1. Standing by to read Goldstein's spin on Assisted Care Voters and why they have just as much right to vote as any of us.

Maybe his caregiver inferred from the way he screamed at the television whenever Rossi's face came on as a sign that he intended to vote Gregoire?

I'm sure Goldstein has got good reasoning that will assure us all.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2005 03:23 PM

2. At the Election Reform meeting that was held in Vancouver on the 10th, former State Senator, Don Carlson, made a plea for SOS Reed to look into voter abuse in nursing homes. He knew that ones who couldn't make voting choices for themselves, there were others who were choosing for them.

Posted by: Susu on February 22, 2005 03:34 PM

3. Maybe when we find out how widespread these kinds of practices are, it won't seem so innocently "distributed" after all.

Posted by: Chuck Miller on February 22, 2005 03:47 PM

4. Regarding votes from a nursing home. I am a social worker in a NH. In my 10 plus years I have seen people voting that shouldn't. Most often activities is given the job of helping people vote. There are a lot of people that don't know that a person under Guardianship is not allowed to vote under the law. At this last election I watched a family member try to convince her grandmother to vote even though the resident was oriented to self only.... Nothing new.

Posted by: satusstixs on February 22, 2005 03:52 PM

5. Jeff B - as you obviously feel that the fraud occured in favor of Gregoire. With that attitude it is understandable how it is felt that people can 'devine' what other voters wanted. To such an extent that they felt there was no need to make sure the original vote was still clear on all the votes that had to be 'interpreted'. How we so easily accept the ends justifying the means.

Posted by: Jonathan on February 22, 2005 03:59 PM

6. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers.

I'm actually a bit surprised that only 15 residents at the Lynnwood ManorCare voted. If the Tacoma and Gig Harbor ManorCare facilities are any indication, some of the residents have lived there for years. Most of the residents there are still quite able to read, complete their ballots and vote.

Has anyone asked the staff there about how absentee ballots are handled for their residents?

The fact that he has cerebral palsy does not disqualify him as a voter, nor does the fact that he is blind, or even has a guardian to look after his interests as this may be needed for physical incapacity, rather than mental. Perhaps the most tragic thing about cerebral palsy is that the mind is fully functional while control of the body vanishes.

As to Jeff B.'s ignorant and completely nonsensical comment, I will simply state that I'm happy that he seems to be a Republican. It appears that we Democrats aren't the only people that can manage to insert our feet firmly into our mouths.

Now, if a resident of the secure Alzheimer's wing were to vote, that would likely be a problem, but the real problem here seems to be that someone stole this man's ballot and voted in his name, assuming that he did not vote it himself, with the assistance of the nursing staff.

"How sad that someone took advantage of a disabled gentleman to commit vote fraud."

Amen to that, brother. I'm hoping that Secretary Reed does look into this situation, as Susu makes a good point. Nursing home operators that allow staff members to vote "for" those that cannot make the choices for themselves are no different than nursing homes that allow their staff to steal from residents.

But remember, please, that just because a person is in a nursing home or even has a condition that makes it hard for them to communicate does not in itself make them ineligible or incompetent to vote.

Before disagreeing with that statement, you might want to check with Dr. Stephen Hawking, currently Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Oxford. I believe that he actually votes in England, but he is certainly qualified to vote.

Posted by: John Barelli on February 22, 2005 04:04 PM

7. "we found a letter from the auditors office requesting identification verification."

Said auditor's letter was apparently found in the incompetent relative's stack of mail.

Does that mean the SnoCo auditors requested ID, but then went ahead and counted a vote even when they did get it?

Curiouser and curiouser...it looks less and less distributed and more and more, uh, f***dulent.

Posted by: Mac on February 22, 2005 04:06 PM

8. re: Stephen Hawking

Hawking has not been declared incompetent, as the post clearly states was the case with the individual in question.

You are right that there are many people in nursing homes who are mentally alert. My grandmother lived in a series of nursing homes for 19 years, and she was mentally sound until she died, but not all of her "neighbors" were aware of themselves, let alone anyone else. It has to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and it's clear that in the case cited, someone is breaking the law. It's pretty damn sad that the way the family found out was through Stefan's database.

Posted by: timekeeper on February 22, 2005 04:12 PM

9. Republicans are all good, upstanding people who would never consider such a heinous act. Democrats are obviously the only ones craven enough to do such a thing. Judge Bridges has no choice but to apply a presumption of fraud against Democrats.

Posted by: Jeff Gannon on February 22, 2005 04:12 PM

10. Methinks, my precious, that this is the tip of the iceberg.

And don't forget the dead's right to vote while you are at it.

Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2005 04:15 PM

11. Town cryer Paul Berendt is not amused by our quaint fixation on the accumulation of little frauds, whether distributed or distracted or distorted. Berendt told Siegel this morning that reqiring voters to prove their eligibility to vote would make us a "Hitler Nazi police state."

Siegel was too polite to remind bawling Paul that Reichsmarshal Reno decreed that ID must be shown and verified. For buying tobacco at 7-11.

Posted by: sandalista on February 22, 2005 04:19 PM

12. I agree that we should not jump to any conclusions about how alleged illegal voters voted. It is damning enough if they were allowed to vote. Whom they voted for will probably never be ascertained with any degree of certainty.

Fairness is important, as we would not want to be called illiberal by liberals (hey, I just found the word due to my bad spelling, and had to use it. Unfortunately, it makes the word "liberal" seem like a good thing. I am definitely switching to using the word "leftist," or Democrat, where appropriate.)

Posted by: JG on February 22, 2005 04:36 PM

13. Sandalista sez

Berendt told Siegel this morning that reqiring voters to prove their eligibility to vote would make us a "Hitler Nazi police state."

My take: the more that people like Berendt whine about this, the more obvious it becomes that they are really depending on all those fraudulent votes.

Posted by: Boonie on February 22, 2005 04:38 PM

14. Is there any way to find out if the employees at the Manor House are unionized?

I believe that if there was distributed voter fraud, one needs to look no further than the labor unions to find the chief perpetrators...specifically the service employee unions.

Posted by: Rex on February 22, 2005 04:47 PM

15. timekeeper wrote:

Hawking has not been declared incompetent, as the post clearly states was the case with the individual in question.

Good point. My post was aimed more at the tone of the original post that there is some sort of presumption that when a person is in a nursing home, they are incompetent to vote.

From the original post:

"It turns out that '15' people from the Manor Care facility in Lynnwood voted and I am unaware as to their competence but it's a safe bet that across the state there are numerous other nursing care facilities where there were voters not necessarily of sound mind."

I can see two things that would help here. First, along with that statewide database of felons that have not had voting rights restored, we need a database that includes any person that has had their voting rights restricted, regardless of the reason. I see no particular reason why these need to be separate databases.

Second, instead of letting just any person in the nursing facility help with ballot preparation, there needs to be some way of designating a particular individual to help, and requiring at least some additional training for that person.

Those seem like reasonable ways of ensuring that everyone that is eligible to vote has the opportunity, while limiting the opportunity and temptation to cheat.

Posted by: John Barelli on February 22, 2005 04:49 PM

16. The original letter clearly states the the uncle has been declared "incompetent" by the state.

Posted by: Shannon K on February 22, 2005 04:56 PM

17. Boy, I sure have to agree, Berendt sure had his wine this morning on Siegel. I had to turn it off.

"incompetent" and voter in same paragraph. I think many people are incompetent to vote- those that vote Democrat because that is the way it is or those that vote Republican because that is the way it is.

They have given up the right to influence their party since the party will always get their vote. These parties need to be challenged.

Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2005 05:00 PM

18. A comment on nursing home voters: Some states (PA is one) allow incompetent voters to vote by absentee ballot completed by those who hold the voter's power of attorney. This includes wards of the state, who may be voted by their caregivers.

Posted by: bigRob on February 22, 2005 05:03 PM

19. Washington law does not permit someone with power of attorney to vote on behalf of the voter. only the voter him/herself may vote.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 22, 2005 05:05 PM

20. Assuming vote fraud is a stretch. It is a public service for assisted care facility owners to facilitate their residents' voting. Indeed, adding their voices to those of progressive causes statewide helps ensure that our elderly and handicapped citizens aren't thrown out onto the streets by a Rossi Administration.

Posted by: none on February 22, 2005 05:15 PM

21. You are right, swatter. As a dead man, I feel I should have all the rights of the living. In fact, I'd like to see special rights for the dead. Perhaps affirmative action that sets quotas for dead people in state government. Surely, dead people would be more competent than the election "officials" in King County.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 22, 2005 05:20 PM

22. '....aren't thrown out onto the streets by a Rossi Administration'.

That's about as nutty as 'all the Republicans want to do is take away our Social Security'.
(I'm quoting my mother)

Posted by: Susu on February 22, 2005 05:24 PM

23. Is "none" a satire or a real opinion?
If it's a "public service" for assisted care facility owners to cast their residents' ballots for them, then is it also a public service for pro-lifers to register the millions of persons aborted between 1973 and 1986 and cast ballots in their names?

Posted by: Shannon K on February 22, 2005 05:25 PM

24. My mother-in-law didn't vote in the last election. Thank God. She was alive and in a nursing home. But she didn't know me let alone a political candidate. She couldn't select a choice from a menu let alone a political candidate. She could not be "helped" to intillegently vote. Any vote cast would be a vote for the helper, not the helped. There is NO WAY registered voters like her should vote. And whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, liberal or conservative, it escapes me to understand why good folks of any persuasion should excuse such votes. All they do is undermine our confidence in our democratic processes. Without that confidence, we are flirting with chaos.

Posted by: Patrick on February 22, 2005 06:11 PM

25. John,

Sorry to offend. And to be fair, those self oriented living in assisted care may have had caregivers or others vote on their behalf for either Democrats or Republicans, but as Stefan points out, either way, it would be improper for anyone to vote on behalf of anyone else.

I'm sure there are many assisted care patients who are quite coherent and capable of voting, however many are also not capable. For example, my own grandmother has dimentia to the point where she no longer recognizes me. She is clearly not capable of voting as she has no history to base her selections upon.

Nevertheless, I'm sure there are many more politically active predators out there who are seeking out assisted care dwellers to use them for their votes.

And I am sure we will hear from a few liberals who believe that even those with dimentia ought to be allowed to vote. Goldstein?

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2005 06:12 PM

26. Pretty pathetic when someone stands up for something that is obviously wrong, painfully so. I will never be able to understand liberals... for that matter I don't think they will ever fully understand themselves. IF IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW NO MATTER WHO THEY VOTED FOR!!!

Posted by: Adriel on February 22, 2005 06:36 PM

27. Republicans are all good, upstanding people who would never consider such a heinous act. Democrats are obviously the only ones craven enough to do such a thing. Judge Bridges has no choice but to apply a presumption of fraud against Democrats.

Posted by: Jeff Gannon on February 22, 2005 04:12 PM

On the other hand, we have idiots who pooh-pooh the messenger because of a shady past.

The message matters, not who delivered it, not that "Jeff Gannon" above would understand...

Posted by: jim guckert on February 22, 2005 07:19 PM

28. Since when do Democratic Activist follow the law. They plan on winning anyway they can. Why do you think there motto is "Vote Early, Vote Often." Remember they have to tell you what you can do and cant do. Because they are more educated than you. If you are a Republican you are nothing more than an empty head robot. Well my Wife is democrat and she refuses to discuss the issues. She refuses to discuss anything when it may be negative to the democrats. Sometimes think is very empty headed when it comes to politics because only the Democrats are right. Here is a group that may be empty headed and getting their votes for their purpose is justified because they are the only one who think correctly. SOunds like the communist party or Nazi party both were leftist groups. THey tell you how to think and vote.

Posted by: david anfinrud on February 22, 2005 07:20 PM

29. Gambling?

Okay--let's see. I have my Rollover IRA from my former 401k, and my Simple IRA Account. Let's see--all the money I put in as long as 20 years ago is still there. mmm-hmmm, okay. Hey, it's even grown quite a bit, too! And I can eventually pass it on down to my kids if I want...

And now--all that money that I've put into Social Security over the years. Let's see where THAT is---OH LOOK! It's not there! What happened to it??? Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell took it and left me with a pile of IOU's! Gone. Just plain gone.

Which sounds more like gambling???????

Posted by: Michele S on February 22, 2005 07:32 PM

30. Grrrr, posted the above at the wrong comment thread.

Sentiment is still just as strong, tho

Posted by: Michele S on February 22, 2005 07:34 PM

31. It is important not to generalize about all people in assisted living being. My mother will be 90 in a couple months and she is impressively intellectually savvy. I hope I can have half of her good sense when I'm her age. In fact, I walked in one day after she had been watching some U.S. senators on TV and she said, "Some of those senators are senile." I scolded, "Mother, how can you say that?" She said, "When you live with the senile you get to know the symptoms!" I said no more

Posted by: Marlee H on February 22, 2005 09:06 PM

32. Erik, where ARE you???? The world wants to know!

I was disappointed to note a lack of a comment from you, on circumstances where even you might find the logic to support this tortured.

Posted by: Patches Pal on February 22, 2005 09:29 PM

33. Only 15?

What a paltry number.

Richard the First Daley is rolling in his grave.

They bus those who can vote in Chicago.

Posted by: Sandy P on February 22, 2005 10:14 PM

34. I remember discussing this previously....can't remember for sure when.
In our little town, we had Lefty's going to nursing homes to "help" the super-seniors with their ballots. No R's grabbed ahold of this issue and challenged because none of the elections were close in recent years.
Heck, we even saw "endorsements" allegedly signed by severe Alzheimers patients and other folks totally mentally incompetent.
BUT NOTHING WAS DONE BECAUSE ELECTIONS WERE NOT CLOSE.
This is an excellent find. Hopefully folks are looking at the address of the nursing home nearest them to see what happened. A lot of these folks are probably dead or gone by now.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 22, 2005 11:27 PM

35. Oh Geeze!

Will someone please let me know when it's safe to jump to conclusions? The clues have been piling up on the sides of this election road we've been on for months now!

I realize that some people need a building to fall on their head before they get it - others get it but don't want it...... I am far past disgusted! We are seeing patterns of orchestrated fraud in numerous areas of our election process.....and it's unbelievable. And it's undeniable...

What to do?

Posted by: Deborah on February 23, 2005 12:30 AM

36. As Grampa used to say, 'When you compare politics to turning over rocks in the cow pasture, only the 'things' under the first one should be a surprise.'
He was 'right', in so many ways.

Posted by: Arky on February 23, 2005 04:38 AM

37. I wonder how many incompetent spouses being cared for in their homes have voted? This may be even a more serious problem than the Nursing Home Caper.

Posted by: Okie on February 23, 2005 07:31 AM

38. So, about a day after the original post, we seem to have defined the problem pretty well.

There are some people in long-term care that either have had or should have voting rights restricted, as they can no longer comprehend the information and make their own choices about it. Does that about cover it?

So, what should be done about it? The immediate case at point (and many others) would be solved by expanding the "felon" database that just about everyone (even most of us Democrats) agrees on into a "restricted voting rights" database. This keeps the process simple. Too many different things to check and problems will arise.

Some restrictions on who may assist in casting a ballot. I would suggest that an immediate family member residing in the same house as the person needing assistance would be automatic, but anyone else (example: caregiver at a nursing facility) would need to be designated by the facility and get some sort of extra training. This way, when we get ballots submitted by the entire Alzheimer's wing, we know exactly who to talk to.

That some here find sinister meaning and see vast left-wing conspiracies (poor Hillary, she's never going to live down that comment) in the fact that 15 people at ManorCare voted is something I can do little about. Those people undoubtably see me and the roughly 50% of this state that vote Democrat as part of the conspiracy. (Amurica... Vote Republican or leave it!)

Everyone else can help by sending polite suggestions to their Representatives. Hey, make me famous! (I haven't had my 15 minutes yet.) Tell them I said to! ;-)

Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 09:17 AM

39. I recommend John Barelli have his voting rights restricted. He is obviously unable to understand why nursing home residents need assistance in order to have their votes properly cast for Democratic candidates. Only those who want to vote Republican are showing signs of senility and should have their ballots confiscated.

Posted by: none on February 23, 2005 09:43 AM

40. John B., no, I do not think that quite covers it.

The point is that the law says that certain people do not get to vote, and there is evidence that this law was broken in November.

You can argue the merits of this law all you like, but it ought to be followed.

Posted by: Bostonian on February 23, 2005 10:51 AM

41. Bostonian wrote:

John B., no, I do not think that quite covers it.

The point is that the law says that certain people do not get to vote, and there is evidence that this law was broken in November.

You can argue the merits of this law all you like, but it ought to be followed.

Too true. If we can find the person that did this, they should be prosecuted to the fullest. As bad as vote fraud is, this adds a factor of elder abuse. I just don't have any ideas as to how to find that person, and was focusing on preventing it from happening again.

But if they can be found, then you heat up the tar, and I'll bring the feathers.

Posted by: John Barelli on February 23, 2005 03:40 PM

42. Nobody in the free world is arguing about someone's right to vote, only the right to have thier thoughts read by someone else and then added to an official ballot. Maybe they did communicate thier choice, maybe not....

What ever a person's political affiliation is doesn't matter, it's the lack of integrity that we all have to be concerned about.

When there is fraud, incompetance or ....., it is the citizens with full legal status that get disinfranchised.

Posted by: mark young on February 23, 2005 09:48 PM

43. "But if they can be found, then you heat up the tar, and I'll bring the feathers.

Posted by John Barelli at February 23, 2005 03:40 PM"

I will join you with the rail and the map to help identify the edge of the town!!

Posted by: Mike Wheeler on February 24, 2005 12:39 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?