When Ron Sims said back in February that King County's performance in the November 2004 election "had an accuracy rate that any bank would envy" he must have been thinking about one bank in particular -- the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle under the leadership of Norm Rice. Rice, a former mayor of Seattle, is Sims' old friend and political advisor and was even the best man at at least one of Sims' weddings.
Rice had such an enviable accuracy rate at the FHLB that the FHLB paid Rice $427,000 just to get rid of him.
N.B. And speaking of Ron Sims' weddings -- it appears that at his most wedding -- he was the bride! (go here, search for Marriage Records and enter Sims, Ron in the bride field)
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 04, 2005 09:00 AM | Email ThisYou omitted the link for searching King County marriage records.
http://146.129.54.93:8193/search.asp?cabinet=oprmarriage
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to reproduce a link that will show the search results page.
However, the links to the "Document Detail" for both the "Marriage License Application" and the "Marriage Certificate", both of which show "Carol Anne Topacio" as the "Groom" and "Ronald Cordell Sims" as the "Bride", are below. Just copy and paste them to your browser:
http://146.129.54.93:8193/docdetail.asp?id=Tk4NDI4vV%03%13MTB3ojO%21EjY3MCpkkzA1M&ms=0&cabinet=oprmarriage&pg=&id2=S8yNW88cA%03%0FN%21WYzR9kiTg3xgL%21pi8xO
http://146.129.54.93:8193/docdetail.asp?id=Tk4NTI3Q1%03%13MyovZ%21DT2DQ3N%21i%2FezA2M&ms=0&cabinet=oprmarriage&pg=&id2=i80L%21DAwL%03%0FNkE0aiNJFDc%3Da%21%21DMzE5O
You may have to hit the "Accept" button the first time you do this, and possibly repaste the link. It should work after that.
Wish I knew know to do HTML editing!
Posted by: Always Alert Richard Pope on July 4, 2005 10:03 AMThe "Marriage License Application" has the first section as "Affidavit of Male" and the second section as "Affidavit of Female":
http://www.metrokc.gov/lars/marriage/mlapp.pdf
Presumably, the form used back in 1987 was similar in layout.
The "Marriage Certificate" form has the Groom listed first, followed by the Bride. I can't find a blank form to link to. So here is the most recently filed (and scanned) Marriage Certificate from Snohomish County (which maintains the images on-line from recent years -- King County only has them available at the county records office):
http://198.238.192.100/imgcache/OPR200506304050-1-1.pdf
Both of these forms would be completed by the participants. I could understand some people (although probably not the officiant) confusing "Groom" and "Bride", but not how anyone could confuse "Male" and "Female".
The official index entries would have been made on different dates. In Sims' case, 5/26/87 for the application and 6/4/87 for the certificate. The same mistake would have needed to be made twice -- once for the application, then again for the certificate.
So if the accuracy rate is 99.8%, as opposed to 99.98%, the odds of making the same mistake twice are astronomically small.
Posted by: Alert Citizen Richard Pope on July 4, 2005 10:30 AMIt would appear that about half of the people listed under "Groom" seem to be females and about half of the people listed under "Bride" seem to be males. (However, I didn't find any apparent same-sex couples in the listing.)
So I think the problem was in King County Records and Elections data entry system, and not in any problems that Ron, Carol, Norm, or the minister had in completing the paperwork back in 1987.
It should be remembered that King County was not always a one-party banana republic. Many, many years ago, Republicans actually happened to occupy the King County Executive office and happened to be in charge of King County Records & Elections:
http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/members/d11/biography.htm
Posted by: Always Alert Richard Pope on July 4, 2005 10:39 AMOn January 2, 1987 and April 1, 1987, it appears that every Female was listed as Groom and every Male was listed as Bride.
However, on September 1, 1987 and December 1, 1987, Bride and Groom were only reversed approximately half the time, and were correct half the time.
You will find almost nothing on the computer between January 1, 1985 and December 31, 1986. None of the marriage license applications or marriage certificates were entered into the computer index for that period. Actually, there are a total of 71 for those two years, when there should be tens of thousands of entries.
On April 2, 1984, all the Brides and Grooms are reversed. Same thing is true for April 1, 1983.
On April 1, 1982, all the Brides and Grooms appear to be correctly listed. Also correct on April 1, 1981, and April 1, 1980.
1979 records appear to be a bit incomplete. Only two index entries in the period from January 10, 1979 to April 18, 1979, for example. But I don't see any brides and grooms reversed.
It doesn't appear that anything was indexed for 1976 and 1977.
The only entries for 1975 are made on January 1, 1975 -- which was a legal holiday. Nothing at all from January 2, 1975 to December 31, 1975. Interestingly, all the certificates recorded on January 1, 1975 appear to relate to marriages performed some time in 1979. However, none of the Brides and Grooms seem to be reversed.
The index is supposed to begin on January 1, 1975. However, I decided to search the dates January 1, 1066 to December 31, 1974. I found four entries, relating to recordings made on March 25, 1919, January 5, 1929, March 20, 1968, and June 11, 1970.
Fortunately, nothing seems to be recorded for the period July 5, 2005 to December 31, 2999.
On April 1, 1988, Bride and Groom still appear to be reversed half the time. Same situation on April 3, 1989. Same situation on April 2, 1990. Also the case on April 1, 1991.
Everything seems to be correct as of April 1, 1992. And also as of April 1, 1993.
My last date check was April 1, 1994, and everything is still correct. Since the Dems took over King County Executive in January 1994, and insituted a 99.8% accuracy rate, I assume checking forward from this point is not likely to reveal anything.
Posted by: Truly Puzzled Richard Pope on July 4, 2005 11:24 AMThe supervisor was transfered to the election department!
Posted by: ipsi-dixit on July 4, 2005 01:06 PMIn our little town, we have a bunch of old hippies that legally change their names on a regular basis to horsesh*t names like Moonflower, Cosmic Vision, Beater Volvo and the like.
Do you think any of these freaks with multiple names get multiple ballots????
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on July 4, 2005 01:33 PMWhatever happened to the (cheaper) and more honest "pursuing other interests" memo with a gentle but dignified boot in the tush? No payments. No contract buyouts. No guilt money. No "don't sue us" contracts.
Maybe those days are gone. They were harsh, but made a lot more sense to a taxpayer who now gets hosed coming & going with these incompetent bureaucrats.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 4, 2005 11:38 PM