Recall that King County discovered and counted 226 brand new absentee ballots during the machine and manual recounts and for which there has never been an adequate explanation. Where could these mysterious ballots have come from?
Credible reports point to duplicate ballots as one likely cause. Ballots were sometimes "duplicated" (i.e. an election worker would copy the voter's marks onto a brand new ballot in cases where the voter's marks would be unclear to the machine, or if a voter from one precinct cast a provisional at a different polling place). Recount observers reported seeing some duplicated ballots in the mix, suggesting that both the original and the duplicate copy would have been counted. (Reminds me of the Sorcerer's Apprentice and the multiplying brooms) Explanations given by election officials did not hold water --
One recount observer e-mails:
at the very end, I questioned the multiple instances of ballots (absentees) -- in this case ballots that had been sent to the canvassing boad for review as possible overvotes --- where the ballots had the word "dupe" written in red ink on the back (on what were clearly original absentee ballots) and wondered whether KCRE had mixed piles of originals that had been duplicated in the ballot stream with their duplicated brothers (thereby creating a double vote). When I raised this initially, Garth [Assistant Superintendent of Elections Garth Fell ] was stumped and so was Julie [Assistant Superintendent Julie Moore] (which bothered me). In fact, Julie seemed very disturbed when these ballots were pointed out to her. Why, I wondered, would original ballots that someone had marked "dupe" on, exactly in the fashion that the enhancement and duplicators would mark a ballot that was duplicated be appearing as a ballot mixed in with the others?A King County Elections insider comments:
It was [Bill] Huennekens who told me that a processing operation set up at KCRE when ballots were received from the mail included persons who reviewed the ballots for possible problems and noted them on the ballot in ink as suggestions/directions??? to enhancer/duplicators .
Bill's explanation doesn't wash. The openers don't write on ballots.King County election officials declined our requests for comment. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 24, 2005 09:37 PM | Email ThisIn fact, they don't have writing implements available so they can't write on ballots and potentially add marks to them.
Julie was probably the most experienced person with recounts in the entire county ... If she looked like she had concerns when the found these (and all three people who saw this say it was the case), then I think there were some.
I think that the duplicated ballots could have been mixed in at any point -it could have been during the first canvass (and this is another reason that a full reconciliation MUST to be done before certification - for most contests in most elections, that's the only opportunity for investigation into irregularities before an election official inflicts the results on the populace.), it could have been during the second machine count, it could have been during the sort for the hand count.
If the number of ballots increased ... between the first count and the machine recount, then it very likely could have been a batch of dupes accidentally (or purposely, but I start with the benefit of the doubt) were mixed in as all of the ballots were gathered from the various secure storage locations to have them available for the recount.
Then, subtract the votes for whoever the ballots were marked for and call it good.
Let's see, 226 / 2 = 113. 129 - 113 = 16. If the ballots broke 50 : 50, this could be the case. And even if they did not, the few remaining ballots that comprised the "lead" for either candidate would be so small that surely any reasonable judge staring at more than 1000 felon votes would see that the election was too close to call.
Way more than NUFF SAID!!! Ten Hut everyone, Captain Shark is on deck!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 24, 2005 10:20 PMWhat about the fact that some precincts actually showed fewer ballots on the machine recount than on the initial count?
Isn't there supposed to be a log kept of both ballot enhancements WAC 434-261-080 and ballot duplications WAC 434-261-090? For duplications, the original and the duplicate should have the same control number. If the WAC was followed, then the duplication should be obvious if the absentees for a given precinct were examined to see if any had the same control number.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 24, 2005 10:27 PMWhile counting during the manual recount, I saw some ballots with red ink. They likely were marks on the ballots from earlier canvas results, but now I am not so sure. It would be very ... words fail me ... bad ... if some of the duplicated ballots made their way in twice.
Some of those precincts that are +1 or + 2 from the first machine recount need to be broken open, and examined for the presence of 'red ink' ballots. Richard Pope's comment is also dead on, in the 'check for control numbers'.
On a related issue, does anyone remember seeing 'ballots without a fold' in with the absentees? Duplicated absentees would start out with the three (3) fold marks, and the duplicated ones would ??? not have any folds? If so, this would be a very fast check in a precinct of absentees looking for duped absentees.
Gregg, Denny Terrace observer and manual re-counter.
Posted by: gregg on March 24, 2005 10:56 PMNov. 17 returns – total ballots: 898,238
Then they reported their first recount results, showing 336 more ballots than their really and truly authentic and true, etc., certified initial returns:
1st recount – total ballots: 898,574
Not done yet, they changed their truly authentic, etc., etc., certified returns after the second recount to show an additional 625 ballots:
2nd recount – total ballots: 899,199
If I recall correctly, you have to subtract 566 “NSOF” ("Larry Phillips") ballots and 20 newly discovered ballots (from I forget where -- Accuvote base units?) from the 2nd recount total, since they were added to the total ballot count by the canvassing board and thus didn't come from unknown sources:
899,199 – 586 = 898,613
That's still 39 more than the 898,574 reported in the first recount.
So, add that 39 and the 336 that appeared during the first recount: 375 ballots that somehow got into the reported ballot total.
Now, here's the thing I can't figure out: Where is there room for 226 extra absentee ballots in the total of all ballots counted since King County revised their provisional ballot numbers on January 18, 2005?
They changed their total of provisional ballots accepted as valid and counted from 27,641 to 28,010. That was an increase of 369 ballots -- and those don't seem to have been included in the initial really and truly certified election returns of Nov. 17 which showed a grand total of 898,238 ballots of all kinds in the count. (It's impossible to say for sure, but their reported ballot counts added up to 898,238 -- so those extra provisionals either weren't included or were mistakenly reported as absentees or regular polling place ballots in one or more of those public statements during the Nov. 2-17 period.)
375 additional ballots appeared during the recounts. 369 seem to be belatedly reported provisional ballots. 375 minus 369 equals 6 -- not 226.
Unless their ballot total is changed again, how can there be 226 absentee ballots added to the count?
What public statement has Logan's gang made which contains the number of regular polling place ballots cast and counted, provisional ballots cast and counted, and absentee ballots cast and counted -- and hasn't been revised at least once?
Posted by: Micajah on March 24, 2005 11:31 PMThis is very disturbing. Richard Pope and greg are right about checking for control #'s. There should be a trail...
PERHAPS THERE IS A MEDIUM-SIZED BINDER THAT WILL EXPLAIN THIS ONE AWAY!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 24, 2005 11:37 PM
The ballot counts were as follows:
first count: 898,238
+198 absentee
+33 polling place
+105 provisional
(+336 total)
Machine recount: 898,574
+28 absentee
+31 polling place and/or provisional
+566 NSOF absentee
Manual Recount: 899,199
For a total increase of 226 unexplained absentees, excluding the NSOF.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 24, 2005 11:38 PMHow did they increase the number of provisionals by 105 in the machine recount? That is a rather high percentage in a universe of about 28,000 ballots. A little over 0.3%, compared with increases of less than 0.04% among absentee and poll ballots.
Of course, most other counties hardly changed their ballot numbers at all in either recount.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 24, 2005 11:52 PMI also would like to thank Ron "Tax 'em as I see them" "We need a $tate income tax" Sims. Ron, I know your flunkies read this along with Ms Julia "the brain" Patterson.
Ron, we owe you a debt of gratitude because of your lack of candor, your blunt dismissal of the problems first identified in this blog as partisanship got some people searching the records. We owe you a debt of gratitude due to the lack of responsiveness and speediness in your county elections office has allowed Shark and Micajah to thoroughly look at the numbers as you release them and provide the discrepancy issues. Just think, if you release the black binder in January, gave the information up quickly, would Stefan and Micajah been able to piece this together so thoroughly. Maybe, maybe not. The delay has cost you. Also what if you lose in NOvember 2005. Blame yourself buddy as you look in the mirror.
Dean Logan & Bill H (how is that spelled?), we thank you along with the woman that Shark spoke to about the black book. Without your disembling comments in the council meetings, not owning up to the mistakes made, has allowed good responsible people to determine the issues from the numbers. Your all, due deliberate speed (NOT) in delivery of pertinent information has provided the fodder for people's ire against you.
You psychophants: Nelson, Chew2, Unkl Witz, and the school girls have not said much lately as the truth is coming out. I imagine the list of names is growing and growing and growing...
In the Bible God says that which is done in the dark will eventually come out in the light. He also says the to all the judgment comes. How can you guys just lie through your teeth? Don't you know all this is written in the books in Heaven. If you are not in the Book of Life, Heaven is not your final home. Ask your preacher, if he really knows his Bible. Ask him/her to explain 1 Thess 4 and 1 Corin 15 along with Revelation.
In closing I thank you Stefan. I thank Ron, Bill, Dean, the Woman in the office with black book, Julia and all the Democrats on the KC Council, for all the wonderful pointed remarks you have made at Stefan and this blog. Hell hath no fury as a silent majority voter scorned.
Oh, I forgot the MSM. Without them really covering this would Stefan and Micajah have had to did this thoroughly. Probably as that's their nature. But with the Slimes and the Puke-Indigestioner really looking at this vs. selling out to the Democraps, we would be looking at them better also.
NUFF SAID!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 25, 2005 05:50 AMThe reality is that until KC election operations is running smoothly and efficiently, every election is tainted. I do hope that somehow this information will become public knowledge all over Washington State. Then and only then will true election reform happen. The reforms are being made by Democrats right now that will further hide these system flaws and procedures from the public.
Stefan, if you could do some kind of rollup of numbers and important key talking points on the errors that you believe affected the outcome more than others, and you could post them, we could use them to write letters to the media and our representatives. While all of us know what you are doing is critically important, it isn't easy to distinguish the key points and just writing letters to rant or letters that discuss irrelevant points probably won't help.
Have a great Day!
Posted by: sgmmac on March 25, 2005 05:59 AMThe probe was launched in January after a series of Journal Sentinel revelations of election problems in the city."
Too bad our MSM couldn't be as interested....
Posted by: Chris on March 25, 2005 08:56 AMYou're right -- I checked my notes on Logan's statements to the King Co Council: He said the 20 absentees found in the side bins were rejected, and the 2 provisional ballots were accepted and counted. I had reversed it in my memory, and thought 20 new ballots were added to the count on Nov. 17.
Having slept on it, I realized there may be room for any number of additional ballots in King County, since their "total ballots" number reported to the canvassing board, public, and SecState is way off the mark.
Add up the numbers Logan reported in his releases to the public (which presumably were the same as what he gave to the board to show totals and daily subtotals).
He never corrected his initial report of 305,380 as the number of polling place votes cast and counted even though several precincts were "zeroed out" and counted again when the Accuvote machine apparently miscounted.
His numbers add up to 898,238 -- the number reported to the SecState.
His Monday, 11/15, report is wrong -- which may be why in his Tuesday, 11/16 report he didn't report the total number of absentee ballots that had been counted up to the day of that report. He may have noticed that his totals no longer made sense.
In his last report on 11/17, he claimed a total of 27,641 prov'l ballots were valid and counted. That would have made the day's count 413.
In his revised prov'l ballot report of Jan. 18, he claimed to have actually counted the votes on a total of 28,010 prov'l ballots. That would have made the day's count on that 11/17 report 782.
Those extra 369 ballots weren't in his total reported ballot count -- which itself was not an accurate report of the total ballots counted since he didn't correct the polling place ballot count.
I would bet that his total absentee ballot count was higher than the 566,291 he reported, but I don't know how much difference there may have been. Once he lost track on Monday, 11/15, he simply stopped reporting how many had been counted and how many had been received. You would need to see their records showing how many were received on each day from about 11/12 through 11/16 to know if more came in the mail on those days than has been reported.
Here are the numbers from those reports Logan made to the public (posted on his web site):
11/3: Polling Place votes counted: 305,380 (never changed, even though several precincts were "zeroed out" and retabulated to get better numbers)
11/3: Abs Bs ctd (total 11/2 & 11/3): 332,968
11/4: Abs Bs ctd: 79,655
11/5: Abs Bs ctd: 59,337
11/8: Abs Bs ctd: 63,439
11/10: Prov & Abs ctd: 20,839
11/12: Prov & Abs ctd: 14,601
11/15: Prov & Abs ctd: 16,992
ll/16: Prov & Abs ctd: 3,581
11/17: Prov & Abs ctd: 1,446
And, total of all ballots reported as 898,238.
If that's the case, then they can be retrieved, counted, and their votes subtracted from the totals.
Posted by: Dishman on March 25, 2005 12:48 PMYou ought to request a copy of the report King County is required to submit to the SecState by March 31 under RCW 29A.60.230:
(2) After each general election, the county auditor or other election officer shall provide to the secretary of state a report of the number of absentee ballots cast in each precinct for and against state measures and for each candidate for federal, state, and legislative office or for any other office which the secretary of state is required by law to canvass. The report may be included in the abstract required by this section or may be transmitted to the secretary of state separately, but in no event later than March 31st of the year following the election. Absentee ballot results may be incorporated into votes cast at the polls for each precinct or may be reported separately on a precinct-by-precinct basis.
If they submit it, they are supposed to report the number of absentee ballots cast in each precinct.
Also, it would be useful to have a copy of the abstract submitted to the SecState for the initial Nov. 17 certification and the amended abstracts for each of the two recounts. Their absentee, regular polling place, and provisional ballot totals don't seem to add up based on their reports to the King County canvassing board. I'm wondering if the abstracts contain numbers for two, if not all three of those categories. (If they didn't report the number of absentees in the abstracts transmitted to SecState, they are required to report that info by March 31 under the law cited above.)
Posted by: Micajah on March 29, 2005 10:18 AM