April 14, 2005
Sam Reed in my column for The Stranger

My weekly column for The Stranger is now up

I was pleased to get some quotes for the column during a brief phone interview with Sam Reed. He was very gracious and also had some refreshingly tough things to say about the situation in King County. Here are some quotes that didn't make it into The Stranger --

I asked him if he's seen in his years as an election officials any problems like what we're seeing in King County this year. He said that although other counties have made mistakes in their elections at various times "the combination of them in King County is unprecedented", and that "rather than admitting to a mistake they essentially covered it up. This has happened a few times ... it seems to be the organizational culture ... to cover things up". He also emphasized how important it is to account for ballots. This is a basic part of the "Elections 101" training course his office runs for county elections administrators "you have to know how many ballots you have" and that it's "fundamental to good elections management".

Indeed.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 14, 2005 06:31 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Is he finally ready to testify to that in court? Most of what I've read and heard from him is that the election wasn't that bad.

Posted by: gil on April 14, 2005 07:24 PM
2. Will Sam Reed be able to seize the opportunity and correct this wrong?

"A stupid man cannot learn, an ignorant man has not had the opportunity to learn, but a foolish man is able to learn, has the opportunity, and does not do it." ~ Chelsea Quinn Yarbro

If Mr. Reed still in favors Vote By Mail fraud, I say no.

Posted by: Splatter on April 14, 2005 07:34 PM
3. *sorry*
If Mr. Reed favors Vote By Mail Fraud, I say no.

Posted by: Splatter on April 14, 2005 07:39 PM
4. Mr. Reed, please lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

Posted by: otto on April 14, 2005 08:47 PM
5. Regardless of what he says now, he was quite the steamroller in getting this election certified.

Posted by: Dan on April 14, 2005 09:10 PM
6. Sam Reed is a slippery fellow. He is most certainly PC as he says what the interviewer wants to hear (as in the case with Stefan). However, the proof is his actions (past, present and future). I haven't heard him criticize Dean Logan much, although he is now criticizing King County, when the issue is pressed.

The jury is out on Mr. Reed, until the Court challenge is complete. The judges will listen to him, as the judgments in the previous court hearings on the election recount all were in agreement with Reed's opinion. As far as election reform goes, he is mostly out to lunch.
He neglects to press for photo ID and favors vote by mail elections - As I said, he is a slippery fellow and I would hesitate to vote for him again at this time.

Posted by: KS on April 14, 2005 09:23 PM
7. The verdict isn't out for me. This letter from his "Constituent Relations Assistant" in response to my letter asking him to explain why the Chief Elections Officer didn't have the authority to intercede when King County began their revelations of mishandled ballotstells me he punts on all responsibility.

Dear Mr. L***
Although I understand your frustrations regarding our recent election, please understand that the Office of the Secretary of State does not have the regulatory authority necessary to investigate discrepancies occurring at the county level. All investigations must be made with the cooperation of the counties. Without the cooperation of the entire King County Council and King County Executive Ron Sims, Secretary Reed cannot and will not investigate any mistakes occurring within King County's jurisdiction.

Secretary Reed was constitutionally mandated to certify the election results in December. If Secretary Reed had not certified the election, he would have eliminated the right of the Republicans to contest. The Republicans have contested the election and taken it to court. Under Washington State Law, it is now in the hands of the courts to determine if the errors the plaintiffs site are enough evidence to set aside the election results. If a new election should be the outcome of the court challenge, the Office of the Secretary of State will do everything in its power to ensure that a revote is fairly administered under Washington State law and election rules.
Sincerely

Ingrid G. Pharris

Constituent Relations Assistant

Office of the Secretary of State



Posted by: Jim L on April 14, 2005 09:51 PM
8. If he does not favor Photo ID for all registered voters, he is part of the problem.
Now that they are busted, these guys in the machine are all ok with some minor changes. Then it's back to business as usual.
Reed has been a lap dog to the Simms machine. I agree with a post above in saying he seems to want to be all things to all people. A pure,dangerous politician. No grounding on this guy.

Posted by: Brad on April 14, 2005 09:54 PM
9. Reed's statement sounds remarkably similar to the statement made by Florida SoS Katharine Harris in 2000.

All well and good. Ms. Harris was forced to certify the election, since she like Reed hadn't the power to do anything else. I have no objection with Harris' action and, if Reed is equally powerless, I have no problem with Reed.

What may be forgotten is that the position of Florida SoS was eliminated after Harris. Katharine was the last. Probably because the position was as useful as---bicycle shorts for fish. So should Reed's elected position--SoS--be eliminated as was Harris's? If the SoS has no authority or true regulatory power, what good is it being an elected position? If the SoS cannot enforce WA State voting regulations, then why should any county bother to pay attention to them?

I am saving my ire for McKenna, not Reed. If McKenna does not instigate an investigation into the irregularities at KC elections, then he deserves to be kicked out of office in the next cycle. Apparently Reed is just a eunuch, so let's eliminate the SoS position and save a few bucks.

Posted by: iconoclast on April 14, 2005 10:15 PM
10. Sorry...

I must join those who are skeptical of Sam Reed....

He has had the power to stop the watering down of the election laws over recent years - yet did nothing. He sided with the Democrats during the hand recount - to have those bogus absentee ballots added to the totals. (Hello?? He allowed more ballots to be added to a HAND RECOUNT!!!!) He should have been the one to lead the charge against King County 5 months ago...Heck! 5 YEARS ago! He never has....never will.

I would not get cozy with the guy....


Posted by: Deborah on April 14, 2005 10:19 PM
11. Question: What happens when the righteous grow contemptous of their government.

Don't know?

Neither do I, but I think we are about to find out.

Posted by: Jericho on April 14, 2005 10:26 PM
12. I didn't mind Reed certifying because then Rossi could contest. So Reed was trying to help Dino, even though it looks like he wasn't. Because frankly, nothing else was going to be done about KC and he knew it. So the only thing left to do was make way for a contest asap.

Posted by: Michele on April 15, 2005 01:00 AM
13. You know what's really great? When you know someone personally and because you know them personally you know that, no matter what the press or other people may say about them, they're honest, hardworking and looking out for the people's best interest. I know Sam and I think that if a lot of you did too you'd know that he was doing all he could. Michele said it right. He actually helped Dino by certifying the election and letting us move on with the process. We may not like how the process worked and neither did Sam but his hands were tied as to certifying the election. Had he not done so and attempted to rewrite the rules in the middle of the game then he'd be doing what some Democrats often do.
And for those of you who are still not convinced, on a utilitarian note, are you telling me you'd rather have seem Laura Ruderman in the SoS's office, because that was your only other choice.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on April 15, 2005 03:25 AM
14. No, NO!
The question isn't, do they know how to do it right.
The question is, having publicly, and 'knowingly' done it WRONG why are they arguing that it was done 'good enough'!

Sam, you you can't 'fill' Bill's shoes!

If a surgeon botched an operation this badly, would he not face crimmial litigation?
Especially, if, when asked, he said 'AW, it's good enough.'

Posted by: Arky on April 15, 2005 05:21 AM
15. As the SOS, Mr. Reed could also request (in his official capacity) an investigaton from either the state Attorney General or the FBI. By seeking an investigation of all votes and all instances of flagrant errors in both the east and west sides of the state he would remain impartial and also support the prosecution of violators. That would improve my opinion of him.

Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 15, 2005 05:24 AM
16. If Sam Reed really thought the election was flawed to the point of being indeterminate, he could have kept his signature off of any documentation attesting to it's legitimacy. How? By resigning his office. There will be those who say he would be a quitter, someone who was not fulfilling the responsibilities of the office to which he was elected. But there comes a time when you have to choose which Master you will serve. There have been any number of principled individuals throughout history who have been forced, by circumstances, into taking such action. But the way of principled leadership is often difficult, and can require some measure of personal sacrifice.

But the thing I find suspicious is that Mr. Reed was so seemingly willing to jump of the Fraudoire bandwagon of this sham "electoral reform" commission. Serving as Fraudoire's Commissar on that lousy, stinking pile of washwash crap is a black stain on anyone's record. It should have been obvious that the purpose of that "commission" was to deflect attention from an illegitimate governor and lend credibility to a flawed process. Being Commissar of such a charade is more an indictment of character than a testament to it.

Posted by: Interested Observer on April 15, 2005 06:51 AM
17. "the Office of the Secretary of State does not have the regulatory authority necessary
to investigate discrepancies occurring at the county level."

"the Office of the Secretary of State will do everything in its power to ensure that a revote
is fairly administered under Washington State law and election rules."

SoS Reed is trying to sell us a room full of nothing but hot air.
He will never get my vote, again.

Posted by: otto on April 15, 2005 08:06 AM
18. Interested Observer, and otto,

Spot on.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 15, 2005 10:18 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?