In spite of all the troubling irregularities that keep surfacing about King County's handling of the November election, I've been reluctant to allege that county officials committed fraud. Certainly I've never seen evidence of, say, actual ballot stuffing. But in recent weeks with King County's release of various "reconciliation" reports, it's increasingly clear to me that the county canvassing board certified the election on the basis of bogus numbers that don't even come close to reconciling. The numbers in the reports are wildly and inexplicably inconsistent with various other numbers and documents that the county produced. It's obvious that there were enough unexplained irregularities in the actual numbers to cast unassailable doubt on the outcome, which should not have been certified on the basis of such numbers.
Was actual fraud involved in the preparation of the fictional reconciliation reports to the canvassing board? If it wasn't fraud, it was jaw-dropping incompetence. The fact that the canvassing board relied on these bogus numbers to certify the election does incalculable damage to the integrity of, and public confidence in our elections system. An investigation needs to be held to determine whether there was outright fraud or mere incompetence. Either way, whoever is responsible needs to be held accountable.
Take a careful look at the Provisional Ballot Report as presented to the canvassing board and compare it with January's Revised Report. I mentioned these reports on Friday, but it was only clear after a double-take and further research just how bogus these numbers really were --
The unexplained increase of hundreds of provisional ballots in time for the corrected report is remarkable enough. It's worth a second look at Friday's table for yet another reason:
| November | January | |||
| Total Provisional Ballots Issued [Processed] |
|
31,545
|
|
32,996
|
| Total valid for tallying |
27,641
|
|
28,010
|
|
| Total invalid |
1.791
|
|
4,432
|
|
| From other counties |
1,236
|
|
|
|
| To other counties |
877
|
|
554
|
|
| Valid Ballots |
|
27,641
|
|
28,010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Invalid Ballots |
|
1,791
|
|
4,432
|
| Canceled |
605
|
|
622
|
|
| Not registered |
771
|
|
3,013
|
|
| Signature match |
415
|
|
307
|
|
| Absentee Ballot Returned |
|
|
282
|
|
| Need Further Research |
|
|
208
|
|
Note how the November report adds together the following categories of ballots: "Total valid for tallying", "Total invalid" and "To other counties". Those are all the equivalent of "expense" accounts. Fine. But along with these the report also adds "From other counties". That is the equivalant of an "income" account. Every provisional ballot that came from another county would also have to be disposed of in one of the "expense" categories: Valid or Invalid. Thus, the report double-counts the ballots from other counties. The top line number of 31,545 is completely meaningless.
If we subtract from the top-line the number of ballots that came in from other counties, we would infer that 30,309 provisional ballots were issued in King County. But is this the right number? Almost certainly not. The "Binder" "Poll Ballot Reconciliation Summary" document reports the number of provisional ballots issued for every precinct. It doesn't report the total, but I went through the document over the weekend and came up with a total of 31,765 provisional ballots (I updated my Binder Analysis Excel file accordingly). But even this number is suspect. For example, it shows that the number of provisional ballots issued at the Rainer Free Methodist Church was "1". Not so. This is one of the polling places I studied carefully. The poll book ballot accountability worksheet shows that 14 provisionals were issued. The provisional signatures pages of the poll book corroborate this and many of the voters who signed in were credited. But if the reconciliation reports don't match the Binder, which doesn't match the poll books, on what basis were any of the canvassing board's Summary Reports even created?
Clearly, whichever of Dean Logan's employees created the November reconciliation report EITHER had no idea what they were doing OR they were deliberately trying to pull a snow job on the canvassing board. The canvassing board, for its part, went ahead and certified the election without bothering to do even minimal due diligence on the staff reports they were handed.
If the staff and the canvassing board had done a proper reconciliation of the numbers, they would have seen that hundreds of ballots were unaccounted for -- hundreds of provisional ballots that went through the AccuVote without verification, hundreds of absentee voters who cast regular ballots in violation of state law. On the absentee side, hundreds more ballots were counted than were validated. In the recounts, duplicate ballots were repoortedly double-counted.
Had staff and the canvassing board done their duty to reconcile the numbers before certification, these issues could have been investigated and corrected in a timely fashion. A proper accounting of ballots (including the setting aside of illegitimate ballots) would have given the public confidence in both the outcome of the specific race and in the process overall. Instead, the public's confidence in our elections system has been severely undermined.
The first step to restoring integrity and public confidence is to do a thorough investigation of the bogus reconciliation numbers: how they were created, by whom, and were these false numbers the result of fraud? And why didn't the canvassing board effectively challenge the reports at the appropriate time? Those found responsible need to be held accountable.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 28, 2005
12:05 PM | Email This
I looked at the table the first time you posted it, and quickly threw up my hands. It's interesting that if you sum the 31765 provisionals you tallied with the 1236 provisionals from other counties, you get 33001, very close to the 32996 shown. The only problem is that I didn't subtract the 877 ( and maybe 554) ballots sent to other counties.
Once again I have thrown up my hands in disgust.
Posted by: MIMike on March 28, 2005 12:20 PMIt appears that they are purposely presenting data in different formats so as to confuse those who look at it. On one report a "final" count is calculated total different from the "final" count on another report, so there is no way to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the data.
There needs to be a formal investigation, but by whom? How do we as citizens demand that this be looked in to? Do we call the State AG's office?
Posted by: Jason on March 28, 2005 12:30 PMIf you check the tape of the last canvassing board meeting, at the end of the meeting, Dean Logan pulled out a document and said it was the final certification form. He stated that the canvassing board declared and swore that the numbers were true and accurate. I suspect that that counts for perjury.
As a matter of fact, I thought at that time that the canvassing board was in trouble, and almost called Norm Maleng to find out what the penalty was for a public employee filing a sworn document that he knew to be false.
That is still a good questioh.
Posted by: MIMike on March 28, 2005 12:33 PMIf that weren't the case, bar codes as we use them today, both in retail pricing and automated inventory management (manufacturing) wouldn't use this technology.
Go figure...
Posted by: Brent on March 28, 2005 12:36 PMYou're doing them a disservice. Credit where credit is due.
Posted by: Ken Muller on March 28, 2005 01:05 PMMan...next thing we'll find out is that she really isn't our Governor....doh!
Posted by: flexnfx on March 28, 2005 01:33 PMBut, if she were such an honorable person, she wouldn't put her own quest for power above an honest and accurate election. She would step down and call for a new election.
She doesn't do that. In fact, she tries to ignore the fact that there is more than enough proof to demonstrate that she did not win the election, hoping that it will go away.
In reality, she is not honorable and not a person of integrity. That's not surprising, given that her supporters are not people of itegrity either, and actually appreciate how dishonorable she is. These supporters have for years been making up numbers, so they applaud the fact that GreGore was elected based on made up numbers too.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 28, 2005 01:33 PM. . .there, I said it. It's not that hard really.
Posted by: KM on March 28, 2005 01:43 PMI just spoke with a state employee yesterday who stated that she works with a secretary that worked in the AG office under Gregoire and told her that "the rumors are true...Gregoire is underhanded, a blame shifter, and perhaps one the most unpleasent people she has ever met. She basically wants her (Gregoire's) own way"
I was once nearly hit by the speeding car of (then AG) Gregoire in a State Parking garage and instead of an apology, Gregoire slammed on her brakes and gave me a VERY dirty look...
Another person that I know once politely tried to dialogue with Gregoire in a mall when she pushed him aside and walked off....
Now consider her antics during her pre-appointment and so-called Governorship....I think what we see is what we get...she is a sad shell of an individual.
Posted by: flexnfx on March 28, 2005 01:49 PMWhat this says to me (again) is that our current Canvas Board system does not work. Because most members do not want to be on the board they put very little time into investigating or questioning what is put before them. Also, what other "oversite" board has as its chairman the head of the department they are overseeing???
King County's canvasing board (Like all the others around the state) is simply a rubber stamp for whatever the Election's Department (or Auditor's Department) wants it to be.
It is time to get rid of this system and have the Democrats appoint one member and the Republicans apoint one member. Then they agree on on the third member who is the chair. These people would become knowledgeable on election processes and reports and thus could ask the tough questions needed to be asked before they certify.
This would remove the current system of having relunctant part-time members and more importantly remove the Election Department Director from the Board.
What we have now is a joke and leads to the problems Stephen has uncovered.
Posted by: JIM on March 28, 2005 02:07 PM
'NUFF SAID!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 28, 2005 02:40 PMI've been reluctant to allege that county officials committed fraud."
Of course there was fraud by one or more county officials. There had to be. The question is the extent to which the county elections office as a whole went into the tank to steal the election.
They cannot be too precise in their numbers or their arithmetic (assuming for the sake of discussion that anyone in the King County elections office can do arithmetic) without revealing how many provisional ballots were unlawfully included in the vote tabulation.
Had they wanted to be candid, they would have stated the number of provisional ballots issued and the number cast properly in signed envelopes. That would have provided a readily available set of data from which anyone could figure out the number of ballots that went somewhere other than into signed envelopes.
Then they would have accounted for those which had been properly cast in signed envelopes. (And, of course, they would have also included the ballots received from other counties in their audit trail for properly cast provisional ballots.)
Isn't there a federal law which requires them to have a system to account for each provisional ballot that comes into their possession and tell each voter what was done with the voter's provisional ballot?
For the provisional ballots which weren't lawfully cast, their own so-called reconciliation process used them as the basis for adjusting the numbers to make it appear that there was no significant problem of extra ballots in the boxes. Including on their provisional ballot summary the total number they used for those adjustments would have been the right thing to do. (I suppose that's why it has not yet been done.)
Posted by: Micajah on March 28, 2005 03:50 PMShe is one of these people that believes she is on a feminist mission and that any carnage she leaves in her path is justifiable because her "mission" is so important.
Unfortunately, her mission is misguided and the families of Washington are the people that suffer.
All that is left for us to do at this point is peaceful resistance. For example, if you can buy anything you need out of state, do it!
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 28, 2005 03:55 PMMight help if others emailed this person to request Federal intervention.
Fraud: the crime of obtaining money or some other benefit by deliberate deception.
It wasn't accidental!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will it happen? Probably not until there is another election where they know they will be on the spot from the git-go.
I hope that Rossi's legal team has access to the Shark's spreadsheets and discussions.
Posted by: Clean House on March 28, 2005 06:06 PMWhether or not you personally stuffed the ballot box or you simply made it easy to cast illegal votes (and then made it known to those with a proclivity to do so and had a concerted effort to register those with a questionable background) you are guilty of FRAUD.
What we are witnessing is the end result of years and years of a totally corrupt Machine that has gotten away with so much, for so long, that they allowed arrogance to overcome prudence. The veil if ‘plausible deniability’ their operatives have been maintaining and hiding behind has such gaping holes in it that it is not going to shield them this time.
Thank God that the State Republican Party is standing firm and are doing it in a smart way. It was only a matter of time that they were going to get so bold that they left themselves totally exposed at a time that the Republicans in this State had had enough.
Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2005 06:18 PMI would love to see Terri Schiavo jump up and dance a jig around her bed, unfortunately, they would strap her back down to the bed and gag her too! She was sentenced to death a long time ago, by a corrupt judge who accepted campaign contributions from Michael Schiavo's attorney.
Posted by: sgmmac on March 28, 2005 06:53 PMThe nonsense from King County just keeps getting worse and worse. It is disgusting that no-one in the MSM is reporting anything. The polls still show that Gregoire will lose in a landslide to Rossi if there was a new election. The only problem with that is who is going to supervise King County????
If the court case is won and a new election is held, will they do the same thing? I think so, Sims has to go first!
Can someone please post the links for us to contribute to Irons is it? I am not from King County, but he might need some cash.
Thanks
Posted by: sgmmac on March 28, 2005 07:00 PMThe insensitive remarks by one of the folks from the culture of death are commonplace as the secular view this in terms of a "victory" over those of moral and Christian fiber. Terri is nothing but their tool in this morbid affair. She is being done to what dogs can not be in Florida without arrest. The "hubby" had the cash to out lawyer them that is all and that is why she will die.
Watch out for the same in this case.
Posted by: niceville on March 28, 2005 07:15 PMDanny Park
Posted by: dkpcowboy on March 28, 2005 07:24 PMWhy did the number rejected for "signature match" go down from 415 to 307 between the two reports?
I would note, that between the November 17, 2004 initial count and the November 24, 2004 recount, that a net total of 336 new ballots appeared -- 198 absentee ballots, 33 poll ballots, and 105 provisional ballots.
I always thought this was really suspicious -- to have a 0.3% increase in provisional ballots, while absentees only went up 0.03% and poll ballots by 0.01%. Now I think I see the reason.
The Democrats must have been able to sneak in 105 to 108 "Paul Berendt" provisional voter signature affidavits after original certification.
This would explain why the number of provisional ballots counted went up by 105 from 11/17/2004 to 11/24/2004 and the number of provisional ballots rejected for signature mismatch went down by 108 after 11/17/2004.
But when the Republicans tried to submit signature affidavits after the supposed 11/17/2004 deadline -- about 95 in King County and about 300 statewide -- these were rejected as being too late!
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 28, 2005 07:25 PMStunning.
I didn't notice that little wrinkle.
They can, of course, claim that a simple, innocent error caused the change.
I wonder if the system they were supposed to maintain to meet the federal requirement that they be able to tell voters the disposition of their provisional ballots happened to include a record of the time when a ballot was rejected -- and then later "un-rejected."
Posted by: Micajah on March 28, 2005 07:39 PMYes! This was Fraud...- An unsophisticated fraud! But fraud, none the less! That is probably how they've been able to get away with it for so long. When the fraud is chaotic - it's easy to blame it on ignorance and error when caught....(unless they develop a *pattern* in their chaos....which is bound to happen after so many years...)
This is what it means to find a method in their madness.
Posted by: Deborah on March 28, 2005 07:41 PMDanny
Posted by: dkpcowboy on March 28, 2005 07:46 PMIf there was a court ruling, I think it wasn't by the WA Supreme Court. I believe that court first ruled on Dec. 14, during the second recount -- on a petition by the Democrats asking that they be allowed to recanvass all previously rejected ballots.
Posted by: Micajah on March 28, 2005 07:58 PMThere were two WA Supreme Court rulings, neither of which did what you think happened.
The first REJECTED a Democrat lawsuit filed in the WA Supreme Court that sought to force all rejected signatures on absentee and provisional ballots to be re-examined.
The second REJECTED a Republican lawsuit filed in Pierce County Superior Court, which had been appealed from an initial ruling in favor of the GOP. This involved about 700 "Larry Phillips" absentee ballots, where King County Elections hadn't even bothered to check the signature in the first place. These absentee ballots were allowed to be counted -- assuming the signatures matched.
The Democrats never filed a lawsuit to allow them to submit provisional ballot signature affidavits after the 11/17/2004 deadline. Probably because King County Elections accepted them anyway and didn't tell anyone about it.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 28, 2005 08:04 PMThe affidavits from the Democrats -- trying to get the canvassing board to accept previously rejected provisional ballots -- were submitted prior to Nov. 17.
If I recall correctly, the Dems got a lower court to order release of the records, so they could go looking for some Gregoire voters whose provisional ballots had been rejected for signature mismatches.
It happened before the first certification of election returns. After that, the only court order allowing an addition of ballots was the Supreme Court's ruling that allowed the "Larry Phillips" 566 ballots into the vote count.
Posted by: Micajah on March 28, 2005 08:07 PMThat is my read - regardless of the outcome - the US Attorney needs to investigate King County's election practices - they may already be doing this behind closed doors. Then and only then will trust be restored in the election system, otherwise this county/state is a banana republic.
Posted by: KS on March 28, 2005 08:59 PMAlso if the Larry Phillips ballots were counted in a certain date, wouldn't there be a record of the numbers before and the numbers after. If there are more then "566" then is this another instance of smelly fish in the foot locker?
Regarding the judges, I wonder if they read this blog too. It seems to me that the best way to prove their mettle (We are not Demo biased) would be to not recuse themselves and uphold the Bridges rejection of NOvember GreGore (I like that name). Then they could say see, reelect us, you can trust us. But I see that decision as why sholud we rock the boat since more than 50% of the people want a revote anyway.
Just some random thoughts.
Nuff SAID!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 28, 2005 09:23 PMThis is why we need to fire Logan and overhaul KC elections, there can be no trusting a partisan machine. New people need to be hired, but more importantly procedures need to be put in place that are more like the way things are done in military engineering contracts. At these companies, each engineer works on a small part of the design, but they are never really shown the entire plans. As you go higher up the food chain, you know the entire plan, but you don't have any access to make changes. This kind of arrangement would assure that there was no tampering possible.
As it is, the Democrats knew all along exactly what target number they had to hit in the Manual Recount, so with the margin as close as 129 and hundreds of poorly accounted provisionals, is there any wonder they were able to deliver the result for Gregoire?
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 28, 2005 10:07 PMAny officials that are appointed have more temptation to do it their way. Case and point; Dean Logan - even though he is not a judge/ he is able to make judicial like decisions at a lower level. The problem with the judges of WA State Supreme Court not recusing themselves is that even though they are elected, they should have the integrity to recuse if they believe that a close relationship with either of the candidates could get in the way of their decision (i.e. they have a conscience for the people they serve). If this is not an open and shut case, and am not totally convinced that it will be, recusement of judges would also be a sign that they are taking this election contest very seriously - which would be a good thing.
The 'ballot scrutiny' might have been decent at that point. But no one has every claimed to have the full voter registration data for Nov 2 - - altering the voter registration AFTER THE FACT of the election is the way to sneak in those provisionals.
"Hey, 1000 provisionals with no signatures, I looked hard... no signatures on file!"
Time passes.
"Hey... um... there's signatures in here now."
Stefan already caught them changing the date of registration where the comment was something completely irreverent.
Posted by: Al on March 28, 2005 10:39 PMWhere is the heat? Why are no gallows being built outside their offices?
Posted by: Me on March 29, 2005 07:06 AMI live in Snohomish County. Every time I travel down 405 or 5, I chuckle when I see that Entering King County sign. Reminds me of Star Trek when they entered the black hole. You enter in and reality changes!!!
'NUFF SAID!!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 29, 2005 07:12 AM...Help us ObiRossi...you're our only hope!
Posted by: flexnfx on March 29, 2005 01:44 PMI'll say it again. Most illegally cast votes are cast for Democrats. Democrats have been at the forefront of every move to loosen voting restrictions and to counter any attempt to combat voter fraud.
Now .. if you really want to hear Democrats howl ... make it easier for military personnel to vote. Military personnel, you see, usually vote Republican.