This exchange in the Bill Huennekens deposition crystallizes the central problem with King County's handling of the November 2004 election.
p. 93 - 95:
Q When Ms. Sanchez said to you words or substance that there were widespread problems, or that the numbers did not balance or were off, and the machine recount had been certified with a difference of 42 votes between the candidates, did you not think to investigate to determine whether more than 42 provisional ballots might have been counted on election day in King County without first being verified?Yes.[objections]
THE WITNESS: At the conclusion of the machine recount, my focus was not on that -- that part of that canvass that happened. A recount is not -- how I was trained by folks in the Secretary of State's office and my education of elections, a recount is not a recanvass of the election. You don't go back and look through the poll books and try andrecreate the things that happened. The recount is simply a retabulation of ballots.
...Q (By Mr. Maguire) King County could recanvass during your recount if there were errors or discrepancies in the returns, couldn't they?
[objection]
THE WITNESS: There is a provision for if an error or a means of -- I believe it was in the statute, if there is an error or omission has been made, yes.
Q (By Mr. Maguire) In fact, Mr. Huennekens, King County did recanvass some ballots during the manual recount, did they not?
A Yes.
Q Those were the 730 approximately no signature on file absentee ballots; is that correct?
A Yes.
So not only did Logan, Huennekens and others conceal their knowledge of the reconciliation discrepancies (hundreds more ballots than voters, unverified provisionals in the Accuvote) from the public and the rest of the canvassing board. They selectively recanvassed during the recounts to correct errors that would likely help Gregoire, while choosing not to correct errors that would likely benefit Rossi.
If this isn't grounds for both voiding the election and sending certain election officials to prison, I can't imagine what would be.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 03, 2005 04:25 PM | Email ThisPaul - from Richmond VA.
Posted by: Paul Johnson on May 3, 2005 04:32 PMDean can really add a lot of BS to that meeting!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Nirm on May 3, 2005 04:52 PMI certainly hope the drift of the questioning of Huennekens and Logan is indicative of what the contest will be over.
Wouldn't it hillarious if it turns out Rossi wins on the irgularities issues and the Dem's have spent all their effort on felons.
Posted by: Deadwood on May 3, 2005 05:15 PMThe meeting will take place on May 11, 2005 at 3:00 PM at the Shilo Inn VIP Meeting Room located at 707 Ocean Shores Boulevard, Ocean Shores.
The Board will hear staff recommendations on grant requests from the counties.
The United States Congress passed the Help America Vote Act after the contested race for President in 2000 and problems in Florida.
Under HAVA, Washington has been issued some $60 million to pay for, among other things, the replacement of punch card ballots, the development of a statewide voter registration database, voter education, and electronic voting machines to assist those with disabilities.
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has appointed the following members to the Advisory Board:
Thad Duvall – Douglas County Auditor
Kris Swanson – Cowlitz County Auditor
Dean Logan – King County Director of Records, Elections and Licensing
Nick Handy – Representing the Office of the Secretary of State
Doug Cocheran – Former Yakima County Auditor – Member at large
Posted by: righton on May 3, 2005 05:33 PMThen when he is asked why they didn't recanvass after discovering those errors, he says they don't usually recanvass during a recount. But he admits they did recanvass other ballots during the recount. When asked (just after the section quoted) who decides whether to recanvass, he answers, "the canvassing board".
But of course, they couldn't recanvass errors they didn't know about, errors Bill didn't tell them, can they?
Posted by: California Dreamer on May 3, 2005 05:54 PMAre you saying that they fraudulently *helped* Rossi keep a 42-vote margin during the machine recount, by not recanvassing? (Damn elections officials.....always looking to help Rossi.)
And how was the recanvassing "selective"? Is there a shred of evidence that anyone knowingly avoided counting valid ballots?
And didn't you all not want *any* recanvassing to occur? Now you're upset that it wasn't done earlier?
Posted by: Huh? on May 3, 2005 06:59 PMThey couldn't correct for the unverified provisionals, but because of the statewide margins, releasing the information would either cause the canvassing board to forego certification, or at the very least it would have caused a statewide firestorm that no Dem spin could have extinguished.
Back in November and December, everybody's attention was focused on the election. Now, the information can be released with apathy protecting them from a backlash.
It's like the old adage in politics, release all bad news at 3:30 on Friday afternoon.
Posted by: MIMike on May 3, 2005 07:23 PMStefan!
I believe the transcripts reveal more on this....
It is absolutely incredible!
Posted by: Deborah on May 3, 2005 07:28 PMFirst off, elections officials didn't help Rossi 'keep' a 42-vote lead - they narrowed his lead from 261 to 42. But it wasn't enough, obviously, so they closed the gap during the hand recount.
Second, it may help to inform you how the re-canvassing was performed. The canvassers took the list of names, and if the voter was identified as a Republican, or self-identified themselves as a Republican, the canvassers did not contact nor help them if they were contacted. That is part of the 'selective' canvassing.
Furthermore, there's a little fact that has been glossed over. King County had done its due diligence - it had tried to contact those 730 absentee voters, some three or four times. Phone calls were made and letters were sent that were never returned. There was no way that those ballots should have entered back into the process - until the Democrats needed more votes and Larry Phillips suddenly appeared on the list.
So King County had absentee ballots that had been thoroughly investigated and justly set aside. Then these ballots were entered into the recount, and the voters were selectively canvassed.
And all this was going on while Logan and Huennekens were fully aware of discrepencies in the tallying of ballots that they were not reporting to the canvassing board.
I know, there are so many violations going on here it's hard to keep them all straight.
Posted by: Larry on May 3, 2005 07:31 PMAnd as for reconciliation problems, same issue. What do you do -- not count *any* absentee ballots? Remember, you can't pull any ballots out of the counting once they've all been taken out of the envelopes.....
This is about problems that happened on election day and once they occurred, couldn't be fixed by "re-canvassing."
The re-canvassing process simply identified ballots that should have been counted, but weren't. ALL of the ballots revealed during re-canvassing to have been improperly ignored were counted (except those that hadn't been properly secured) -- there was simply NO selectivity. (If there had been decisions to count some ballots known to be valid, and ignorance of others, I agree that would be outrageous.)
But keep in mind that Rossi didn't want the any improperly-ignored absentee ballots counted. Remember that? And it wasn't that there was any question about the validity of the ballots -- all that we had was a purely technical claim that it was "too late" to re-canvass. (Don't take my word for it -- read the briefs and the court decision.) Gotta love that ignoring-the-will-of-the-voters stuff. The same Supreme Court that ruled 9-0 for Rossi on the other lawsuit ruled 9-0 against him on that one. What a disgraceful attempt to win at any cost that was.
Posted by: Huh? Again on May 3, 2005 07:34 PMIt is precisely BECAUSE there is no way to tell who won the election (because of KC's and the Dem's f*** ups) that the R's want a new one. Actually, all Washingtonians who want clean and fair elections want a new election.
Those that don't...don't.
Posted by: Danny on May 3, 2005 07:45 PMGet your facts straight please. Those 730 ballots had not been "thoroughly investigated." That is simply false. Read the Supreme Court decision. Heck, read a newspaper. They had *not* been compared with signatures on file -- and were *clearly* improperly excluded.
Even Rossi didn't claim otherwise. He never claimed that K. County had done the correct thing in failing to examine the signatures properly in the first place....
It was all about stopping the counting of VALID ballots that could hurt him.
Posted by: Huh? Still on May 3, 2005 07:51 PMMaybe you should get YOUR facts straight, Attila the Huh?
You are correct those 730 had not been compared with signatures on file. Do you know why? Because those voters did not have signatures on file. THAT is why King County had tried to contact these voters - some three or four times, as I correctly indicated.
That was part of the 'selective' canvassing. King County DID thoroughly investigate those ballots, trying numerous times to contact the voters to GET THEIR SIGNATURES ON FILE. Those voters did not respond, and the ballots were correctly excluded, just as I indicated.
But don't trust me. Rossi's camp is in possession of the email string from KCEC that indicates that those ballots were investigated, and the voters in question were unsuccessfully contacted in order to obtain their signature.
Only when the Democrats needed the extra votes did King County PERSONALLY VISIT those voters to get their signatures - if they were democrats, of course. They were *properly* excluded in the first place, and *improperly* included later on. This is the *truth*, no matter how many *asterisks* you use.
I know, it sucks to be wrong, but you'll live.
I would be disappointed at the Democrats for not passing election reform this last session but I didn’t really expect anything out of them. I am very disappointed at the republicans though.
Confidence in our elections must be restored. Eventually even the apathetic are going to care when the people that represent them are so out of touch with them they wonder how they ever got elected. Of course the rest of us will know. They didnt get elected they manipulated the voting to get into office.
1) You imply that it was the fault of those 730 voters that their signatures weren't on file. Wasn't it established that the county elections office mistakenly deleted their signatures when converting data?
2) You say the county had tried to contact those voters numerous times. I don't recall having heard that. Please elaborate. What is your source?
3) You say King County selectively recanvassed only Democrats. I thought that actually the Democratic party chose to selectively chase down signatures from only Democrats, and the Republican party chose not to chase down signatures, and then the county recanvassed all ballots for which they were given signatures. Do I remember correctly?
Posted by: Bruce on May 3, 2005 09:31 PMUnfortunately, Frank, I don't think they will. And that saddens me more than anything.
It seems that the majority of the population is no different than a flock of sheep, going along, doing what they are told, satisfied with vague and often false, misleading answers to questions or concerns all in the hope of some measure safety or security or stability.
Each of them is prone to apathy or ambivalence depending on how a particular issue or its outcome personally affects them. In the long run, they really have little concern about the long-term cost of any issue until it results in some sort of catastrophic change in their lifestyle. No real problem about how life progresses until their own ox is gored.
And by then, it is too late.
Folks in general lack any foundation of the underlying historical concepts upon which this nation was founded. Too, they have taken what they perceive to be rights and privileges as entitilements. Each of them is a special interest group. They've never experienced a lifestyle where the things we hold sacrosant are strictly forbidden and the exercise of what we consider a 'normal' lifestyle is punishable. Terrorism to most of them is an abstract concept.
I babble on. Sorry. I think you get my [sad] drift. I so regret having moved to this corrupt state 5 years ago. It is a mockery of everything that I have believed in and fought for over my adult life. There are so many good but powerless people here. Nonetheless, I am still glad that my parents inculcated into my fiber the core beliefs about right and wrong, fair and unfair, justice and injustice. At least I will go to my grave with a clear conscience.
But at least I'll be surrounded by folks like Cobra Redleg, The Shark, Micajah, and folks just like you who still have a set of ethics and values that is meaningful.
Semper Fi
MikeF
Pull a hand full of votes out and stuff the box to fill the delta. If that's not enough, re-insert the other votes.
Anyone want to bet that more ballots will YET be discovered?
Posted by: Andy on May 3, 2005 09:37 PM1. I never implied that it was the fault of the voters that their signatures were not on file. However, the county attempted to contact them multiple times to rectify the situation. If they did not respond to the county's overtures, or if they did not properly update their information upon moving or something else, then it is the voters' fault.
2. You never heard that because King County did not release that information. And I'm not giving up my source. This information will eventually come out at trial.
3. I don't know the timeline. The way I remember it is that the Democrats got the voter list and began contacting voters before it was clear that it was legal to do so. The Republicans assumed (rightly, in my opinion) that these votes would not be allowed in the recount. The judge ruled in the Democrats favor (of course - it is King County, after all). As far as I know, the county never went back to contact all the voters, it only accepted the work of the parties. You're welcome to correct my recollections.
Posted by: Larry on May 3, 2005 09:55 PMMany Democrats and Huennekens himself in the deposition have tried to hide behind the fact that in theory, each county should act in a myopic way during the counts and simply get it's own numbers correct. This will be true when the election reforms go into effect requiring all counties to report their numbers at the same time, but it was a very convenient side effect of this past election for selective canvassing.
During the machine and hand recounts before and after the certification deadline, King County had access to the results of other counties and all of the internal reconciliation documents necessary to be as selective as they wanted with ballots making it in to the final canvass.
It was quite effective because all eyes were on the tabulations when they should have been on the canvassing and accounting. There is no excuse at all for Bill Hunnekens in particular not to have brought all errors, and all difficulties in completion of the reconciliation documents to the attention of Dean Logan and more importantly to the citizens of WA. We all deserved a chance to have a greater authority make the decision as to the completeness of King County Elections accounting documents before certification and during the hand recount.
If Hunnekens had acted more responsibly, it may have saved the state many months of frustration and both parties and the state many millions of dollars in litigation and other costs.
My prediction is that Huennekens will take the fall.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 3, 2005 09:55 PMJudge Bridges is trying to make it very tough for the Supreme Court to overturn his verdict. He has laid out a roadmap and is looking for numbers that will only be allowed if the illegal vote testimony jump through all of the hoops. I heard the Republicans & Rossi's campaign believed that they were about 75% there as of this morning - the Demoncats are less forthcoming and may be withholding more, but don't see that they are going to make any revelations. They are relying on the brokenness of the system to pull them through. They promote the disturbing trend that noone needs to be accountable - you only have to read the depositions to see that.
Hopefully, Judge Bridges will not only weigh this, but also the other fraudulent factors - provisionals and stray votes that either were counted for the Democrats or were neglected (likely Rossi votes) and all of the other evidence that was brought to light on this website by the Shark and others. If I were the Rossi campaign, I would bring all evidence and use Stefan as an expert witness. Sean Newman Esq. would be good to have as counsel as well.
Posted by: KS on May 3, 2005 10:14 PMI know that the Rossi team is using some of what I've uncovered. But they also have professional researchers and I'm sure a lot of their findings won't come out until the trial. They also have experts who have the proper credentials to give testimony, which I don't have.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on May 3, 2005 10:21 PMI'm not sure of Larry's source - but I heard conversation in the King County Canvassing tapes of contacting some voters 2, 3 and 4 times for signatures..yet other voters (Rossi votes) with the same missing information were rejected outright ....
It's outrageous!
Stefan, if anyone has the credentials, you do.
Of course the MSM would have a field day if your name was associated with GOP litigation. Wise choice not to give them fodder.
Have you thought of running for office? Maybe SoS? Stefan Sharkansky, Secretary of State, serving at bequest of Governor Rossi.
RINO Reed needs to go.
BACK ON TOPIC:
I have read the full deposition and feel there is definite proof that KC documents were falsified in order to cover up fraud.
------------------------------
From PG 353
A. The duplication of records in the file we released falsely reduced that variance number discussed in that sentence I just read to 1,217.
Q. Why do you say, falsely?
------------------------------
10,000 registrations canceled before the Nov election, then changed registration records after the election? They adjusted for and add to the fraud.
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on May 4, 2005 08:25 AMThe 730 or so votes that were improperly processed and later reviewed again after the Supreme Court allowed it are different than the votes that were counted after democratic workers went out and collected affidavits. Those were included in the initial count. If you recall, some counties were giving out information about ballots rejected due to signature matching, and the parties were contacting voters in those counties to get them to affirm their signature. King County refused to do that. The Democrats went to court and the county was ordered to provide the info. The democrats went out and got signatures from those who said they had voted democratic, while wishing the others good day. reportedly, the GOP either did not contact voters in King County or made a late, less effective effort to do so.
The 730 or so ballots were those for which no signature was found in the computer file. Workers were then supposed to go to the paper records to check, but these were set aside and never checked. I recall at the time, the county said it had previously sent mail to something like 20% of these voters but got no response. The error was discovered when Phillips found his name on a did not vote list. The county processed the ballots after the state Supreme Court allowed it.
Posted by: Wayne on May 4, 2005 08:51 AMI have a little trouble following your reading and interpretation of page 353 and fraud conclusion. Could you elaborate more? Thanks.
Posted by: Michael on May 4, 2005 10:58 AMWell Wayne,
That's what the script said to say and all...however.....there appears to be some holes in their story and perhaps some evidence that this was not exactly how things went down with regard to those 730 ballots....
This is no suprise. Liberals tend not to like Democracy. They don't like people voting on things. Liberals know how things should be, and it doesn't matter what a majority of voters want. They are not comfortable with the concept of self-rule. The elite liberal class needs to set the rules for the society. If it takes fraud to put the elite ruling class in power, than it is perfectly acceptable. The ends are so important, they justify any means. This is why many liberal democrats don't care that fraud got a liberal democrate elected. But just to keep the masses happy, you need to suppress the notion that any fraud occurred. Everything is just fine. Go back to watching your TV show. We'll take care of everything. The government is your friend.
Posted by: PW on May 4, 2005 12:34 PMIt's easy to say that's not how things went, and "if you only knew about the evidence that the GOP has," Mr. Cynical-style. However, I have yet to see actual evidence that this is not what happened.
It seems like a lot of people start from the assumption democrats cheat, and then latch onto any evidence or allegation that supports that belief. It also seems to be an article of faith that if the democrats had the opportunity to cheat, they did. Many charges have been made on this site with great conviction that were apparently either incorrect or unsupported. I haven't heard anyone accuse Berendt of bringing in false affidavits for some time, for instance.
Courts tend to be adverse to surprises at trial. You generally have to show a lot of your hand to the other side before the judge will let you present the evidence. I suspect that the GOP will not be allowed to present any arguments for challenging the election that have not already been provided to the democrats. If the story concerning the 730 ballots has not already been challenged by the GOP in its filings, they will probably not be allowed to do so.
Posted by: Wayne on May 4, 2005 12:49 PMThere are no surprises Wayne. Your problem is if it isn't in the P-I or on HorsesPooper, you seem to believe it is meaningless. WAKE UP WAYNE!!
May 2nd was pre-trial motions Wayne.
It was not where the R's present their whole case Wayne.
Wayne..have you ever been deeply involved in an actual trial??? And I'm not talking about a speeding ticket...I talking about one of substance Wayne.
I didn't think so doofus.
I use a very simple standard. I had my children, 12 and 15, read the news accounts and opinions on this election fiasco.
Their first reaction? They both said they thought there was a lot of cheating going on if you had to keep recounting after the election to change the outcome. They were confused that this approach was even allowed. In their dealings with other children, they said they would never play with kids who kept changing the rules of the game they were playing.
That seemed a pretty accurate description of what happened in King County.
To those who believe in simple "fairness" this election could only be described as a joke.
Now, to be fair, my kids are not professional politicians. Thank goodness......
Posted by: Elmo on May 4, 2005 01:22 PMA rare moment of candid lucidity from the other side.
Yes, it has become synonymous, especially on the political field of battle, that democrats are unscrupulous cheats.
Concepts of fair-play, honor, and equity just don't figure into their repertoire. They have no problem with the status quo because it (currently) appears to favor them.
Likewise, the "representatives" that they have ram-rodded into office brilliantly illustrate my point. "Emergency clause"? Plueeze! "I don't give a whit what you want, I'm gonna do it my way, then snap the key off in the door so you can't fix it".
What I am encouraged by is the increased level of dismay and dissent coming from democrats. We don't see that typified by the troll-ish comments here at SP, but out in the community I hear them frequently.
It just keeps getting better every day!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 4, 2005 01:54 PMUnfortunately, your track record concerning claims that some case-clinching fact will be revealed just as soon as the curtain is parted does not encourage confidence. I have yet to see any of your promised revelations come to pass. And name-calling does not help establish your opinions as valid. I admit I do not have time to read countless pages of deposition. However, the citations posted here have shed more heat than light. Therefore, forgive me for my skepticism that any huge surprises are in store at trial.
Posted by: Wayne on May 4, 2005 02:55 PMHere's the situation: any party that runs a big city machine cheats. Period. My dad said the Republicans who ran Pittsburg, Penn. back in the 1930s "were so crooked they had to screw on their socks in the morning."
I believe similar crooked machine politics existed in the Republican sections of Long Island, New York. I could go on with further examples, but you get the picture.
So, those assumptions you referred to, Wayne, are correct and based on known facts. It's just that most of the big city machines are run by Democrats now - so that's where the major fraudulent activities are.
It has to stop. Corrupt election operations are the most corrosive, destructive activities that occur in a democracy; just as perjury is the most corrosive, destructive activity in a justice system.
Posted by: Mac on May 4, 2005 03:18 PMThose durn pesky Republicans are out there tryin to snukker some good Democrats agin.
What will an honest workin feller do?
Good job Wayne. You got em on the run.
Posted by: Amused by posturing liberal ding-dongs on May 29, 2005 10:10 AM