The first public meeting of Secretary of State Sam Reed's "Election Reform Task Force" will be held this Thursday evening, Feb. 10 in Vancouver.
These public meetings are opportunities for citizens around the state to give their input for the election reform commission appointed by former Attorney General Gregoire and led by Secretary Reed. I'm more than a little skeptical that this commission will produce much in the way of needed reforms, but it is an opportunity to impress upon Secretary Reed, the legislature and the temporary governor that citizens demand more sweeping election reforms than Reed and the Democrats have proposed heretofore.
The Vancouver meeting will take place from 6:30 - 8:30 pm Thursday, Feb 10, at Clark College Foster Auditorium, 1800 E McLoughlin Blvd., Vancouver. Directions here. Show up 30 minutes early so you can register and make a statement at the meeting.
This is also an opportunity to make a big statement for a revote. Josephine Wentzel with the Clark County Republicans e-mails:
Wear something orange. We encourage you to bring constructive homemade signs and any revote signs you may have. The greater the attendance, the greater the message!The three other election reform public meetings scheduled in other cities for later this month are listed here Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 09, 2005 11:37 PM | Email This
Please remember that this is a PEACEFUL rally as we are a PEACEFUL Party!
-------------------------------------
Our Voice Will Not Be Silenced
AARGH! There can't be a revote.
See judge Bridge's latest order and the Washington State Constitution.
Posted by: Erik on February 10, 2005 02:42 AMIt is to Reed's discredit that he agreed to take on this showboat of a "commission", and be Fraudoire's Commissar. Fraudoire isn't going to sign off on anything that diminishes the opportunity to commit fraud. Since Fraudoire's comrades control both houses of the legislature, they are not going to pass anything that endangers their hold on power.
This is all just for show, to lend Fraudoire an air of credibility ("Look, we're doing something!"). Don't fall for it, Washingtonians. Denounce Fraudoire, Commissar Reed, and their phony "commission" at every opportunity.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 10, 2005 05:46 AMJust a thought.
Jim
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on February 10, 2005 06:08 AM
Now doesn't this SAY it ALL....Reed admiting "unacceptable". Is he saying we shouldnt accept the "new Guv", I read it that way.
Chris--
Because of his position, Sam Reed can't come right out and state his position on the former attorney general. However, based on his office's position in legal briefs in the election contest, he was much more supportive of the Rossi position than the WSDCC position. It a matter of reading between the lines. Sam is not an obstacle in this. Given enough public support, he will help push for even more election reform.
Here are the signs that would have the biggest impact:
What about the Felon Votes?
What about the Cadaver votes?
What about the Extra ballots?
What about the Illegal Votes?
What about the Cover-up?
What about the Military Votes?
What about My Vote?
What about the Lies from
Logan, Sims, Reed, Gregoire?
Perhaps via a protest outside the meeting (that is your right), but please allow the meeting to focus on the purpose of the meeting: election reform!
Posted by: Daniel K on February 10, 2005 08:21 AMDes Moines, Pasco, Spokane? Why not Seattle or somewhere on the northside?
Posted by: Daniel K on February 10, 2005 08:27 AMEFF's Election Reform Recommendations to the Legislature
The link to the site is on the list on the right side of this page. Pick out a few points you like the best and sign up to make a statement. Repetition in these situations can be effective.
Posted by: ctmohr on February 10, 2005 08:42 AMI heard your cries in the 2000 election, I heard your foul mouths in 2004, get over it name, your loosing ground, fast. Try Canada.
Posted by: Son of Liberty on February 10, 2005 09:15 AMGet a life. What say we focus on the CLOSEST races in the country?
We'd be most concerned with - SURPRISE - the Gubernatorial election in Washington. Gee, go figure.
After that, we'd probably look to WISCONSIN, where Kerry won by 11,300 votes, and there is evidence of MASS fraud and corruption in Milwaukee.
Sometime, oh, maybe next century, we'd finally get around to Ohio where Bush trounced Kerry by over one hundred grand.
Your mistake with 'accoracy' is quite cute, though.
But I think we're all interested in our own back yard, so we won't be dropping the ball on this stolen election in Washington any time soon - much to your chagrin.
Posted by: Larry on February 10, 2005 09:22 AMAnyone else suspect that the scheduling of this event on valentine's day is a method of supressing turnout?
Posted by: dpmiv on February 10, 2005 09:24 AMSure, let's find out what happened. I am interested only in fairness, honesty, and accoracy in all electoral politics. Any political party, and elected offical, any election should be checked for wrong doing and then if there is cheating, fraud, political muscle used to defraud the voters, than hit them with the law and kick them out. Show proof, show them the door. But stop crying about it. You lost your head from blind hatred, untolerant of differences of opinions, and the sting of so many losses in the past. Get over it. Moveon.girl
Name-"Nobody cares..." Obviously you care about something or you wouldn't be reading Sound Politics. I'm sure it must be frightening to know that your party has proven itself to be nothing more than raw sewage which cheats, lies, discriminates, makes immature comments that don't have any basis or meaning, etc... and is slowly diminishing. PS. I'll be more then happy to help you move to Canada
Posted by: Cameron on February 10, 2005 09:46 AM1. The Federal Reserve handles about 80 billion transactions annually, 36 billion of them are paper checks. This far exceeds the number of ballots processed in Washington State in the same time period.
Failures in the range of 1 per million would be a nightmare. That's 220 million transactions per day, including 100 million checks, all reconciled and reported by the end of each day. The failure rate in the recent election was about two per thousand.
The banking system's requirements for transparency, confidentiality, authenticity, accuracy, and timeliness are comparable or exceed the needs of an election system.
The commission should contract experts from the financial industry to find out how they do this, and participate in the design of a robust election system.
2. The US military has communication systems which identify and authenticate operators and mobile transmitters end-to-end over large distances and in real time.
Though encryption technology messages can be "sealed" to all but the intended recipient and digitally "signed", with an authenticable and non-repudiatable identity that prevents message tampering.
The commission should recommend a pilot program with the US department of defense for transmitting and processing electronic absentee ballots.
3. We have heard the head of at least one election department state that their emphasis is on making elections accessible to all, and that challenging illegal registration and voting is the citizen's responsibility.
Allowing an illegal vote is a disenfranchisement of a legal vote to the same degree as denying that legal vote in the first place.
The election system should be required to give equal emphasis to both forms of disenfranchisement.
Posted by: Chuck Dermody on February 10, 2005 09:53 AMGREAT!
Posted by: Joe on February 10, 2005 10:28 AMTruth is truth do you not understand, the numbers don't add up, too many "headless" voters
Posted by: Terry, Clark C on February 10, 2005 10:44 AMI wish that Shark would make the audio clip available on this blog; with Sims making the pronouncement about Banks being proud of the KC Elections reord 99.98% (really 99.8%)followed by sharp laughter - almost as good as the Dean scream...
Posted by: KS on February 10, 2005 10:44 AMOr is this just another meaningless meeting to give people a chance to vent their spleens before the people who are unfortunately in charge do what they were planning to do anyway?
The report is supposed to be submitted by the first of March, so if they were going to accept written comments it seems they would have publicized that fact by now.
I haven't found any such notice.
Has anyone else?
Posted by: Micajah on February 10, 2005 10:46 AMLiberty is for all, freedom of speach is for all too, and thank Stefan this public message board 'blog' is open to all. I enjoy all points of interest, even yours. If I cut too deep, I am sorry. If the pounding in heart is from fear of loosing yet another election, see your cardiologist, you'll be needing a jumpstart soon. As the truth keeps marching on to REVOTE Time. See you at the voting booth.
Posted by: Real Son of Liberty on February 10, 2005 10:56 AMIf Sims gets reelected, its because there are too many voters with their collective heads where the sun don't shine and badly need re-education. Oh, the collective ignorance of the Seattle masses !
Posted by: KS on February 10, 2005 11:04 AM
Posted by headless lucy at February 10, 2005 10:35 AM [Lucy, I want you to know I have a very ID card with a very low number in the VRWC. In addition, I hope voter fraud becomes a capital offense, as I want to help deliver the sentences.] JCH On The Big Island Of Hawaii
I really must take exception with that. Besides Washington state, the only people working for electoral reform are Democrats and "third parties". I don't think I've seen ANY Repub names attached to reform anywhere else. I hope I'm wrong.
"Anyone else suspect that the scheduling of this event on valentine's day is a method of supressing turnout?"
Damn, now that's some tin foil hattery.
"The commission should recommend a pilot program with the US department of defense for transmitting and processing electronic absentee ballots."
I agree with this, but it must be done right. I can see it opening a whole new can of worms. I think we should focus on fixing the points of failure that exist before adding "new features", but this is a great idea if the Govt. would carry it out properly.
"liberal neighbor headless Pelosi."
That's the 2nd liberal/Pelosi comment I've seen in 2 days. She's much more moderate than liberal.
"ID at the polls."
Is this not state wide? I had to provide ID at the polls and I proved proof of citizenship (through SS) when registering.
"sweep this problem under the carpet by throwing more taxpayer money at it - the liberal way"
I think regardless they'll need to use more tax money to implement some of the necessary changes, but certainly efficiency needs to be addressed first.
Everyone here still seems to be very excited about this being fraud. I still don't feel fraud's been shown. Irregularities and at least a semi-broken system, yes. I have to agree with that. What specifically urges you guys forward with fraud? Anything in particular or just the general mistrust of Dems here combined with the irregularities?
Posted by: Losing Faith on February 10, 2005 11:36 AMHow is it that Rossi thinks a revote is still possible? Didn't the judge say he'd either put Rossi in office or not put Rossi in office (leaving CG)? I don't think the power for a revote exists anywhere in Washington law.
Posted by: Losing Faith on February 10, 2005 11:40 AMI'm in Seattle. I want reform.
Posted by: Losing Faith on February 10, 2005 11:44 AMYour comment about Pelosi being moderate is laughable at best. Maybe she's moderate compared to the rest of the Democrats - Kerry, Kennedy, Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton. But when compared with all of America, mainstream red-and-blue country, she is Liberal with a capital 'L'.
As for fraud, we really won't know until all the parties involved are deposed at the trial, and the public is allowed to 'discover' all the emails from King County. But fraud is not the standard that must be met in this case anyway.
There are many Republicans who want voting reform. However, most of the shenanigans that happen are in Democratic districts with Democratic officials, so it is hard to get any traction. Want proof? Look at Seattle/King County this year. How about the problems being uncovered in Milwaukee, where Kerry won Wisconsin state by only 11,300? If you look at Ohio, you'll see problems in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland - surprise, surprise!) The problems by nature happen in large urban areas with diverse populations and crowded precincts. These are usually Democratic. So a Republican who wants reform has to stick his or her nose into King Ron Sims fiefdom.
Posted by: Larry on February 10, 2005 11:57 AMWhat's that?
That would be a new election in 11/2006 in which any and interested candidates would run again including those who were not in the last election.
If Rossi is successful in the contest, Brad Owen will have been the governor for 18 months. Look to him to try to retain the position. Also look for other republicans to run. Yes, and a Libertarian candidate.
However, in the new election, only the top two will proceed to the final.
A "re-vote" on the other hand would only have the last slate of candidates that were in the general election. The original revote was requested for Spring of 2005.
Posted by: Erik on February 10, 2005 12:09 PMThe constitution was amended in 1910 to provide for an election to fill a vacancy in the governor's office.
The resulting Article III, section 10 language says:
... and if a vacancy occur more than thirty days before the next general election occurring within two years after the commencement of the term, a person shall be elected at such election to fill the office of governor for the remainder of the unexpired term." [Emphasis added.]
The constitution has required, since 1910, that the vacancy be filled at the "next general election," yet you say that the earliest possible general election is not the next general election, but is instead the one that comes after the next general election.
The next general election is November 2005.
You say a vacancy cannot be filled until the general election that occurs in the following year -- November 2006.
What part of "next general election" is so hard to understand?
None of it.
However, you may want to check the section of the constitution that concerns the election of a governor.
All during lunch I thought about you. You must have heard, “Never bring a knife to a gun fight.” So I say to you, if you’re going to share ideas and points of view, don’t get hurt when someone stands firm and fires back. Look, even a half-wit will come to understand that touching a hot stove over and over again, that something is wrong there. This election is hot and we need to find out what’s cooking inside. It just doesn’t add up, fairly.
It’s been a long slow turn to the right for me politically. I‘ve lived all over the world working as a photojournalist. After 23 years ‘out there’ seeing and hearing all kinds of vile crap about the USA, I wish I could tattoo the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights all over my body. America is GREAT. Americans are wonderful people. And we always fight for what is right. We even fight each other, not for dominance but for equal Rights. And when any politician or any political party tries to cheat our vote away from us, ‘There will be gun smoke in the air’.
Now you‘ve read the findings, you’ve seen their reaction, thing just don’t add up headless boy/girl! I’d like answers and a real honest vote, no matter who wins. And who ever is behind this, heads (less) will roll. Nothing personal.
Thank you for your post. My swing to the right was sudden and painful...9/11. I was just as 'headless' as Lucy ... I even voted for Clinton and then for Gore. But I have seen the light. I guess I'm one of those horrible "neocons" that she talks about (I don't even know if anyone knows the actual definition of that word).
All I know is that I'm MUCH happier now and feel much more at ease with the world. It's not perfect, but it's what we have to work with.
Thank you for your positive message. :-)
Posted by: megs on February 10, 2005 12:35 PMBeen there, done that.
What's your point?
Article III, section 1 provides for the regular election of governors.
Article III, section 10 provides for the election of a person to fill a vacancy in the governor's office.
The latter clearly states that the vacancy shall be (meaning "must be" -- no discretion is authorized) filled at the next general election.
The next general election (unless you believe this case is going to drag on into October) is the one scheduled for November 2005.
Posted by: Micajah on February 10, 2005 12:51 PMSam Reed did not certify the election of the governor.
He has no authority to certify that election.
The legislature certified the election of the governor without first deciding the contested election.
The certificate of election was issued by the speaker of the house and president of the senate on Jan. 11, 2005.
That certificate stated: "This is to Certify, That at the General Election held in the State of Washington on November 2, 2004, Christine Gregoire received the highest number of votes for the office of Governor of said state of Washington, and was therefore duly elected to said office as appears from the official returns of said election as canvassed and certified in the manner provided by law."
The returns to which the certificate refers are the returns canvassed and certified by the county election officers.
Sam Reed signed that certificate as a witness to the signatures of Brad Owen and Frank Chopp. The latter two men issued the certificate, and therefore the latter two men certified the election of Gregoire after supposedly giving a chance to the joint session of the legislature to take up the matter of the contested election.
It is a common misconception -- reflected in the statements of legislators and even in the petition to recall Reed -- that the SecState certified the results of the gubernatorial election.
He did not, because that isn't his responsibility.
Posted by: Micajah on February 10, 2005 12:59 PMYou all cry like wounded little girls when someone calls you a "bad name". You should read your own posts and review the frequent and lowdown shmack that you gratuitously hurl at anyone who dares question you. You are not individuals, but members of a neo-con groupthink sewing circle. You are small, mean-spirited losers. And when you win you're gloating, loudmouthed braggarts. -Posted by headless lucy at February 10, 2005 10:35 AM
Let's review..
HL says:
"You should read your own posts and review the frequent and lowdown shmack that you gratuitously hurl at anyone who dares question you."
AND HL also says:
"You are not individuals, but members of a neo-con groupthink sewing circle. You are small, mean-spirited losers. And when you win you're gloating, loudmouthed braggarts."
The scariest part of that is that he/she sees absolutely NO DISCONNECT between her complaint OF a behavior and the fact that she blithely perpetrates the SAME behavior.
That hypocritical disconnect is one of my favorite forms of liberal amusement.
Thanks HL.
Posted by: Cheryl on February 10, 2005 01:06 PMPolitics
Congressman: Democrat Leadership Threatening 'Retribution' for Dems Who Cooperate with White House
by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Feb 10, 2005
Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) was asked at a CATO conference in Washington yesterday whether he had persuaded any Democrats to back his plan to rescue Social Security from its financial troubles. Under his legislation (HR 4851), no new taxes would be needed to pay for "transition costs," participation in the new system would be voluntary and individuals would be allowed to divert a portion of their payroll tax into a mutual fund.
A questioner from the audience, stressing his own Democratic credentials, said he believed Ryan's plan should attract members of his own party and wondered whether the Wisconsin lawmaker had secured any Democratic sponsors. Ryan said he had been working with friends on the "other side of the aisle" who were favorable toward his solution, but he faced an enormous problem: intense pressure on his colleagues from the minority leadership.
"We were in planning stages [with friendly Democrats]," said Ryan. But each essentially told him: "I like what you're doing. I like this bill. I think it's the right way to go. But my party leadership will break my back. The retribution that they are promising us is as great as I have ever seen. We can't do it."
Ryan said he believed the only thing that can assure passage is an outpouring from America's grassroots.
This is what your party looks like to the rest of the country. And here in Washington. This blog is the grassroots.
Repairing the Democratic Tent
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12488-2005Feb9.html
Calling All Democrats
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/opinion/10friedman.html?th
Toward a Democratic Purpose
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Toward_a_Democratic_Purpose.pdf
A Suicidal Selection
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait4feb04,0,4875373,print.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Swinging, missing
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/08/swinging_missing/
Bad News Donkeys
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3604-2005Feb6.html
Is Dean the best medicine for what ails Democrats?http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3030529
Dem blues
Can the Democrats find the lyrics to regain the White House?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050214/usnews/14dems.htm
Dean 'The Scream' is Dem gravedigger
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/278145p-238331c.html
The scale of rhetoric, the balance of power
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppin044133781feb04,0,1614180.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
Anti-Powerfulism
http://www.techcentralstation.com/020805F.html
Howard Dean and the Democrats
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/busch/05/dean-dnc.html
The Endless Party
What do Democrats stand for? The real question is, what do they stand against?
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/winter2004/voegeli.html
The 'Exit Strategy' Democrats
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006243
Will the Truman Democrats Please Stand Up...
...if there are any left.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/237zmjkl.asp
Dean as DNC Head Means Democrats Admit to Having No New Ideas
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6544
The Left's Old-Time '60s Political Religion
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_9_05_AB.html
The Dems' Week from Hell
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/229fpvkg.asp
Disaster Response
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=BnkqsRCTTFFwgYk7qTW38R%3D%3D
Remember Sam Rayburn
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050202-102009-3618r.htm