Hat tip to Bob Edelman of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation for taking a close look at his absentee ballot and discovering that it violates state law on mail forwarding. Hundreds or possibly thousands of ballots are likely to be inappropriately forwarded to voters who have moved and are not eligible to vote the ballot they receive. We can expect many of them to unknowingly (or otherwise) cast illegal ballots. Here is a scan of Edelman's ballot materials (1.7MB PDF, 8 pages).
Note that the outer envelope that is sent to the voter [p. 1] contains the endorsement "Forwarding Service Requested". This means that the post office will forward a patron's mail within the first 12 months of moving without notifying the sender of the new address. State law RCW 29A.40.091 is clear on what the absentee ballot must contain if ballots are forwarded:
If the county auditor chooses to forward absentee ballots, he or she must include with the ballot a clear explanation of the qualifications necessary to vote in that election and must also advise a voter with questions about his or her eligibility to contact the county auditor.The required explanation and advice are not included with the ballot. The only thing that comes close to an "explanation of the qualifications" is the fine print on the return envelope below the spot for the return address [p. 7]. But that's both likely to be missed and no substitute for a "clear explanation". Nowhere is there any advice for voters with questions about eligibility to contact the auditor. Furthermore,WAC 434-240-190 requires postal service endorsements which
receive from the post office the addresses to which ballots were forwardedBecause the county will not receive forwarding addresses as is required, many of these inappropriately addressed ballots will also be sent for the general election.
A King County Elections worker who had responsibility for absentee ballots under Bob Bruce reviewed Edelman's absentee ballot materials and notes how incorrectly this year's ballots were prepared --
Topic #1: If they are using the cautionary language under the return address lines on the return envelope as "the clear explanation of the qualifications", I would find it laughable.One more point:You see, with one small change they have made, we wrote that little warning.
The original reason for it was that people were writing in a new address in the address return area and assumed that was all they needed to do to permanently change the address on their voter registration. Those envelopes never even come near the people who handle voter registrations, and it's not the way to change one's registration anyhow. So, that warning started appearing in 2000, to stop the flood of "changes" coming in via cryptic scribbles on absentee envelopes.
For the target audience of people who try to inappropriately change their addresses on the return address lines, I feel it is appropriately placed. But it was NEVER intended to be the clear explanation of qualifications to vote in your precinct.
(They have changed our longer wording "currently physically reside, or claim as your legal permanent residence", to: "Currently reside", which I don't think provides enough infromation. Oh, well.)
Topic #2: They have the wrong indicia on their envelopes. It should be Address service requested.
The outer envelopes used to have the equivalent of Address Service Requested, but the phrasing was a bit different until 2002, when an overhaul of the USPS mail catgories was done, and postal indicia were changed in several categories.
Address Service worked (and works) in that we would get a white postcard with data back on anyone whose ballot had been forwarded, so we could change their address and take them off permanent absentee from that card. The reason: if we receivd a change of address notice from the post office, and the voter had not already changed their address, they were supposed to be removed from permanent absentee and notified, and were not to be replaced on perm abs again until they corrected their address.
The office would have had to change the indicia to accomodate the new wording in early 2003 to make this change.
Evidently they chose the wrong indicia. Hah. IF the entire mailing uses "forwarding service requested", rather than "address service", then the whole mailing is out of compliance with the statute.
However, I think they sent Bob's ballot (and god knows how many others) in the wrong envelope.... see below:
[Stefan interjects: unlike Edelman, my wife is permanent absentee. Her envelope also says "Forwarding service requested", but was sent under a Non Profit Org permit]
Topic #3: Ask Bob Edelman how he requested his ballot? Look at his
packet - it has full first class postage placed on it through a metered sticker on it. If he is on permanent absentee, that would mean that they specifically pulled his ballot out to send first class, which means they are probably covering up some problem with the mail out.Unless...is Bob a service voter? They have used the wrong envelope for him, unless he's with the state department or active military (at his age?) and I am unaware of that. There most assuredly is postage required for regular absentee ballots - they are sent first class pre-sorted, with the postage applied by permit. Look, it's a DMM envelope, with first class postage applied to it.
I wonder how many were sent that way?
I have another beef with this envelope - under the voter's siganture, there is a line for "phone number". No where does this clarify that providing your phone number is optional, and used only if there is a problem with the signature, AND! that once you put your phone number down on the envelope, it becomes public record. And the political parties have access to that information.
Anybody who guards their unlisted/unpublished number should be damn pissed to have given their phone number, thinking it was required on their ballot, only to find that it was requested for the convenience of the election office and now was publicly available.
Notice Bob's envelope has 60 cents postage. That's full-freight first class for 2 oz. mail pieces. No presorting discount, etc.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 02, 2005 11:48 AM | Email ThisThe presorted non-profit first class rate that the election office gets is either 11 cents or 13 cents per piece outgoing.
If Bob's was a one-shot wonder, then they only wasted about 47 cents.
If they incorrectly inserted a whole bunch of ballots into DMM envelopes and had to put postage on all of them, it could be hundreds or thousands of dollars we are talking about.
All waste of public funds....
But it's possible that they took the one time requests received recently and processed them at the counter to get them out sooner. If the proper envelope was used, then they could have still been pre-sorted into the day's outgoing mail (there are a few hundred new requests each day during a county wide election, or at least used to be), and have gained at least a partial rate discount. But his looks like it was mailed all by its little lonesome.
There could be a reasonable explanation that doesn't involve waste. His packet could have been damaged in the ballot insertion machinery and was pulled out of sequence on the line. In that case, I would think it was reasonable to send one ballot on its own, to ensure that the problem was corrected and the voter got his ballot.
Even if the above explanation is the case, disturbing to me is that a local voter should NEVER receive a ballot in a DMM envelope, which is postage paid by the Feds, and doesn't have the correct indicia for local presorted first class mailing. That shows that someone is being very, very careless in the envelope stuffing department down there.
The only thing they learned is that they can steal elections in broad daylight, go to court, and get off scot-free. This experience will only make them MORE brazen, I'm afraid...They basically have a free license to do whatever they want now, so long as Sims and Reed are in charge...
Posted by: Scott on September 2, 2005 12:59 PMThis is really ridiculous. I'm so glad Stefan & the EFF are on this, BEFORE the primary! This means no excuses for the Elections Dept.! If there's a close vote and David Irons loses (God forbid), we can not accept an outcome like we just got with the Rossi election contest. ACCOUTABILITY!
where is the local media?
Where is the State RNC?
Posted by: dano on September 2, 2005 01:11 PMBut Dean Logan fixed everything, he said so. Oh, and they fired Nicole Way, she was the problem. Its all right, don't worry the election is in good hands.
/sarc off
Posted by: JCM on September 2, 2005 01:19 PMYou are mis-understanding the reason that the ballot materials are out of compliance.
In the PDF materials, note WAC 434-238-080, which states, in part, "The county auditor has the option to forward mail ballots. The envelopes in which the ballots are mailed to the voters shall be mailed with either:
(1) Postal service endorsements to prevent forwarding of ballots..."
OR,
"(2) Postal service endorsements to allow forwarding of the ballots, to receive from the post office the addresses to which ballots were forwarded, and the return of unforwardable ballots. Forwarded ballots shall also include a clear explanation of the qualifications necessary to vote in that election...."
King County has chosen option 2.
KCREALS has not done a good job of making the qualifications to vote the forwarded absentee ballot clear, that is true, but what makes the mailing in gross violation of election laws and administrative rules (which have the same force as law) is that "Forwarding Service" only forwards the ballot to the voter, it provides no forwarding information to the election office. This is not in compliance with WAC 434-238-080(2).
The county should have used "Address Service" if they wished to make the policy decision to allow forwarding of ballots. Address Service (as you will note on page 1 of the PDF) forwards the ballot if the address change is recent, AND provides the forwarding information on a seperate postcard to the county elections office for proper handling.
So, essentially, the ballot gets forwarded, and the County soldiers on in an information vacuum. As they get no notification of which ballots have been forwarded, they have no idea the address is bad, and will continue to send ballots out to the wrong address.
Only "Address Service" is in compliance with WAC 434-238-080(2). "Forwarding Service" is not, and that is the key item that makes the whole mailing problematic.
Posted by: Quiet Observer on September 2, 2005 01:39 PMWho are we kidding? Nobody is going to do ANYTHING! The libs won this time (and maybe forever....) by admitting malfeasance and graft (in court, no less!!) and were given a pass.
I personally see no point in voting in this county anymore, maybe the state, as well, since a large number of counties are going to mail-in votes, and we know how accurate THEY are.
Does anybody notice that we don't even get to vote on HOW we vote? THAT is also decided for us.
Game, set, match.
I have never been more disgusted with my governmental representatives. (on BOTH sides!)
The revolution can't come soon enough for me.
Posted by: Elmo on September 2, 2005 02:31 PMFor instance, why are voters asked to swear that "It is illegal to vote if I am not a United States citizen" instead of "I am a citizen of the United States"?
Posted by: No Thanks on September 2, 2005 02:38 PMI once told someone in KCREALS that ballots sent to boarding houses are not forwarded or returned, due to Post Office rules. I asked whether anything was done about that, and was told, "no."
I imagine that there are thousands of improper registrations listed at boarding houses, because mail is never returned to the Elections department.
Posted by: Tim B. on September 2, 2005 03:50 PMThe oath doesn't meet the requirements of the WAC because it doesn't give a "clear explanation of the qualifications necessary to vote" in the primary. You can meet all of the affirmations and be voting on the wrong ballot. For example, someone could move to Spokane, vote a King County ballot, and sign the oath without realizing that he or she is not qualified to vote for King County offices. Also there is nothing about calling King County if there are questions about eligibility - only a notice about changing registration.
The other problem is that Logan won't know were forwarded ballots went and won't be able to correct the rolls because he is using the wrong postal endorsement. Many of the same people will be getting general election absentee ballots for the wrong jurisdictions because of his failures.
Posted by: Bob Edelman on September 2, 2005 03:51 PMHow do they still have a job? I mean seriously.....this can't happen. These people are clueless and we are stuck with them until the current leadership is ousted. I have a young child and I don't want these people deciding issues regarding their future.
Strive for Excellence...not Mediocrity.
Posted by: Dengle on September 2, 2005 04:53 PMAlso, 1995 RCW 29.36.045 said "the oath...on the envelope shall contain a declaration by the absentee voter RECITING his or her qualifications..." The statement now that "It is illegal to vote if I am not a United States citizen" does not recite the voter's qualifications.
Also, 1995 RCW 29.36.045 said "the oath...on the envelope shall contain a declaration by the absentee voter RECITING his or her qualifications..." The statement now that "It is illegal to vote if I am not a United States citizen" does not recite the voter's qualifications.
It says:
Non Profit Org
US Postage Paid
Seattle,WA
PERMIT NO 1455
Is this how Bob's postage was?
Also - I see : "Forwarding Service Requested" beneath King County's address on the front of the envelope.....
And a line for your phone number with nothing to indicate that it is optional.
Incredible!
Posted by: Deborah on September 2, 2005 10:39 PMI'm still getting absentee ballots at my address for someone that has not lived in this house for 4 years and who has not been a resident of Washington State for 2 years.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on September 2, 2005 11:35 PMThe end justifies the means when a Demcorat needs an election in Seattle.
Posted by: Election Doctor on September 3, 2005 08:36 AMIn a red outlines box it does say,
"Important: Failure to Sign and Date this envelope may invalidate your ballot."
There is no mention that the phone number is optional or that it would become public record if given.
I would think that with all of the publicity that King County has received - that even some of the leftist pinheads will vote against Sims in November and help elect David Irons.
One can only hope and pray that people will see that in order to rescue King County out of the slimy abyss of corruption, that the first step is to elect David Irons and restore integrity to County Government and get rid of Dean Logan - who should be blamed almost as much as Sims for the so-called culture of incompetence in KCE.
Posted by: KS on September 4, 2005 06:58 PM
To discuss Kitsap County's procedures, all Logan would have to do is wake up at 6am and turn on his pillow and ask a question, as his WIFE is deputy Auditor for Kitsap (a job Logan arranged for her).
If Kitsap got it right this time (there's a lot they get wrong, as well), then that's another indicator that Logan has some serious management and leadership defeciencies. If he knows what the endorsement indicia should be and never communicated that to his staff, or if he did communicate it, but never followed through with supervision to ensure it was done correctly, then he is personally responsible.
Posted by: Observer on September 5, 2005 11:11 AM