady's and other auditor's with charm. He quotes RCW's like Pavorotti holds a note. He is smoooooooth as a baby's butt and cool as the underside of the pillow....until he is challenged FOR HIS ACTIONS! Logan appears to be a professional ASSUMER. While he is running around going to meetings sharing his book knowledge, his own damn house is on fire!!
Apologists like Patterson are a big part of the problem.
When you e-mail Patterson, also cc the other County Council members AND the 2 so-called newspapers. Good luck
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 7, 2005 03:43 PMMinor correction: Eldridge appropriately withheld the names of the 3 Address Confidentiality Program voters
Her proposed reform to respond to the election workers' decision to disobey instructions and just put a few hundred absentee ballots aside as though the signatures didn't match is:
Reform:
• Increase funding for the training of full time election workers to reinforce proper procedures in the handling of ballots.
I see -- increase funding.
Can't we try at least a few lashes with a wet noodle to see if that would be a cheaper and more effective way to get the elections department employees to follow instructions?
Posted by: Micajah on February 7, 2005 07:10 PMWhat list is she talking about when she says that inactive voters who cast ballots wouldn't show up on the "list used to credit voters with voting?"
Once they cast a ballot, inactive voters are returned to active status. They were on the list of registered voters even while they were in an inactive status.
Their change from inactive to active status couldn't affect the ability of the elections department to reconcile ballots and voters, so far as I can figure.
Here's what she said:
Why didn’t the number of votes cast match the number of voters given credit for voting?
The total number of ballots counted in King County did not match the total number of voters given credit for voting in the gubernatorial election. This was true in many counties throughout the state and is not unique to this election or to King County. State law requires counties to credit voters with voting in elections and maintain a list of those voters. The discrepancy between these two numbers occurs in every election for a variety of reasons including: votes cast by participants in the Address Confidentiality Program, voters casting federal write-in ballots, and voters on inactive status who cast valid ballots. In each of these cases the voter casting the ballot would not appear on the list used to credit voters with voting.
There are actually two layers of deceit here. a) they are already not enforcing existing laws and rules and b) passing more unenforceable and/or ineffective laws makes it so they can say they've done something without actually accomplishing anything.
It's a band-aid on the status quo.
Posted by: scott158 on February 7, 2005 07:24 PMIf we want a regime change in Olympia, we had better start in Seattle.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 7, 2005 08:17 PMWell said! I think we all got your point, which is most appreciated.
Why is it that the only ones moaning about making the electoral process less susceptible to fraud are those who either have something to hide, or who don't care enough about democracy to get out of their jacuzzis to exercise its most important function?
We have to win on the issue of reform, no matter how hard the opposition digs in. We have to fight harder than they do. We have to outlast them.
If the majority of us Washingtonians really care enough about the shambles that we have allowed our electoral process to become through complacency, then we will do whatever we have to do to make it right. It's as simple as that.
If the majority of Washingtonians don't care, then nothing will happen, and this whole thing will just fizzle out.
That is exactly what Gregoire & company are hoping for.
General "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell had a great motto: "Non illegitimati carborundum." It means, "Don't let the b*st*rds wear you down."
I think it would serve us well to observe the same determination here.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 7, 2005 08:32 PM