April 19, 2005
Advocates for illegal voting

Here's how the Democrats in the state legislature make excuses for their refusal to prevent illegal voting by non-citizens:

Q: Can non-citizens vote in our elections?

A: Although that has not been proven to have been a problem in the last election, within these reforms we are requiring that clear and conspicuous language be added to the voter registration form stating that the applicant must be a U.S. citizen and a check box confirming that the applicant is a citizen. Additionally there will be a warning put on the voter registration form that it is a class C felony to provide false information.

There is no database to cross-reference voter rolls and check for U.S. citizenship. We must rely on law enforcement to prosecute individuals who lie on their registration. In our efforts to better our election process, we must not disenfranchise potential voters who are given the right to vote by our constitution. In protecting some we cannot create barriers for others.

You got to love the formulation "has not been proven to have been a problem in the last election". First of all, it has been proven that non-citizens voted in the last election, although as the Democrats acknowledge, the public doesn't have access to immigration databases, so it's hard to say how widespread this phenomenon really is. But the Democrats will never admit that any amount of non-citizen voting can be "proven to have been a problem", because they don't view it as a problem. As for their comical measures to prevent it? The vote fraud invitation voter registration form already says you have to be a U.S. citizen in order to register.

Meanwhile, the P-I editorial board parrots the Democrats refusal to defend the sacred franchise of actual citizens

Among the problems that cropped up in the November election, there were hardly widespread allegations of voters claiming to cast ballots for someone they're not or of non-citizens attempting to vote. The Republican proposals seem to echo last fall's attempts across the country to intimidate certain groups of voters.
Of course there will never be "widespread allegations" of non-citizens voting if the newspapers choose not to look for such incidents and pro-actively discount the ones that have been proven.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 19, 2005 12:06 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Who's foolin' who?

It's not about protecting the process of the vote.

It's about POWER, the Dems will IGNORE illegal voters as long as they feel it's in their favor.

Non-citizens should not vote...sounds simple>

Try this for simple...those who (continually) vote these Dems into office are as guilty as those who vote illegally.

Posted by: smoke on April 19, 2005 12:23 PM
2. "There is no database to cross-reference voter rolls and check for U.S. citizenship. We must rely on law enforcement to prosecute individuals who lie on their registration."

Translation: there is no way to check if they are not citizens so the prosecuters will have one hell of a time getting a conviction to stick when they vote democrat.

Posted by: Adriel on April 19, 2005 12:33 PM
3. You have got to love it!

"there were hardly widespread allegations of voters claiming to cast ballots for someone they're not or of non-citizens attempting to vote"

In other words there were not voters claiming that "I am a criminal, please come and lock me up". Well, PI, that really shocks the *^% out of me. I would of thought illeagals like to attract attention to themselves.

To continue... "The Republican proposals seem to echo last fall's attempts across the country to intimidate certain groups of voters"

OK PI, which group do those nasty Republicans want to intimidate with their mean spirited proposals full of hate speech - the illegal ones? Horror of horrors! And BTW where did this echo originate? The NYT perhaps?

Posted by: Fred on April 19, 2005 12:38 PM
4. The following was submitted to Kathy Haigh to answer in the Olympian's capital chat session tomorrow- tune in and watch her shovel it out

"According to the Wa Democrats Q&A page, the Democrats are claiming that no non-citizens voted in this last election.

It HAS in fact been proven that non-citizens were not only mailed absentee ballots, but that they also voted. (I'll provide you with their names if you ask). Why are the Democrats misleading the public about this proven fact and understating the potential for voter fraud in the system?"

Posted by: Andy on April 19, 2005 12:42 PM
5. Adriel,

You're right, that is really a pathetic excuse isn't it?

Given they know there is no way to cross-reference, all they need to do is ask for proof when you register. Man that was tough, that took all of three seconds to come up with a solution! But I forgot, they are not looking for a solution to stop illegals.

Posted by: Fred on April 19, 2005 12:43 PM
6. Dean Logan is an alien, of sorts.
Word has it Dean has snapped out of his "Yankovic complex" and is a very good witness...for the Republicans!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 19, 2005 12:46 PM
7. No photo ID at the polls -- how could there be any evidence that people cast ballots in the name of someone else, when no one knows who is who at the polls?

No investigation whatsoever to determine whether people who apply to register to vote are citizens -- how could there be any evidence of noncitizens who are registered to vote and did vote?

The Demwits are essentially correct: No one has done an effective investigation, so despite the almost nonexistent controls on registration and voting, there is no substantial evidence of a problem.

Posted by: Micajah on April 19, 2005 12:48 PM
8. Y A W N !!!!!!!

Get off it. Everyone knows that all Republicans want to do is stop large numbers of legitimate voters from voting. That's because when the public really has its voice here, you lose -- and lose badly -- because you're on the wrong side of every issue.

Posted by: Nelson on April 19, 2005 01:09 PM
9. It's all 'weaslespeak' and gobbledy-gook.

Let's not let insanity rule the day. Keep speaking truth and common sense to counter their weasle words, that's all. A post like Stefan's certainly does that.

Posted by: Michele on April 19, 2005 01:09 PM
10. Cynical,

Any place those of us out of towners can read the scoop you refer to? Or is this just Republican spin? (Though of course, I can't see him reconciling all the answers, so his very presence probably makes him a good witness.)

Posted by: VaCSProf on April 19, 2005 01:11 PM
11. "But we believe that the real problem in our state is not ineligible voters voting; it is eligible voters not voting. And we will not erect unnecessary roadblocks to participation in our democracy."

Clearly, with all that they have said, their interest is in encouraging (nod-nod, wink-wink) free access, no holds barred, anything goes voting.

Why?

Because they know that conservatives don't condone or encourage illegal voting....

And they know that liberals do.....

Posted by: alphabet soup on April 19, 2005 01:12 PM
12. Anyone want to send me a voter registration form? I'm an out-of-stater interested in canceling out Yawn's vote.

Posted by: VaCSProf on April 19, 2005 01:16 PM
13. "The Republican proposals seem to echo last fall's attempts across the country to intimidate certain groups of voters."

NO, PI SCUM!

If these were truely echoes of intimidation from last fall you would hear drive-by shootings at GOP headquarters, mobs smashing Bush/Cheney elections offices, slashed tires hissing, crackling fire on Bush supporters lawns, breaking glass, footsteps of thieves and the crying of children who know what intimidation is.

The PI editorial board is only hears what it wants to hear.

The real echoes of intimidation still ring in my ears.

Posted by: Splatter on April 19, 2005 01:26 PM
14. Nelson,

Which legitamate voters are the reps trying to stop voting? The military perhaps. Oooops, thats the dems trying to disenfranchise the people defending your right to produce such dribble! So who else are you referring to?

Posted by: Fred on April 19, 2005 01:27 PM
15. Question for the Rossi Lawyers:

1.) Ask Logan, et. al.: How many illegal aliens voted in the NOvember 2004 election.

If the answer is none, ask: How about the two who asked to have their voter registrations removed? SOundPolitics found them out. You refer to that blog in much of your town meetings. If he says he knows about that then re-ask the first question. Then ask did you just recollect this? Then ask why haven't you determined the potential for more illegal votes in your election assessment? WHy is not the Elections Commission's actions to ensure only US Citizens vote? Isn't this the best run election in a long time in King County, per you, Bill H and Ron Sims? If so, then we can assume that previous elections had more errors?

If answer is don't know, ask:
Where did the newspapers and the Legislature get their information from?
Isn't it imperative to determine who is or is not a legal citizen and who can vote?
Doesn't an illegal voting in our NOvember election disenfranchise another legal voter.
If Stefan Sharkansky determined at least two non citizens voted don't you think there is more who did?

As one can see, he becomes trapped by Kathy Haigh's comments. Once she says no illegal non citizens voted, he is now trapped.

Thanks Kathy for again not thinking out the Democratic position. We love it.

NUFF SAID!!!!

Pudster

Posted by: Puddybud on April 19, 2005 01:28 PM
16. The thing that's most interesting to note about liberals like Nelson is that they don't really want to be a part of any solution.

Any attempt to propose ID, is met with only irrational dismissal on the grounds that voters could be "disenfranchised." Nevermind that these voters probably have an AARP card, an SS card, a utility bill, a credit card, etc. It would be almost impossible to live in this day and age without any form of identification or proof of address. It would be no trouble or cost at all for any legitimate voter to produce adequate identification. Yet it would create another hurdle for anyone trying to vote illegally.

But liberals are not interested in discussing how best to secure the elections, or how to reach a reasonable compromise on reforms that would make for a better elections process.

I suspect it's because they know that making voting easy, whimsical and less secure is to their benefit.

Posted by: Jeff B. on April 19, 2005 01:40 PM
17. Laws/rules ARE intimidating to those that intend to cheat, and they face the prospect of actually having to suffer consequences. Tough.

Posted by: scott158 on April 19, 2005 01:41 PM
18. This is classic. The question was:

Q: Can non-citizens vote in our elections?

The answer should be a simple "No".

But instead it takes two paragraphs to answer. That alone should be enough to raise everyone's eyebrows.

If the question had been:

Q: Is it Ok to steal, i.e. take something that doesn't belong to you?

Would anyone really expect a two paragraph answer?

Simple questions answered with complex explanations are usually an indication that someone is trying to do something they know to be wrong. They are simply trying to cover it up, or justify it by making the simple appear to be too complex to manage or understand.

Posted by: Jason on April 19, 2005 01:47 PM
19. "I suspect it's because they know that making voting easy, whimsical and less secure is to their benefit."

Finally, a Republican who gets it! You're absolutely right. The goal of all Democrats is to make voting as east, whimsical and effortless as possible.

That's because we know that the bigger the turnout (in states with large urban populations that have bright, intelligent populations) the larger the margins in favor of the logical, publicly-appealing centrist Democratic Party.

Only when Republicans can restrict voting to its tiny, rabid, anti-Democratic constituency can a Republican have any hope of getting elected.

Conservatives obviously want only male, white property owners who go to church every day and are gun-toting vigilantes to be allowed to vote. Anyone with a college education is immediately suspect! Make it hard for intelligent, normal Americans to vote, and Republicans can then -- and only then -- win elections in a state like Washington.

Democratic voting reform is to simplify the process and allow every possible legitimate voter the opportunity to vote. Republican voting reform is to make the process so difficult and confusing and then get their tiny -- but committed -- rabble to the polls so that the ordinary citizen won't bother putting in the effort to cast a ballot.

Posted by: Nelson on April 19, 2005 01:53 PM
20. Nelson - WAAAAHH -- WAAAAH - WAAAAH -- sniffle, sniffle

Posted by: Bill on April 19, 2005 02:06 PM
21. Nelson,

I'm sorry to hear that you would find it difficult and confusing to present a form of ID before voting. I guess that's why you find it difficult and confusing to understand that Republicans certainly want everyone to vote, we just prefer that everyone who votes is eligible and that they do so only once.

Posted by: Jeff B. on April 19, 2005 02:06 PM
22. Well, Nelson, I'm not male, I'm of mixed race, I don't go to church everyday, don't own a gun, AND I have a college education (and, horror of horrors--I buy lots of organic food!). And the Republicans don't mind at all that I vote!

So much for your suggestion otherwise....

Posted by: Michele on April 19, 2005 02:10 PM
23. Nelson...just curious...do you come with your own laugh track? 'cause its not coming through on my speakers. Jiggle a couple of wires, would ya?

Posted by: scott158 on April 19, 2005 02:10 PM
24. Nelson hasn't been taking his medications again and the voices have come back.

And it is too bad Nelson's "bright, intelligent populations" have not been able to rent movie videos (that requires photo identification) for some time now.

Posted by: iconoclast on April 19, 2005 02:12 PM
25. Nelson

You don't care about legitimate voter, just voter.

"That's because we know that the bigger the turnout (in states with large urban populations that have bright, intelligent populations) the larger the margins in favor of the logical, publicly-appealing centrist Democratic Party."

They are so bright and intelligent that they can't figure out to vote or are too lazy to vote if they have to do anything? Interesting.

Where did anyone say that only white males.... are the only people that reps want to vote?

It’s funny how you say reps want to make it complicated so that only uneducated reps can vote. That is a bit contradictory isn't it?

And of course you go for the insult that reps are uneducated, gun toting, bible bangers. If this is true it is amusing that the intellectual elite AKA dems may not be quite so smart if they can't beat this hick bunch.

You must also be saying that you need to be stupid in order to run a business, as it is the money greedy reps that run all the big corporations and oppress the proletariat. So the dems are so smart that they educate themselves into poverty?

Posted by: Fred on April 19, 2005 02:16 PM
26. Neslon,

I'm ashamed I forgot the best example of the intelligent educated bunch - your friend Teddy Kennedy, that if it were not for his connections he would have been thrown out of Harvard for cheating.

But that couldn't possibly be right, it is only reps that use connections to keep non-white, non-males out of everything.

Posted by: Fred on April 19, 2005 02:21 PM
27. Fred, Michele, Jeff B ...

Yah gotta love what happens to Lefty chants when you shine the bright light of logic on them. (Bright and intelligent indeed!)

I'm still laughing about the laugh track too!!

Posted by: lee egg on April 19, 2005 02:21 PM
28. Does anyone know if a transcript of the deposition of Dean Logan will be available on this site?

If anyone has any information on how it went I would be interested in hearing it.

Posted by: Frank on April 19, 2005 02:23 PM
29. more Nelson > /dev/null

Posted by: VaCSProf on April 19, 2005 02:23 PM
30. "That's because we know that the bigger the turnout (in states with large urban populations that have bright, intelligent populations) the larger the margins in favor of the logical, publicly-appealing centrist Democratic Party."

Too bad they aren't smart enough to show ID and proof of citizenship when registering to vote, yes it is to bad we have to lower our standards for the "bright, intelligent" democrats.

Posted by: Adriel on April 19, 2005 02:28 PM
31. Time to restrict voting to only citizens and property owners. Sure would lessen the ability of the renting class to vote for every stupid piece of taxation and welfare they can vote on.

Posted by: Righton on April 19, 2005 02:32 PM
32. "...Baysse-bowl hass bean goot tu mee!..."

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on April 19, 2005 02:33 PM
33. Hey Nelson, can you spell P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D?

Go on and admit it, you hear voices in your head don't you. Come on, you're among friends you can tell us.........

Posted by: BrianD on April 19, 2005 02:38 PM
34. Nelson - you still there. I would have thought you would want to respond to all the posts for you. Is the laugh track to loud and distracting.

Posted by: Fred on April 19, 2005 02:39 PM
35. Y'all leave Nelson alone.

He ran out of meds.

People, just where is your compassion?

Nelson, go get a refill buddy.

Posted by: smoke on April 19, 2005 02:40 PM
36. Nelson,

Please explain to me how you can so easily withdraw into using baseless stereotypes to make the whole of your argument, yet remaain a liberal? Am wrong to recall that the left has been trumppeting "Equality" and an end to racism and people full of ignorant sterotypeing? Was it not liberals who demand that we do away with such practices and treat people as individuals? Wasn't it liberals who told us 30 years ago that every voice must be heard? Power to the people?

Or just Power To The Highly Educated Urban Sophisticate City Dwelling Smarter Than You Who Has Never Worked With Their Hands But Can Solve The Worlds Problems Because They Have A Phd?

Posted by: useless on April 19, 2005 02:41 PM
37. At the election reform public hearing in Vancouver, one participant testified that for years, potential voters were not asked if they were citizens. In addition, when Clinton pushed the motor voter laws, anybody who applied for a drivers license was also asked if they wanted to register to vote. For years, they were NOT also asked if they were citizens as a prerequisite to whether they wanted to register to vote.

Even if the question is posed from here on out, without any proof of citizenship, what is there to prevent a non-citizen from stating they are one? What about the years the question was never asked? We need to re-register under legal names with proof of person, citizenship, age, and residence. If these are requirements for voting, citizens bear some burden for providing evidence of meeting the requirements.

Posted by: Margaret on April 19, 2005 02:41 PM
38. Nelson - that is awesome. Intelligent college grads have difficulty voting when they have to present ID, but gun toting maniacs find it easier? That is awesome democratic thinking.
Keep going, you are inspiring us all!

Posted by: Nelson rocks on April 19, 2005 02:41 PM
39. I guess Nelson has finally got some sleep. He has been Y A W N ing for so long now. The lack of sleep could easily explain his posts!

Posted by: Fred on April 19, 2005 02:45 PM
40. Nelson,

Democrats want to open it up alright. They want to open it up to fraud! Dead people, felons and illegal aliens. Those are the Democrat voters. When only legitimate law abiding citizens are allowed to vote, Democrats lose. Democrats want to "open it up" to busloads of out of state people to tilt the scales and if that doesn't work, they will hide opposition ballots (as happened with Lt Brian Suits of KVI) and vote for dead people.

Democrats are crooked to the core. Fraud doesn't make her my governor.

Posted by: VCRW on April 19, 2005 02:53 PM
41. I know it's impolite to use facts on this blog, but to Jeff B and others complaining about the lack of ID at polling places, the bill that passed does require ID, it just doesn't require photo ID. To Jeff's suggestion that utility bills would be a proper form of ID, the legislature agrees.

Posted by: Steven on April 19, 2005 02:54 PM
42. So what it to make one think the legislature cares about illegals voting?
They are trying to pass a bill now that gives them health care

ReVote I mean REVOLT!!

Posted by: Jim L on April 19, 2005 02:55 PM
43. Non-citizen voting (and benefits): Has anyone wondered what OTHER countries would do with the same situation? Jail perhaps? I.D.'s and verifications galore? Anyone out there see this happening in Switzerland? I bet not. Why are we the only foolish (excuse me--"inclusive")city/county/country? What a shame.

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on April 19, 2005 02:59 PM
44. Nelson: Get off it. Everyone knows that all Republicans want to do is stop large numbers of legitimate voters from voting. That's because when the public really has its voice here, you lose -- and lose badly -- because you're on the wrong side of every issue.

Let's see, 2004: More people than ever turn out to vote. Republicans pick up seats in the house & senate (the second time in our history a sitting president picked up seats), and President Bush wins by over 50%, the first time since 1984 (Reagan's reelection) that a president picked up more than 50%.

Let's also look at the polls. It shows that overwhelmingly, the people of the US are opposed to partial-birth abortion, in support of tax cuts and in support of the war on terror and the liberation of Iraq.

No, Nelson, it isn't that we are on the wrong side of the public. It is just that you are misinformed and terribly disillusioned. In fact, even in WA state, the majority of legitimate voters voted for Rossi, as the election challenge will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. This "blue state" has already turned a reddish purple, and you are in denial over it.

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 19, 2005 03:03 PM
45. "In our efforts to better our election process, we must not disenfranchise potential voters who are given the right to vote by our constitution. In protecting some we cannot create barriers for others."

They've admitted it--the 'Rats are the party of vote fraud.

Posted by: Bill on April 19, 2005 03:10 PM
46. My, my, the truth must hurt you GOP trolls. Suddenly, the entire wrath of all posters came down on little, ole me, for simply using a hyperbole to point out the logic that Democrats want bigger voter turnouts and Republicans want smaller turnouts, particularly in Washington.

So all of you turned both barrels on me.

No problem at all, but I really thought all you characters were programmed to hate Dean Logan and GOVERNOR Gregoire, not a nobody who simply throws out some comments on a weblog.

And you all also proved my point about relative intellectual capacity. Not a single one of you grasped the satire or hyperbole of my earlier post.

Posted by: Nelson on April 19, 2005 03:26 PM
47. "but I really thought all you characters were programmed to hate Dean Logan and GOVERNOR Gregoire" Ahh yes, relative intellectual capacity picking up such intellectual thoughts while treating everyone as individuals. Right down the normal consistent line! Nobody said that they hate either of these two - hate is a figment of the left's imagination (republicans speak = hate speech, democrats speak = 1st amendment right). We believe that she did not win the election. I doubt too many people here respect her, but hate is a bit strong. She only cost the taxpayers of the state $10 million as AG for incompetence, so that sentiment is understandable.

Posted by: Fred on April 19, 2005 03:49 PM
48. Nelson,

Wow! I had thought all this time that you were a liberal troll. Your posts today had me rolling with laughter, though! I finally figured out you're just a conservative doing a parody of a typical insane, illogical, hypocritical liberal! I LOVE IT!

Certainly nobody with half a brain would EVER write:
"That's because we know that the bigger the turnout (in states with large urban populations that have bright, intelligent populations) the larger the margins in favor of the logical, publicly-appealing centrist Democratic Party."

Everyone knows that we had the BIGGEST turnout ever in the 2004 Presidential race, and George W Bush TROUNCED sKerry BIG-TIME! There were more people who voted for Bush than LIVE IN FRANCE, for goodness sake! There was a larger turnout than anyone hoped for, and the Republicans won all over the place!!

Keep it up Nelson (or whatever your name is)!!! You have that idiot liberal persona perfected!! I'm still laughing!!

Posted by: Larry on April 19, 2005 03:49 PM
49. No Nelson, it is you who's intellectual capitol is too insignificant to grasp the very fundamental logic of what *we* are saying. Your inherent liberal tendency to sneer and mislead must make it hard for you. I'll make it very simple then try to elaborate.
More != good

For example:
Taxes - raising taxes disincents business from starting in the region, and makes them more likely to leave.
more taxes != good (fewer jobs)

Votes - adding more votes simply for the numbers without ensuring that those votes are actually only one-each from legal citizens means that NO election is safe from fraud. The only reason Liberals benefit from this is that Conservatives are disinclined to lie and cheat (the whole "follow the rules and take responsibility for your own self" thing ya know)
more votes != good (illegitimate votes destroy Democracies)

Posted by: lee egg on April 19, 2005 03:59 PM
50. Let's be fair. Find out what the requirements are in Mexico for a U.S. citizen to vote in their elections, and reciprocate.
If illegals started to vote Republican, say to stop Democrats from closing down some company, you better believe the Dems would suddenly become very meticulous in vetting voters.
Check the election in Orange County where Sanchez beat B-1 Bob by 900 votes; they proved that 900 illegals, students in some class, had all voted, but they still let Sanchez have the seat because no one could prove that all the illegals had voted for Sanchez. Of course, B-1 Bob was for a strong national defense, so you can understand why the Dems wanted him out.
Frankly I don't believe the Democrats have honestly won an election since Truman.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on April 19, 2005 04:02 PM
51. Nelson,

I don't need "intellect" to vote....Photo ID either.

Posted by: smoke on April 19, 2005 04:03 PM
52. VaCSProf: Try these:

more Nelson > /dev/usr/stupid or
Nelson comments> /dev/opt/app/coredump

It is so refreshing and funny to see these Nellie comments. Thanks Nellie.

Nellie said: "That's because we know that the bigger the turnout (in states with large urban populations that have bright, intelligent populations) the larger the margins in favor of the logical, publicly-appealing centrist Democratic Party.

Only when Republicans can restrict voting to its tiny, rabid, anti-Democratic constituency can a Republican have any hope of getting elected."

Things that make you say HUH?

Whoa Nellie --> HYPERBOLE? Yeah right, you surely did exagerate about the intelligent city dwellers. Such telling comments. That's why they always complain about the voting problems they have every election. Why? They continue to elect fellow Dumbocrates who screw them out of their right to vote!!!

Name me a centrist besides Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska? At least part of your name is the same, but not any brain functions!!!Barbara "Boxed Head" Boxer, Teddy "Offshore Drilling Mary Jo Kopechne" Kennedy, John "My Wife is Rich" Kerry, Robert "Pointed Head I Wear White Sheets" Bird, Robert "I have my Private Jet, Environmentalist" Kennedy, Hillary "Hide them WhiteWater Files, I got the FBI Files" Clinton, Nancy "I got Fined for Illegal Campaign Contributions" Pelosi?

You tell me Nellie. I notice you have never answered any of my entreaties to you cranail orifice? Whay is that? The truth confuses you? Think about it?

My first request to you was why did SEVEN major newspapers in left wing cities say George Bush won Florida in 2000. I suggested a Google search. Nelson's response - DUH?

NUFF SAID!!!!

Pudster

Posted by: Puddybud on April 19, 2005 04:22 PM
53. Don't those idiots know that Non-citizen voting is Not a problem, its only . . . an ISSUE . . . excuse me!

So when are those old nit wits going to catch on? Duh!!

Perhaps we should have more reorientation workshops?

Posted by: Abe on April 19, 2005 04:49 PM
54. You also need to be a legal Washington resident to vote in this state.

I personally know of 2 Oregon residents who voted here. Plus, how about the college students who are residents of other states and cast their ballots in this state.

Hopefully, all of this will come out in the lawsuit or during a federal grand jury hearing.

Posted by: Susu on April 19, 2005 04:53 PM
55. Ok, Nelson got his stroking in today and now he feels important (why, I don't know, but he does).

Tell us somemore, Nelson. Tell us the one about the model election again...I love that one. Especially when the evil step-sister gets the crown that her brother earned.

Posted by: Danny on April 19, 2005 05:28 PM
56. Well, Danny, I personally love the one about this being an election with an accuracy that any bank would envy--especially after Stefan's posts and conclusions drawn about KC Elec. of the last few days! Their record-keeping would get my bank shut down.

Posted by: Michele on April 19, 2005 06:57 PM
57. I'm surprised that Nelson would put forth such stereotypes. Aren't liberals supposed to be the ones who understand "shading"? That there is no black and white? Too bad his stereotypes, which may have sounded good to him, just aren't as accurate as he would like to think.

And even though I fit practically none of his stereotypes, the Republicans didn't send anyone to slash the tires on my van to keep me from going to the polls. (although I seem to remember some DEMOCRATS practicing that form of 'intimidation' in the midwest last fall.....)

Posted by: Michele on April 19, 2005 07:04 PM
58. "In protecting some we cannot create barriers for others."

I guess that means I don't need a drivers' license, or a building permit, or a licence to practice medicine.....

Posted by: Dogbert on April 19, 2005 07:07 PM
59. OK...Here is our biggest problem...

"the public doesn't have access to immigration databases, so it's hard to say how widespread this phenomenon really is."

We know King County WILL NOT verify citizenship for any reason. The City of Seattle won't allow their officers to ask about immigration status during vehicle stops or other public interactions either..(Even in the times of Ressam the terrorist!!).. The only times I can think of that proof of citizenship is (should be) required - is when registering to vote or called for jury duty... There are probably more activities that require citizenship but I'm at a loss right now...

So - Martin Ringhofer checked with King County to see if they had a database of non-citizens to purge from their jury lists.....They claim they don't - AND they said when a non-citizen requests removal from the jury pool due to non-citizenship - KC simply deletes their name from the eligible list and shreds their request! (They actually used the term *shred* I saw the email....) Why would King County wipe out this valuable information without using it to create a non-citizen database? This database could be used to cross-check voter registration - which could be cross-checked to verify jury eligibility!

In every instance where there could be checks and balances in our county government - there purposely isn't!

We need access to that immigration database! It has to be available through the FOIA. Obviously - with King County and the state now run by Democrats - who may very well be in power - in part - due to their allowance of non-citizen voting - a non-citizen database will never be created and our elections will actually be influenced by Mexico, Canada and any other country that has saturated our west coast population.

We need access to a non-citizen database! And we need to stop King County's practice of shredding jury requests for removal! King County shouldn't be shredding anything right now......

Posted by: Deborah on April 19, 2005 07:37 PM
60. For Nelson and those who have trouble with the complicated idea of showing ID at the polls:

Step 1: Go to polls
Step 2: Enter Polls
Step 3: take ID out of wallet/purse
Step 4: Show ID
Step 5: Place ID back in wallet/purse
Step 6: VOTE

Didja follow that? Or is that to much fer ya?

Posted by: BlueKnight on April 19, 2005 07:53 PM
61. Wait, BlueKnight...6 steps? You gotta be serious! I can't do that! I can't even count to 5! How about this instead:

1: Go to Polls
2: Enter Polls
3: Vote
4: Repeat 1-3 at multiple polls

See, now I can do it cause the math isn't as hard.

Posted by: VaCSProf on April 19, 2005 08:09 PM
62. Yes, the passage you cite is BS. Unfortunately the public (Republican AND Democrat) has trouble with cost/benefit analysis, so the party leaders have to pretend there is an absolutely right answer that has no drawbacks.

A better answer that the Dems could have given is:

Q: Can non-citizens vote in our elections?

A: Not legally. But in order to enforce this law, we would have to either (a) check against innumerable birth and immigration databases throughout the nation, which would cost a lot of money and also raise some privacy concerns, or (b) prohibit registration and/or voting by mail, which would inconvenience legitimate citizens and significantly reduce the number of citizens who vote. Even these steps would not completely prevent non-citizens from voting, but they would make it harder.

We believe that, while there are scattered cases of non-citizens voting, the number is not great enough, and the effect is not significant because they are not organized by one party or the other, to be worth these high costs.

Posted by: Bruce on April 19, 2005 08:36 PM
63. "a) check against innumerable birth and immigration databases throughout the nation, which would cost a lot of money and also raise some privacy concerns, or (b) prohibit registration and/or voting by mail, which would inconvenience legitimate citizens and significantly reduce the number of citizens who vote."

Geeze! Bruce!
What a load of nonsense!

What about (c) = require the Department of licensing to verbally verify a voters citizenship when registering - and making that DOL employee sign the registration - that they have verbally addressed the issue of citizenship with the voter at registration. That way the DOL employee is on the hook when a non-citizen is found to be registered - and the employee has signed the verification . Right now - no one is watching or checking or caring! This was not the intention of the motor voter act. Make the government employees accountable on every level!
For those who register by mail? Same thing. The employee at the elections department must verify verbally - all applicants eligibility. If the phone numbers on the registration cards don't work - they don't get an absentee ballot...The elections dept can send them back a notice to contact them for correct information - and then verify citizenship and overall eligibility. That election worker must sign the registration that they have verified eligibility. They are now on the hook.....as it should be!

Hey! That's how we would handle it at the bank...and we all know how Mr. Sims loves our banking systems....

Posted by: Deborah on April 19, 2005 09:18 PM
64. Bruce:"We believe that, while there are scattered cases of non-citizens voting, the number is not great enough, and the effect is not significant because they are not organized by one party or the other, to be worth these high costs."
You have no evidence to base this belief on, and the Dems are being very careful to ensure that no evidence either way can ever be produced.
You set up a straw man argument to the effect that a complete solution would be expensive, so we can't do anything. All I advocate are reasonable measures that will detect the size of the problem, and help to reduce fraud.

Posted by: Gary on April 19, 2005 09:20 PM
65. This is really starting to freak me out. I can not believe that I am witnessing a party in power that is blind to justice and encourages illegal voting, even to the point of discouraging and denying effective reforms. This is really unbelievable. The Communist infiltation of the '50's has finally come to fruition.

Posted by: zapporo on April 19, 2005 09:49 PM
66. ZAP
Didn't the 50's Communists call themselves "PROGRESSIVES"?

Don't the enlightened LEFTISTS of the New Millenium call themselves PROGRESSIVES?

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 19, 2005 10:00 PM
67. Bruce writes: "President Bush wins by over 50%, the first time since 1984 (Reagan's reelection) that a president picked up more than 50%."

Actually, didn't Bush 41 beat Dukakis by more than 50% in 1988?

Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on April 19, 2005 10:02 PM
68. Oops. That quote was from Jonathan Garner, not Bruce.

Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on April 19, 2005 10:05 PM
69. Believe it, zapporo - those people have a mental disorder and its all about them. Communist infiltration indeed ! As long as they believe there is a chance they will get away with it.

Hopefully, the Feds will investigate King County Elections from stem to stern AFTER the election challenge is over, regardless of the outcome. Even if it is ruled for a new election for Gov. to be held this Nov. (which appears to be at least a 50% probability) - this stinking toxic mess in King County by the partisan Democrats must be investigated and heads need to roll in order to restore integrity to elections in this state.

Then, the election reform aka voter fraud reform that was perpetrated by the Legislature needs to be overhauled, once the Governor's contest case is closed. Republicans and citizenry also need to show backbone and hit back at the leftists - as evil occurs when good "men" do nothing.

Posted by: KS on April 19, 2005 10:07 PM
70. Nelson,

You are really a pathetic liberal troll. Soon to be convict Gregoire will not hold the fraudulent position much longer. And the wheels of justice will catch up with you Seattle Socialist who engineered this whole scam to steal the election.

Posted by: VCRW on April 19, 2005 10:42 PM
71. It is a proven fact that liberals commit fraud. They do the drugs, have the out of wedlock prgencies, the abortions and commit the crimes. Liberal traitors such and John Walker Lind and Susan Lindauer (aid to Democrat Caroplyn Mosley Braun) and Jim McDermott make up the core of the Democrat party. Liberals are the majority of welfare recipients. Studies have proven this time and time again.

Posted by: vcrw on April 19, 2005 10:48 PM
72. vcrw --

Traitors? Well, yeah they are destructive, both socially and morally, but traitors? IMHO, thats lib talk.

Posted by: Splatter on April 20, 2005 12:26 AM
73. I call you on it.

Posted by: Splatter on April 20, 2005 12:28 AM
74. "Only when Republicans can restrict voting to its tiny, rabid, anti-Democratic constituency can a Republican have any hope of getting elected."

Yeah, uh-huh.

Remember November 2005?

Posted by: Bostonian on April 20, 2005 05:50 AM
75. I meant 2004, of course.

Must not post before coffee.

Posted by: Bostonian on April 20, 2005 05:52 AM
76. "Only when Republicans can restrict voting to its tiny, rabid, anti-Democratic constituency can a Republican have any hope of getting elected."

Actually the opposite is true.

The Democrats are so out-of-touch with the American mainstream that the only way they have left to maintain electoral viability is to enfranchise felons, the homeless, the mentally incompetent, illegal immigrants, the dead, and people who don't technically exist.

Posted by: V the K on April 20, 2005 06:13 AM
77. Deborah -- Having DOL keep track of who is a citizen sounds like a good idea. Conceivably some people might be concerned that people who look at driver's licenses (e.g., police officers) might be prejudiced against non-citizens in situations where citizenship is irrelevant, but I'm not sure about that. But I don't understand how, when people register by mail, the elections dept could "verbally" verify citizenship. Don't they need to see a birth certificate or passport to do that?

Gary -- I never said I had evidence that illegal voting wasn't widespread. I was simply saying that the Democrats would argue that they *believe* it's not widespread enough to be worth the costs of verifying every registration or the reduced participation if they eliminated registration and voting by mail. I agree with that. I also agree with you that we should seek reasonable measures to measure and reduce the problem, though we might disagree on the meaning of "reasonable".

Posted by: Bruce on April 20, 2005 07:37 PM
78. From a few weeks back:

State House democrats lock up the fraud vote: vote down amendments to even require photo ID to vote, let alone proof of citizenship.
Democrats get the fraud vote. It’s that simple.

So, yesterday, in the Washington State House Government, Operations and Accountability (now THERE’S a laugh!) Committee, democrats vote down EVERY AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE STRENGTHENED REGISTRATION AND VOTING REQUIREMENTS.

Every one.

Why?

Because, democrats get the fraud vote. They seek it. They foster it. They don’t WANT to eliminate fraud, because THEY BENEFIT from fraud. The end result? They’ll do everything they can to PROTECT voter fraud.

In the best of all worlds, the law would change to require proof of citizenship and legal ID to vote. It would phase in an invalidation of all drivers’ licenses, to be replaced with licenses only upon proof of citizenship or legal residence within this country. All current voter registrations would be cancelled on January 1, 2006, and everyone re-registering to vote would have to meet the requirement to show proof of citizenship. We would then have to show citizenship-checked licenses or other legal photo ID to be allowed to vote.

These are common-sense measures, sought by those who work to protect one of our most cherished institutions… the vote.

But democrats will spin this like a top. They’re all about taking every step possible to “liberalize” voting laws and rules, BECAUSE THAT IS PRECISELY HOW THEY PUT THEIR GOVERNER INTO OFFICE.

One day, hopefully soon, these acts of moral cowardice on the part of the fraud-seeking democrats will blow up in their political faces.


Posted by: Who... me? on April 20, 2005 07:55 PM
79. Conceivably some people might be concerned that people who look at driver's licenses (e.g., police officers) might be prejudiced against non-citizens in situations where citizenship is irrelevant, but I'm not sure about that.

Police Officers have enough *citizen* criminals here to keep them busy! They don't get *prejudiced* against non-citizens. They don't get prejudiced against anyone. I think in these times of terrorists - they should! But they don't - so stop with the liberal fear mongering!

But I don't understand how, when people register by mail, the elections dept could "verbally" verify citizenship. Don't they need to see a birth certificate or passport to do that?

I think if the election department took the time to actually verify voter registration in ANY way...a huge portion would be rejected outright for lack of valid information.. ie; phone number, residence address, etc...
It's not comforting to know that someone from Canada can send for a voter registration application and register to vote in our elections without worry of being caught. That is the current situation.
To receive a phone call from the State of Washington verifying eligibility may go a long way to curb illegal voters....

In America - WE WANT TO DISENFRANCHISE ILLEGAL - NON-CITIZEN VOTERS! Go think about why we want to do this......There will be a test later....

Posted by: Deborah on April 21, 2005 12:33 AM
80. The counties have a database of names and addresses of jurors who were disqualified for jury service because of five reasons that disqualified them. In King County, 35,525 were disqualified. Non-citizenship is just one of five reasons. As soon as we gain access to this list, we will cross match with King County registered voters, and check the voting record of these disqualified voters who have not been disqualified from being a registered voter. What better evidence then from the county itself? The county would have us believe that not one of these 35,525 disqualified jurors registered to vote, and voted? After we get this worked in King County, there are 38 other counties waiting for an equal opportunity convergence. :-)

Posted by: martin ringhofer on April 21, 2005 06:48 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?