I don't know how many more smoking guns we need to show that King County officials certified the election even though they had to have known that something was seriously wrong. But here's another smoking gun.
From a set of newly produced canvassing board documents from the 2003 General Election, note page 5, the "Special [Provisional] Ballot Report". Compare with the Provisional Ballot Report presented to the canvassing board in November 2004. The 2003 report has a lot more detail, down to identifying 3 ballots "already tabulated" (code for went through AccuVote).
The 2004 report has none of the same detail. I earlier posted examples of similar reports from the 2000 and 2002 elections, which also had the same details. Those elections were before Dean Logan became director of elections. It might have been plausible to argue that the former election adminstrators simply happened to show more detail in their presentations. But Logan took office in time for the 2003 election. The 2003 canvassing board was identical to the 2004 board - Logan, Dwight Pelz and Dan Satterberg. Didn't any of them notice that the 2004 reports didn't include the same essential details that the 2003 reports contained? That should have raised some red flags.
This is especially troubling in hindsight, since we now know that an accurate report that contained the customary amount of detail would have shown that the number of illegally cast and/or unexplained ballots was many times the margin of apparent victory in the governor's race. The election should not have been certified, and it wouldn't have been certified if the canvassing board had properly exercised its oversight responsibility.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 30, 2005 02:02 PM | Email ThisLooking at this election challenge logically, it's hard to see how the results can not be voided... then again, all one has to do is look at the judicial arrogance displayed in the Schiavo case to see most judges think wearing a black robe puts them in the same category as God.
Posted by: Tucker on March 30, 2005 03:08 PMNow, where is the information provided to the canvassing board at its final meeting on Nov. 17, 2004?
I noticed that the Nov. 2003 documents show the date and time they were prepared.
No such date or time appeared on the "mail ballot report" or "provisional ballot report" that you've previously posted for the 2004 general election, if memory serves me correctly.
Has anyone obtained from King County the full package of documents presented to the canvassing board on Nov. 17?
So far, I don't believe I've seen anything that reported the total number of ballots included in the vote tabulation or the total number of regular ballots cast on election day at the polls (after adjusting for corrections made during canvassing).
I notice that the numbers for all ballots of all kinds were reported in the previous year's general election.
Has anyone requested -- and obtained -- a copy of the documents and reports submitted to the canvassing board on Nov. 17, 2004?
The same question applies to the first recount certification and the second recount certification.
By now, those documents ought to be in the public domain for all to see, but where?
Posted by: Micajah on March 30, 2005 04:05 PMPerhaps I am missing the obvious here, but how do you know that the "amount of detail" would have demonstrated what you claim here?
"The election should not have been certified, and it wouldn't have been certified if the canvassing board had properly exercised its oversight responsibility."
This certainly makes sense--it sure seemed like a message that was something like this: "Okay, we finally got a recount that agrees with us so we'd better hurry and 'certify' it quick! After all, everybody knows that 'certifying' an election makes it all legal and a done deal, right?"
For Logan, hindsight wasn't needed: He knew at the time what was at stake. He claims that the law requires certification of the returns by the deadline, but he omits from his statement of the law that the returns must be certified only if they can be ascertained "with reasonable certainty." It looks as though he tried to keep hidden anything which would raise a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the numbers he presented to the canvassing board.
Posted by: Micajah on March 30, 2005 04:14 PMHere are things apparently not reported to the canvassing board prior to their certification of the returns on Nov. 17 -- just off the top of my head:
664 provisional ballots illegally inserted into the ballot boxes via the Accuvote machines at polling places were used as the basis for "adjusting" the number of extra ballots in the boxes to make it appear that virtually all polling places had either no extra ballots or only one or two.
Another 216 extra ballots in the boxes weren't explained -- making up that one or two or zero balance at the polling places.
Another 36 provisional ballots were reported by the precinct officers as having gone into the ballot boxes.
The number of ballots in the boxes at some polling places was short by approximately 160 ballots in total compared to the number issued and presumably cast.
Approximately 900 of the provisional ballots which were issued were not properly cast -- and 664 to 700 were illegally in the boxes as noted above. The others may have been illegally cast, but the numbers don't explain whether they were or not.
Having no full, true and complete statement of the total absentees returned, absentees found to be valid and counted, regular ballots issued, regular ballots cast and counted, provisional ballots issued, provisional ballots properly cast in signed envelopes, provisional ballots found to be valid and included in the vote tabulation, and total ballots included in the vote tabulation, no one could ascertain with reasonable certainty whether all legitimate ballots had been included in the vote tabulation.
You have to know how many you have in your possession to know whether you counted them all -- or counted some more than once.
Once you know there are hundreds of illegitimate ballots in the boxes, you need to figure out how to remedy that. Looking for the ones folded by precinct workers to fit into provisional ballot envelopes prior to handing them to voters would be a good place to start -- unless you are not told that there are hundreds in the boxes unlawfully, or you are told that there is no way to identify any of them.
There's probably more, but that's enough to get you started in understanding why an incomplete report to the canvassing board would keep them from doing their job. Comparing what had been submitted to them at previous elections, one ought to wonder why they accepted what they got in November 2004 without a peep of protest.
Then, try to figure out whether the recounts were actually recounts of valid ballots when you don't have an accurate accounting of the ballots that existed as of November 17, 2004.
Posted by: Micajah on March 30, 2005 05:12 PMThe number of provisional ballots counted increased by 105 between the 11/17/2004 initial certification and the 11/24/2004 machine recount. At the same time, the number of provisional ballots rejected for signature mismatches decreased by 108.
Something is very wrong here.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 30, 2005 05:23 PMBecause most people in the state are sheep, they get what they deserve. A non-elected official raising their taxes and giving money away to radicals.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 30, 2005 06:15 PMSincerely,
Posted by: machinecitiesbackeast on March 30, 2005 07:42 PMThose people are totally lacking in integrity. Unkl Witz, Eric and the rest of the trolls don't have any. However, these goofballs (Logan, et.al) were caught cooking the books as the Shark's previous numerical analysis bear out. The numbers speak for themselves - Fraud from the outside by 527 groups illegally stuffing ballot boxes and surplus of voterless ballots was unfettered by those in charge of King County Elections. They supported the fraud, which makes Dean Logan, et.al. perpetraitors of fraud.
The canvassing board did their part as they okayed the enhancement of the 55,000+ ballots which must have kicked hundreds of extra votes to GreGore, more than enough to put her over the top. However, to the observer - it seemed like they were going by the rules except for a few occassions when there were 2-1 votes questioned - but that was just the tip of the iceberg. Never before was there an opportunity like this for any of them to influence the outcome of an election of this magnitude. Pelz and Logan must have been thrilled to see it happen and to believe they got away with it !
Remember the harsh talk from Sims about his primary opponent Gregoire? Remember how they made a public spectacle of themselves prior to the primary? Diggin up dirt, name calling - leaking past skeletons to the press? IT WAS A RUSE! And the people fell for it!
Ron Sims had no intention of running for Governor. He purposely solidified his chances of losing when he announced raising taxes, supporting gay marriage and pushing through the CAO - just prior to the Primary!
His job was to create support for Gregoire by making her look moderate and himself look ultra-liberal to the public. At the same time - he controlled the election staff (in King County)in the November elections, and subsequent recounts! He could cook the books! He directed the counting chaos.
Remember his eerie silence throughout all of the fiasco? His first comment and appearance on the election wasn't until February 2005 with Dean Logan. Didn't that appear quite odd? The King County Executive - not concerning himself with the claims of fraud and incompetence for 3 months after the elections? I think he was holding his breath! Never before has there been such a challenge to his election handy-work! Never before has any Republican challenger had such determination to audit the process! So what does Ron Sims do? He tries to create diversions - cramms the CAO down our throats, talks about raising taxes, repairing stadiums, needing billions of dollars for failed transit projects and highways, moves the homeless around the county like sheep,.....He's been in hyper-drive creating smokescreens!
Ron Sims has been the *factor* behind the election problems/fraud for years. He will be the final - yet *biggest* missing link in all of this. He is the elephant in the corner....
Posted by: Deborah on March 30, 2005 10:14 PMHow do I know? Hmmm, let's see.. he always walks in late, but only late enough to miss the pledge of allegiance (that's the pledge to our flag - not the Cuban or Soviet flag). He wanted our county to have a sister county in Cuba - (to her credit, Julia Patterson crossed over and sided the the (R)'s to prevent that bunch of horse manure). To put Pelz on an election canvassing board is akin to putting Stalin or Castro (Pelz's buddy) on the board. I have zero faith in Dwight Pelz - he's a communist. He probably went to Cuba to coordinate the sister county idea - that would be worth investigating.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on March 31, 2005 12:53 AMSo, *what are you going to DO about it*?
Has it occurred to you that there's no reason they shouldn't keep laughing themselves silly when you don't *do* anything? Writing your blogs isn't DOing anything. Putting stickers on your vehicles isn't DOing anything.
Posted by: Mike on March 31, 2005 01:07 AMWhat the Democrats can fathom is the fact in 1996 Clinton and Gore got more hispanic votes in Florida than Gore got in 2000. Elian Gonzales being forcibly sent to Cuba elevated the Bush vote from 60% for Bob Dole in 1996 to 80% for Bush in 2000. Just think, the Democrats went against the courts in 2000 and they lost the election. And they now cry about the Terri case?
I think it's awfully funny that the negative bloggers (Y A W N Nelson) can only spit venom when their cover is being blown more and more by Stefan and Micajah. When snakes spit venom, Austin Stevens says wear sunglasses to keep it our of his eyes. When the KCEC slings the BULLSPIT, we whip out our repelloblogs and it lands back in their lap.
Where are the Slimes and the Puke-Indigestioner? Eating brie, watercrest, adn salmon I bet.
NUFF SAID!!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 31, 2005 06:53 AMAs I have already stated and will stand behind what has happened is that a decades of Republican spinelessness allowed them to get away with so much that they became lax and arrogantly thought that they could get away with anything they wanted because every one of the local news organization was effectively nothing but a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pierce/King/Snohomish County Democrat Machine and as such they had nothing to fear.
This is also, by the way, why both of these totally reprobate and increasingly irrelevant organizations go all out to team up to discredit alternative sources of information.
Posted by: JDH on March 31, 2005 08:26 AMYears ago when working in the retail field I spoke with a man who had been in court for two weeks testifying against an embezzler who had taken him for hundreds of thousands. that crook then dirrected his laweyer make the assertion that although he was convicted of stealing the money and should serve prison time he should not have homes, cars, land etc confiscated and the money he used to buy them restored to his victim to the extent possible.
In his mind this stuff was ‘his’ and although he should go to jail for a few years he should not lose all ‘his’ property.
Absolutely no concept of a connection between stealing something and it not being yours, MARK MY WORDS even after it has been proven beyond ANY (notice I did not say any reasonable, it wont be that close a call) doubt that the election HAS BEEN STOLEN they will still assert a claim to the Office of Governor.
They are that lacking in morality and have a differente concept of right and wrong than we do.
Posted by: JDH on March 31, 2005 09:08 AMHere's what I would report: "Election maybe stolen; millions of sheep complain 'Baa!', and eventually go back to chewing their cud."
That's right: *You* are the SHEEP.
Where's your Ukranian or Lebenese uprising with hundreds of thousands choking the streets and shutting down the government?
Sheep. Baaa! Bred, docile cud-chewers.
Posted by: Mike on March 31, 2005 10:05 AMThe problem lies in who you report to.
It seems the likely first report goes to the canvassing board and there in lies the rub
RCW 29A.84.010
Voting, registration irregularities.
(1) A county auditor who suspects a person of fraudulent voter registration, vote tampering, or irregularities in voting shall transmit his or her suspicions and observations without delay to the canvassing board.
(2) The county auditor shall make a good faith effort to contact the person in question without delay. If the county auditor is unable to contact the person, or if, after contacting the person, the auditor still suspects fraudulent voter registration, vote tampering, or irregularities in voting, the auditor shall refer the issue to the county prosecuting attorney to determine if further action is warranted.
(3) When a complaint providing information concerning fraudulent voter registration, vote tampering, or irregularities in voting is presented to the office of the prosecuting attorney, that office shall file charges in all cases where warranted.
Posted by Jim L at March 30, 2005 09:50 PM
Ooops, King county has a "head of elections"
Does that make them exempt from RCW 29A.84.010 ?
RalphR--perhaps a little PROZAC will pull you out of your stuper.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 31, 2005 03:15 PMI have been and am supportive of all the efforts by Shark & others to shed the light of truth on the WA stolen election (I am from MN by the way). Besides the stolen guv's election in WA, I personally believe that the RATS stole the presidential election in WI by 85,000 same day (mostly illegal) registrations in Milwaukee, WI and upwards of 200,000 stuffed ballots for Kerry in Philadelphia, PA. Having said all this, and looking at the travesty of an arrogant, smug, corrupt judiciary in Florida that committed America's first judiciary-state sanctioned execution-murder by forced starvation of a completely innocent but disabled human being, I am quite skeptical that Judge Bridges will step out of the twisted judiciary norm to do the right thing. That's all I meant!
Posted by: RalphR on March 31, 2005 04:30 PMThe WA State Republican Party's web site has the latest I've heard of regarding the next hearing date (April 5). It's here.
Posted by: Micajah on March 31, 2005 04:31 PMThis is not some strained exercise in futility.
I feel the same way about the Terri Schiavo case. The fact that people tried -loudly and publicly to save her IS something!
When we post the findings and the true facts of our state's election fraud - it IS reaching people! People ARE reacting! Agencies ARE investigating. Citizens ARE questioning! There is a hurricane of activity going on behind the scenes......
Instead of being discouraged by the public appearances and statements from those who are in trouble with this election (Sims, Logan, Reed, Patterson, Phillips, etc..)- just understand that the timing of their publicity coincides with the most damaging finds. They are scared sh*itless!
All they know to do is to make phone calls to eachother - pull in favors, arrange press conferences and ..... deny - deny- deny! But they are all ignorant beyond their election snow-job. Their deceptive prowess only extends to their ability to cook books and stuff ballots in elections..They never saw this much of a spotlight coming..There is no Plan B for *If* and *When* they get caught! They will end up throwing each other under the bus (or under sound transit) before this is over.....
This is not in vain.
Posted by: Deborah on March 31, 2005 05:43 PMHeh...I just can't see Ron Sims rushing out to do this....It was included in his *good home training*..
Posted by: Deborah on April 1, 2005 12:20 AMOn all available evidence that *I* am seeing -- that is exactly how I would describe it: You are going to LOSE.
>I feel the same way about the Terri Schiavo case.The fact that
>people tried -loudly and publicly to save her IS something!
What they "tried" to do was play the game within the enemy's we-always-win rules-parameters. In short, they really didn't "try" anything beyond the we-will-whine-and-go-through-courts-and-fail-like-we-ALWAYS-do.
>All they know to do is to make phone calls to eachother - pull in
>favors, arrange press conferences and ..... deny - deny- deny!
If "all they know (what) to do" results in they-always-win; you-always-lose -- what else do they need? Wolves can afford to be out-of-condition when they've bred the sheep to never run.
> This is not in vain.
Nonsense; you've already blown your chance to agitate in a time-conscious, meaningful way. Now all you can do is sit around until the *next* election -- which may be stolen in an even more outragous way, the evidence of which will be archived for posterity and probably acted upon by no one.
-- You will break your 100% perfect record of being losers when you cease waiting for legal challenges to proceed with snail-like alarcity, and GET OFF YOUR BUTTS AND PROTEST.
Posted by: Mike on April 4, 2005 07:45 PM