Today's update on King County's magical binder of precinct-by-precinct reconciliation worksheets, which the lunatic-fringe blogs tell us are "sitting down there at KC Elections for anybody to inspect".
The punchline is: the lunatic-fringe bloggers are living in a sick fantasy world (but you knew that). The binder is not now, nor has it ever been, available for public inspection. King County is perpetrating a cover-up.
Two things happened today: First, County Councilmember David Irons confirmed to me that he's been asking for these documents for the last six weeks but that the Elections office has still not made them available to him.
Second, I made a personal appearance at the Elections office this morning and asked to see the binder, as a follow up to my written public records request of February 22. Spokeswoman Bobbie Egan, who is a very nice lady, did provide some of the other documents that I requested and promised to follow up with a more detailed response soon. But the binder with the reconciliation reports? She wouldn't allow me to see it. She said only that it would be available "when it's available" without giving me any specific timeframe. The only explanation is that it is "being worked on" in relation to the election contest lawsuit. She went so far as to consult with a county attorney, who apparently advised her not to show it to me. An attorney friend who is knowledgeable about both public disclosure law and King County government says this excuse is nonsense, especially since King County has been excused from the lawsuit and is no longer a defendant.
The public disclosure act states that
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. The public records subdivision of this chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy.and continues
Responses to requests for public records shall be made promptly by agencies... Within five business days of receiving a public record request, an agency ... must respond by either (1) providing the record; (2) acknowledging that the agency ... has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the agency ... will require to respond to the request; or (3) denying the public record request ... Denials of requests must be accompanied by a written statement of the specific reasons therefor.The Guiding Principles of King County Elections include:
We share timely and appropriate information with all.My written request was delivered on February 22. Nine business days have come and gone, and King County has not responded to my request as required by law....
We encourage the public to participate in the election process through education, public notices and transparent processes.
What is King County hiding? Other than the fact that hundreds or even thousands of ballots were counted that can't be matched with voters? That this year's ballot/voter discrepancy is by far the worst in recent county history? That this astonishing discrepancy would have been enough to change the outcome of the election?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 07, 2005 12:37 PM | Email ThisIt will be available, right after Dean Logan and team finish doctoring it up to make it reflect a result that if scrutinized would still give Greogire a victory.
We need the FBI to go down to KC Elections, freeze all activity and start searching through their records to recover what has not yet been covered up, shredded, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 7, 2005 01:18 PMThis is disgusting.
Posted by: Dishman on March 7, 2005 01:47 PMSecondly, these documents may contain private information (signatures etc.?) which King County may be reluctant to release to Stefan or other members of the public without first checking them out, since I gather there has been some flap in the past about violation of privacy.
Posted by: chew2 on March 7, 2005 01:52 PM"These are not the binders you are looking for, move along"
:-)
Posted by: Jason on March 7, 2005 01:54 PMThere can only be one reason for this, and your gut instinct knows the answer!
They know that if you are allowed to see the binder that you will crucify them with their own work!
Somewhere in the massive Evergreen report I read that every county must have a list of voters on election day and that it must be on file for 2 years. If you can get this list out of them, or maybe your voter registration file dated right before the election, and compared that list to this magical binder's content. I think you will find massive discrepancies.
You noted in one of your reports that dates were changed on voter registrations. The same thing was cited in the Evergreen report. You called the duck right when you said that the "voter crediting" is just spin. It is plainly obvious that they are trying to cover their butts. Hopefully there will be a poll worker who signed that magical binder somewhere that will stand up if their numbers are changed.
Manipulating the contents of the magical binder is the easiest way to cover election fraud, if the ballot boxes were stuffed.
Keep up the pressure and I would encourage all to click on the donate to Sound Politics button on the upper right of the home page screen to help cover the expense.
Have a Great Day!
Posted by: sgmmac on March 7, 2005 02:12 PMTim
Posted by: Timman on March 7, 2005 02:30 PMPerhaps your request is just not their highest priority, and sits behind a list of other things that came first and that they have to do first.
BTW, ever subscribe to a magazine and wonder why in hecks name it still takes 6 to 8 weeks before you get your first issue? Nothing about modern technology has apparently done anything to decrease that wait time. I suspect that governmental agencies suffer from the same low tech way of doing things.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 7, 2005 02:48 PMThey have the court behind them for discovery.....maybe they can make KC pay attention.
Posted by: Karl on March 7, 2005 03:04 PMIf you are so interested in the presidential election results in Ohio, maybe you should move to Cleveland.
Posted by: MiMike on March 7, 2005 03:12 PMCall or send e-mails TODAY asking for their help on this matter!!!
Posted by: Mr. Cyncial on March 7, 2005 03:12 PMThe logic being one has to have lived in Ohio to care? C'mon.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 7, 2005 03:18 PMYou misstate my logic, headless lucy sets up a straw-man argument by talking about the "Conyers Report," and trying to set up a parallel to the Washington gubernatorial election. First, there is no one with a hint of intellect who would ever mistake John Conyers for someone who is unbiased. Second, Shark and a lot of other people on this blog are Washingtonians who are "concerned about the direction of our" state (to paraphrase your blog). There is no requirement that one who spends time analyzing one situation need spend any time at all on another situation.
Posted by: MIMike on March 7, 2005 03:30 PMWe can only hope they have already "altered" the poll books from what the poll workers attested to. Logan is supposed to take the exact, "unaltered" data from the pollbooks, transfer it to the "reconciliation form" and then have SOURCE DOCUMENTS to back up ALL data used in reconciling from what the poll workers ATTESTED TO to what shows on the reconciliations in the BIG BINDER.
My guesses are:
1) Alterations have already been made in the pollbooks to what the poll workers attested to.
2) They don't have a clear audit trail of data used on the reconciliation form
3) When you compile all 2616 precindts on a spreadsheet, the DISCREPANCIES are even worse than what Stefan has shown.
Time will tell.
Stefan--if you can't get the newspaper organization to support you...I'm good for $100 toward the "LAWSUIT FUND". I think the next step is to file suit and ask for damages in Superior Court....
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 7, 2005 03:32 PMHOWEVER>>>These reconciliations of pollbooks were supposed to be done BEFORE the election was certified (EACH OF THE 3 COUNTS)!!!!!!!!!
Don't ever forget that. How could they be altering NOW???
A key in this contest will be the Canvassing Board meeting and minutes. Hopeful it was audio taped (they did that in my County). The big problem here is that Election Official Logan reported to Canvassing Board member Logan. What discrepancies did he report?? What did Logan do to try and identify those discrepancies??
The BIG BINDER matters!!!!!!!!!!!!
True, but after Shark has identified who is who via their IP address, we know there are also others who hang around here who are from the other side of the country. That doesn't lessen their right to chime in on the issues, or to suggest corollaries.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 7, 2005 03:46 PMAnybody can chime in here about this race, I merely observed that headless lucy was so interested in the Ohio race that she told Shark where he should chime in. Truth is, Shark can spend his time in any way he chooses, regardless of headless lucy's opinion.
Posted by: MIMike on March 7, 2005 04:16 PMHeadless Lucy said "Maybe you could read...". It was a suggestion.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 7, 2005 04:23 PMI don't need to read a book about rigged elections. All I have to do is read about the rigged election here!
Posted by: sgmmac on March 7, 2005 04:30 PMAs a citizen of this county - I am beyond the point of patience with King County election officials! We all are!
This waiting game only serves KC's interests - as it allows them time to further cover their fraud. I know most people in this county and state are fed up and demanding answers, facts, truth and evidence of what exactly happened in the November election....
I was so glad to see the Republican party finally grow some gonads and challenge this election. After years of passive objection to all of the dirty tricks, scandals, fraud, etc - that the Democrats have launched at them and the American public - it is great to see the Repubs take off the gloves! However.......With the long lull between the last court hearing and the next - I fear I am seeing the Dino camp go back to it's excessive civility and non-assertive ways!
More than enough evidence has been uncovered in this contest to guarantee a new election. Enough evidence has been uncovered to raise serious questions about past election results in many races and initiatives...
We need to hit fast and hard with facts and truth and not give the Dems another moment to spin this!
It's time!
Posted by: Deborah on March 7, 2005 04:37 PM
You say: "There is no excuse to fail to respond properly to a public records request."
Ha!Ha!Ha!
Agencies, do this all the time. After all they have work to do. Just look at the Federal Agencies under Bush, they have a very strong history of delay and outright denial.
A delay of 9 business days doesn't seem very serious to me. If it does to you, go ahead and file a lawsuit. The DEMS and GOP have been dragging out and objecting to each others respective discovery requests about these matters. You might as well add to it.
Posted by: chew2 on March 7, 2005 05:22 PMI'm from the blue (regretfully) state of Minnesota but have a strong interest in what is happening in WA state, because it mirrors similar Dems vote fraud & corruption in Milwaukee, WI, and Philedelphia, PA. The level of fraud & corruption perpetuated by the Dems in WA state is shocking to say the least. And I will be more than happy to contribute financially to Shark and/or the WA state Republican Party to uncover and prosecute the Dems fraud & corruption by Fraud-oire's theft of WA's gov election. And BTW, re the "rigged election" in Ohio, the gist of Conyer's main arguement is abnormally long lines in some Ohio counties, controlled by Dems no less. If it was that "rigged", then the Dem's should be taking this to court in Ohio...but they're not because they know they don't have a leg to stand on. Even the Dems party bosses in those counties didn't agree with Conyers that fraud was committed there. C'mon, it doesn't even come close to the fraud in WA state or Milwaukee, WI. Conyer's partisan rantings don't have a fraction of a percent of what Shark & other honest citizens have uncovered about WA Dems fraudulent practices. We will fight & win against Dems fraud & corruption one state at a time!
Posted by: RalphR on March 7, 2005 06:14 PMI am glad to see you back alive & well from the trenches. Combat takes such a high emotional toll, so I am told... I hope you had time to change your pants.
At any rate, since you offer up the issue of the Conyers report, pray tell us what it has to do with Washington State- other than yet another display of liberal recto-cranial insertion, which you and your pals have raised to a government-funded art form.
Posted by: ERNurse on March 7, 2005 06:25 PMFirst of all, thank you for all the digging and fighting for what's right. Without you, and a few others, all of this would have already been swept under the rug by the Dems and the local MSM (and they are definitely still trying to make this all 'go away').
Secondly, what I believe will be revealed by the information in the "big binder" is that Sims, Logan, et.al, 'conspired' to rig the election for the former Attorney General, and that they are doing whatever they think is necessary to cover up their election rigging.
Thirdly - to chew2 - regardless of what you think is 'ok' for a government agency to do regarding providing requested documents in a timely manner, KC has broken state law, and needs to cough up the binder asap, or face whatever consequences the law provides for.
Posted by: Gray Wolf on March 7, 2005 06:32 PMHere is the key. If there was anything exculpatory in any of these documents, the stinking 'Rats would have had it out there on Day One, privacy concerns or not (consideration of which never stopped a 'Rat before). The fact that it hasn't been released is the smoking gun that there is something in there unfavorable to their recent electoral fraud. But the 'Rats know that time is on their side. The longer this drags out, the less interest there will be. It gives Fraudoire time to pose as their "effective" Maximum Leader, and the memory of the average sheeple is short at best.
Posted by: Interested Observer on March 7, 2005 07:03 PMYour theories about WHY King Co Records and Elections refused to respond to the public records request is contradicted by the facts cited by Stefan: he provides that the binder was in the possession of R&E and that the prosecutor's office advised them not to show the binder to Sharkansky. It might be reasonable to assume that REcords and elections could control access or might want to control access based on their work level relevant to responding to a Rossi discovery request (assuming they are doing that -- facts not in evidence) but that is not a legal decision made by the prosecutor relevant to litigation; that is a decision made by an administrator relevant to workload. There is no legal reason for them to withold access under this scenerio. That leaves privacy concerns, which might be relevant if real. Though we've seen that they weren't too relevant in that R&E decided to comply at least partially when placed under some heat.
Posted by: barchester on March 7, 2005 07:22 PMBy way of general info on PDA requests, there is an absolute requirement in Washington's statute that, within 5 business days, a PDA request be at least acknowledged (in writing) and the documents produced, or a reasonable estimate for when they will be released be provided, or that they won't be, and why (stating the exemption or whatever the reason). The mere failure to produce at least an acknowledgement of the PDA request, including a reasonable time estimate of when the documents will be produced, if not produced with the acknowledgement letter, triggers the beginning of daily penalties, plus an award of legal fees. Of course, this means having to sue, and run the risk, as I did in my case, that the legal fee award will be far less than the fees incurred (in my case, $150,000 incurred, versus $89,000 awarded at the first of three successful court proceedings).
Armen Yousoufian (www.ArmenYousoufian.com , www.yousoufian.blogspot.com )
Posted by: Armen Yousoufian on March 8, 2005 12:12 AMNow please, try to stay on topic. Lets stick to the hard numbers and facts we have to investigate and clean up here in Washington.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on March 8, 2005 01:26 AM