That's the principal conclusion I drew from last night's town meeting with Councilwoman Julia Patterson, Secretary of State Sam Reed, and King County election director, Dean Logan. Not every kind of fraud, but some kinds.
In practice, at least in King County, there is no requirement that voters be citizens. Washington law may require that voters be citizens, but King County does nothing to enforce that, which became clear from some of the answers Logan gave. (He chose not to answer my direct question on the subject.) And many in the audience were struck, as I certainly was, by the fact that after being informed of voting by two non-citizens, Logan did not refer the cases to a prosecutor. Many Republicans have suspected that some provisions in the 1993 "Motor Voter" Act (passed by a Democratic Congress) were intended to encourage voting by non-citizens. Logan gave me more reason to believe that charge last night.
King County elections are also wide open to fraud with absentee ballots, especially by people who register by mail. It is simply too easy to establish a false identity and then use it in elections.
And it is too easy to borrow someone else's identity. The only check the elections office makes on mailed ballots is a signature comparison. We didn't get a good description of the process from Logan, but I do know that the clerks use computer scans of signatures for comparison. Given the low resolution of computer screens, getting a copy of someone else's signature past the clerks should not be very difficult. The larger the county, the easier such fraud is likely to be, since the clerks in places like King County will know few, if any, of the people whose signatures they are checking. Logan admitted, when I pressed him on the point, that he simply did not know how many fraudulent signatures were accepted in last year's election. (It was not clear to me whether he had even thought about the problem.)
Given these problems, it seems bizarre that Patterson, Reed, and Logan all want to do more elections with mailed ballots. Do they just think that fraudulent absentee ballots are such a small problem that we can ignore it? I really couldn't tell.
Most in the audience seemed to share my frustration at the answers given by Logan. At several points, Stefan Sharkansky, who has done so much to uncover errors in last November's election, had to correct Logan. After several such corrections, it was hard not to be skeptical about everything that Logan said.
There was one interesting hint in Logan's talk. He said that, when he came to the elections office, he found problems with the "culture" there, problems that he admitted were still there, in part. I have speculated, without much evidence, that some of the problems in the elections office may have been caused by a conflict between Logan and some in the office who did not accept him. What he said is consistent with that speculation.
And, to be fair to Patterson and her guests, I should say that I agree — to some extent — with an argument that the three made many times. On issue after issue they argued that they were just following state and federal law. I think they exaggerated, but I also think that our most important problem is lax election laws, not bad administration in the King County office. Unfortunately, Reed's description of the "reform" efforts in the state legislature also convinced me that important reforms will not even be considered by the Democrats who control the Washington state legislature. (Need an example? Requiring photo identification for voting. That would make many kinds of fraud more difficult.)
All in all, a discouraging meeting.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics, where you can also find a picture of Stefan Sharkansky correcting Dean Logan.
(That sign in the background? Pure coincidence. I didn't even notice it when I took the picture.)
Posted by Jim Miller at April 01, 2005 05:03 PM | Email ThisWhy don't you worry about something important, like the statistically impossible number of votes Dino got from the Snohomish County electronic voting machines?
Posted by: docbenton on April 1, 2005 05:19 PMIf there was a serious effort to screen non-citizens, and two slipped in, that's one thing.
But KCDOE has as much as admitted that they do _nothing_ to prevent exactly that.
A non-citizen with no id whatsoever can fill out a voter identification form, check 'permanent absentee', and have it mailed to Mailboxes Etc. They won't be checked across the County property tax rolls, they won't be checked across the County felon rolls, they won't be crossed with the state driver licenses, they won't be checked across the freaking County preschool rolls. As Logan says, it is the job of REGISTERED VOTERS to police the voter registration rolls - he _personally_ knew of attempted registrations by people he didn't feel would be legitimate voters, but he didn't think it was _his_ job to either informally scrutinize that registration, nor his position to formally challenge the voter.
Finding two foreign votes, two felon votes, or two votes from the deceased that slipped through a competent system is a 'so what.'
Finding two confirmed foreign votes and being told "Oh, well, we don't check for that, we have absolutely no idea what the total number is" is insane.
Posted by: Al on April 1, 2005 06:42 PMSo how can this blog add to the discussion on the discrepancies and then add those discussion points to the the court case case? How can we be more effective than just 'bloviating'?
Our discussions seem to linger forever to no point! Where is the court case? How can we help it along?
Thanks!
Tim Hunter
Posted by: Timman on April 1, 2005 07:05 PMLook at the graph on page 9. You know, the one that shows a steady trend of improvement for the GOP on election day from 1992 to 2004?
Then read what they claim it shows: A sudden improvement in 2002. But it doesn't show that. It shows exactly the opposite of what they claim it shows.
I'm not sure it's appropriate to be proud of "doing some reading" when all you've done is fall prey to a couple of flim-flam artists.
Posted by: ScottM on April 1, 2005 07:31 PMJim,
Why, after all that's been uncovered, do you still try to give these people an *out*? WHO do you think created the lax election laws? Which party? WHO has chosen to follow *liberal* interpretations of these lax laws?
We have seen many of the RCW and WAC's that are written on such a fine line - they could be interpreted either way! It was up to Logan, Reed, etal - to interpret them in the best interest of the people of this county and state! Instead - they chose to bail on us and open up our elections to mass fraud and mistakes!
We witnessed Logan being busted by Councilman Dunn on his lax interpretation of election laws!
If a law states "the election officials *MAY* instead of *SHALL* do something to verify voters"...Logan will always assume, because it says *MAY*, - he doesn't have to do it! He proved this with the felon voters, the dead voters, the non-citizen voters...etc...
The laws are there. Granted - they could be stronger.....but if interpreted by law-abiding officials, truly interested in a secure election process, our current laws would work!
http://www.votersunite.org/info/SnohomishElectionFraudInvestigation.pdf
Wow...I could think of at least 1000 things worse than this in King County where the data would actually support a flawed election where a revote would be needed.
Guess Dems only look where they want to for "irregularities", eh?
Anyone doubt even for one second that if Gregoire had lost all 3 counts that this matter would still be in the Courts? I'm sure it would be...
Posted by: MTD on April 1, 2005 07:59 PMYou live in one of the most progressive counties in the Nation. The county seat is one of the most liberal cities in the Nation.
The County council will forever be controlled by Democrats thanks to the illogical strategy of some who believed that as you reduce a legislative body in a heavily liberal county you will get more conservative representation. Huh? Maybe we can reduce the county council from 9 to 3 people or maybe just 1 and that will lead to Republican control. Wait a second, that doesn't work now does it. Think about it for a second.
Suburban city councils are more and more controlled by Democrats. Witness the Kirkland city council's recent action on Tent City 4.
Democrats continue to knock off Republicans in state legislative races on the eastside of Lake Washington. Witness Jim Horn's defeat.
Light rail is being built, despite years of opposition from conservatives. Light Rail creates density and yikes, more Democrats. More light rail is to set to come - across Lake Washington and around it.
You lost. You continue to loose. You are the minority of the minority and it will always be this way in King County. Growth management and transit policies see to it that more people like me live in this region than people like you. Again, it will always be that way.
What is the end game here? Where does this daily orgy of obsession and furry take you?
Please advise.
Perplexed on Capital Hill with my non fat latte, in my built green townhouse, with a nice glass of pinot noir, and back issues of The Nation at my bedside.
In-person voting would have the same requirements.
Posted by: Mike on April 1, 2005 08:16 PMuh.....okee dokee..amused! (another freaking troll.....)
Be sure and wash your hands after you post here! And please find a more appropriate place to relieve yourself in the future...
Posted by: Deborah on April 1, 2005 08:25 PM
The problem comes when those of us not in King County have our lives f***ed up by your stupidity, incompetence, and dishonesty.
Posted by: ScottM on April 1, 2005 08:40 PMFurthermore, the problem in this instance is that Dean Logan KNEW fraud had been committed but did not report it. This is neglect on his part, and he should be held accountable.
DOCBENTON:
The study you link to is pure bunk. Maybe you should read up on statistical studies and the scientific method before you attempt to pass of such a horrible study as something legitimate.
The hypotheses of the study are flawed, because the presuppositions are incorrect. Case in point: The study assumes that the voters select (or are selected to vote with) either paper ballots or machines AT RANDOM.
Here is an alternate hypothesis that is not discussed, and blows the entire study to kingdom come:
Hypothesis: Republicans are more likely to trust, and therefore choose, machines to cast ballots. Democrats distrust the computerized ballots and prefer paper ballots.
It is very possible, even likely, that the choice of voting medium is not random, which would cause skewed results. This paper would not pass muster in a college statistics course. Well, maybe here in Washington it would.
What say you?
Posted by: Larry on April 1, 2005 08:43 PMMight be many of the same people posting, but millions of GOP read this place of logic every day.
Time to shift your preference to mad dog 20/20, I heard someone saw ted kennedy swilling a cup in a new documentary about drinking and driving.
Cheers!
Posted by: Dr Phil on April 1, 2005 09:00 PMDamn straight.
Real mean drink Merlot.
Posted by: ScottM on April 1, 2005 09:15 PMDamn straight.
Real men drink Merlot.
Posted by: ScottM on April 1, 2005 09:15 PMThe Seattle P-I reports that four Eastern Washington counties that voted overwhelmingly for Dino Rossi, tallied 1793 provisional ballots without first matching signatures to those on file.
“We did not check their signatures against our signatures in-house,” said Auditor Nancy McBroom in Adams County. “With the new law, it says, I guess, you’re supposed to confirm the signatures,” McBroom said.
Yeah, gee… I guess I s’pose so, Nancy.
If the courts were to use proportional analysis to toss out these ballots, it would expand Christine Gregoire’s lead by an additional 360 votes. However….
Posted by: hmm on April 1, 2005 09:21 PMApparently amused does not understand that King County is like Danny Devito's Buggy-whip factory (I forget the movie - anyone care to help me?) Sure, King County makes the best damn buggy whips in the world, but everyone is moving to automobiles (read: conservatives are winning EVERYWHERE else). Indeed, we have a Republican Attorney General and the Gubernatorial election was half a tie (if 261 is a tie - 129 is half a tie, by Gregoire's logic).
So let amused play with his or her buggy whips, while he or she drinks the non-fat pinot latte noir. Nero fiddled while Rome burnt. Parallel time and place.
Posted by: Larry on April 1, 2005 09:24 PMYou are also missing the point. Bringing up MORE reasons why this election was irrevocably flawed works in the Republicans favor.
Have you heard the phrase 'Cutting off your nose to spite your face'? Apparently Nancy McBroom has not.
Posted by: Larry on April 1, 2005 09:27 PMLet's see...the Name of the Almighty was invoked multiple times, the armed forces were honored three times, mothers were praised, and we all got to listen to the best bluegrass music on the planet.
Yeah, doc and amused can keep Seattle. Take Cascade County for the people who matter...the productive members of society.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on April 1, 2005 10:05 PMThe election process is NOT a partisan issue. If questions are raised concerning the election process in King County they should be looked at with an open mind, as should the questions raised in Snohomish County over the electronic voting machines there. These questions should have every citizen of this State, regardless of their bias, looking at our laws, and the systems used, questioning whether or not they are adequate. The catalyst or catalysts for bringing this about are also irrelevant. What happens to the favor of one candidate in an election could easily be used to the benefit another in the future. The questions raised are not whether or not a certain candidate won, but whether or not our election process can accurately tell us who won. What matters most is that all Washington state citizens look beyond the rhetoric and come together to ensure that their vote means something. I do not believe the elected can be relied upon to enact sound election laws. The problems with our elections are not new, but are exploited just the same as in 1856. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Pardon the cliché.
Way to balance your priorities, since what you want are fair elections.
Oh, I forgot, a fair election is one where a Republican loser is given the office anyway.
Posted by: docbenton on April 2, 2005 07:31 AMOh, that's rich. I've pointed out at least one way that the study is seriously flawed, and you reply "because with available data the result is statistically impossible".
Sorry, doc, that's just not the case. The conclusion that the result is statistically impossible is incorrect, as I've pointed out, because the presuppositions and hypotheses are flawed. As I said - you might want to study the scientific method, because the people who produced that study sure haven't.
You remind me of the story that ended Dan Rather's career - when it was pointed out that the evidence had been faked, he replied 'But the conclusion is still true!' Pathetic. But the use of logic has never been a liberal's strength, in my experience.
If you want to study Snohomish County, go right ahead! Nobody is stopping you. Just do me a favor: Construct a valid and logical study, okay? Don't pass off bunk like the crap study you referenced above.
Posted by: Larry on April 2, 2005 08:37 AMIf you plot the same numbers (IGNORING data after 2002!) on a scatter plot and do a best fit line -> you get a downward sloped line. Hey, wait. Not only is this line sloped in the right direction, it correctly predicts the data we left off the chart (because we knew the methodology changed in 2002).
I think all the touch-screens should go away though. They're too easy to _feel_ screwed after using them. Of all the system's I've seen I like the Accuvote hardware best. The only changes to it would need to be procedural (Block the polling-place accuvotes from reading the provisional/absentee ballots by having an unlabeled overvote in a corner somewhere, make the ballots wildly different colors, allow _ZERO_ enhancement - only recreation - which must be done at the HQ)
Posted by: Al on April 2, 2005 09:52 AMOnce again, I suggest that resources should be devoted to the potentially largest issues, rather than the non-issue of two non-citizens voting.
At least you are consistent with your peers in what you rely upon.
Regards.
Posted by: docbenton on April 2, 2005 09:55 AM(I say implicitly conceded because none of them argued that point. One immediately changed the subject, another told us about his curious tastes in beverage combinations, et cetera, but none say that King County elections are not wide open to some kinds of fraud.
As for the controversy over the Snohomish voting machines, it has been addressed several times here. Those who think it important should review those posts before pushing the merits of a dubious study.
I will, for those not willing to do their homework, repeat a point that I made earlier: Differences between the machine results and the absentee ballot results could be evidence of failures in the machines -- or they could be evidence of fraud with absentee ballots. Since the latter is fairly common in the United States, that is the logical place to begin looking.
And, just so there is no misunderstanding, I should add that I do not like the current electronic vote machines -- though they may reduce fraud, as mechanical voting machines (which have similar problems) certainly did.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on April 2, 2005 10:19 AMThis election had problems, but the enhancement process was not one of them. Again, you waste intellectual energy on an issue that is not worthy of the use of resources. At the risk of sounding naive, it makes me believe the GOP's only real goal is propagand, not getting to the truth.
Posted by: docbenton on April 2, 2005 12:39 PMI apologize if I wrongly implied thatyou are a Republican. But I'm sorry you've succumbed to the propaganda campaign.
Posted by: docbenton on April 2, 2005 03:44 PM