UPDATE: Some in the comments are asking how we can tell this ballot was counted. That's a good question. The envelope was slit open and empty (if you look carefully, you can see that the top edge is uneven), whereas the uncounted ballots are still sealed in their original envelopes; there is also a database file that lists (nearly) all of the processed provisional ballots with their dispositions. The disposition code on this ballot says that it was counted.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 21, 2005 05:24 PM | Email ThisAnd for our troll friends..."Rove, Halliburton, Delay!!!!"
Posted by: Danny on October 21, 2005 05:42 PMThe others you've posted left that section blank.
Does this one have the initials of any person who apparently processed the envelope to determine whether it should be counted?
Can you post an image of the entire envelope?
Posted by: Micajah on October 21, 2005 05:46 PMThe *green* ink just states "Voted and credited at polls" "S/B 1106-967" for the precinct number... Conveniently..DID NOT write initials......
I agree - this one is undeniably fraud!
Posted by: Deborah on October 21, 2005 06:59 PMOh, and if you can focus on counting invalid votes cast in Seattle, Gregoire will get 7 for every 3 Rossi gets.
Posted by: Mike on October 21, 2005 07:14 PMhookr23,
No, it's not right in front of your eyes. Envelopes from counted provisionals are stored in separate boxes from uncounted ones. The envelopes in the "counted" boxes are all slit open and empty. But just looking at the front of the envelope, I don't think you can tell.
Posted by: TB on October 21, 2005 07:19 PMSusie, you have to let the plug-in (Adobe Acrobat) run.
Posted by: Dishman on October 21, 2005 07:23 PMD'oh! Can you make the links blink, so I won't miss them?
The full image shows the person who decided not to count this particular ballot, I think. Written in the lower right corner of the envelope is:
Do Not Count This ballot. He did vote in 1106 normally. BH
At least, to me it looks like the initials "BH." They appear below the note -- putting them on the same line as the name of the polling place.
For those who wonder about the "voter database" and its indication this voter was credited with voting at the polls, it indicates he voted at the polls because he did vote a regular ballot at the polls. "BH" confirmed that before saying not to include this provisional ballot in the vote tabulation.
As with the others, the envelope was opened, the ballot was removed, and the votes on it were included in the vote tabulation. Since there's no place in the computer database to record the illegal act of counting the votes on more than one ballot per voter, the computer database doesn't show that this voter also cast a provisional ballot that was included in the vote tabulation.
The result is a total of voted ballots in the vote tabulation that exceeds the total of voters credited with voting -- simply because some people cast more than one ballot and their illegal ballots were included in the vote tabulation.
Give Logan's gang credit for one thing, though: Their false "Mail Ballot Report" didn't show that they had rejected even one ballot based on the casting of more than one ballot by any voter. That was apparently true -- they counted the votes on as many ballots as any voter was able to put into their "system." Apparently, they really didn't reject even one as an illegal second ballot!
Posted by: Micajah on October 21, 2005 07:50 PMI think all of these ballots were kept separate and then Dean Logan panicked because Dino was ahead and right before the last certification of the hand count and they went scrounging for every ballot available.
Posted by: sgmmac on October 21, 2005 08:41 PMWhat up Claire, just another honest mistake by those honest little rascally rabbit KC Elections democrats?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on October 21, 2005 08:50 PMAccording to http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/2003nov/PPGen2003.pdf
and http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/2005sep/pollingplaces.pdf,
the polling place for precinct 32-1106 is the "Shoreline Center Building E"
Always game for a post. The question in my mind through all of this is, why wasn't this information brought up by the republican party's well paid lawyers in the election contest trial? According to Shark, he's raising these issues for the first time? What gives? And don't give me the "KC hid it" line, because the laywers could clearly have compelled production of information like this, but they didn't. Is there a reason they didn't go into this? Was it a mistake, or did they look at it already and determine that it's meaningless (maybe because you can never tell who these alleged illegal votes went to and therefore you can never tell who benefited from the improperly counted votes?). The other thing I wonder is whether these same types of vote counting problems occured in other (republican leaning - for example) counties. Is it unfair and ultimately futile to focus solely on King County. If these types of voting errors are common throughout Washington, wouldn't that suggest that what we are seeing is not fraud, but rather, the typical errors that occur in election processing - errors that occur in every county in Washington - not just King County.
Posted by: Claire on October 21, 2005 09:58 PMI seriously doubt you could find another county in the state that counted ballots clearly marked as invalid. But if you would like to prove your point, it is your legal right to request to see the records of any and/or all 39 elections departments in Washington. Please let us know what you find.
Posted by: dl on October 21, 2005 10:16 PMWhen I was researching my article for The Stranger I asked a lawyer on the Republican legal team why they didn't examine more envelopes and the explanation was that they had limited time and resources and "as it was we had to move heaven and earth just to get King County to release the electronic records".
So yes, the other volunteers and I really are the first people outside the elections staff to go through these envelopes and uncover all this crap.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on October 21, 2005 10:26 PMTurn this over to the Feds see if they can prosecute?
Bring a class action suit for violation of the voting rights act?
Buy a barrel of tar and a bag of feathers?
Bottom line is this, whatever the results of the Nov. election the results are not reliable. KCE has neither accuracy or precision.
The entire management staff at KCE must go. Sam Reed must go.
WA state elections needs top to bottom serious, in depth reform.
Once we lose confidence in the election system, the entire system breaks down. If we can't trust the method of the peoples control over government, the trust woven into our society will break down.
That's frightening.
We must stop the break down.
Vote in Nov.
Make sure Irons has an unscrew-able lead over Commissar Sims.
Vote every incumbent out of office.
Send new people out to do the peoples work with the message, do it right or your term limited to one term.
holt
Uh huh.....Whatever..
You 'dissed Rispoli on another thread here..now it's Irons turn.....so that means your vote is going to Ron Sims?
This is truly a turning point! Liberal trolls are actually posting as pseudo-conservatives - feigning sympathy for our grief over the corruption of the liberal Democrats in office in
our state.....While at the same time posting swipes at our conservative candidates!
They can no longer muster an argument in favor of their Democrat candidates and have to use this tactic!
It is so transparent and so juvenile....Go away.
Posted by: Deborah on October 21, 2005 11:46 PMWhere has Irons made anything but a negative impression on people? Maybe he isn't getting his message out in the media enough yet. He's also new at this. And his mom hates him apparently. He does seem more generous in his replies to his family than his family does to him. I fail to see why his sister would run against him. That bodes well for neither of them.
Posted by: holt on October 22, 2005 02:11 AMIrons should be asking voters how they like sitting in perpetual gridlock everyday and ask themselves what leadership has Sims provided to alleviate that.
Every single time a reporter asks David Irons about his family, he should CALMLY say the family dispute has been discussed enough and IMMEDIATELY attack Sims record on ELECTIONS, CAP, SWA, TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK etc. Never miss an opportunity to put Don Ron Sims King on the defensive!!! Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 22, 2005 06:59 AM
Now that's the first thing you've written that I can agree with!
I sure do appreciate your sunny optimism though!
(Go Irons!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 22, 2005 10:04 AMSims has huge mill stone(s) around his neck, Irons doesn't really need to impress anyone. It will be sufficient for many that he is not Sims.
Is Irons a great candidate? No. However he has won elected office in KC.
The big is issues is Sims, all Irons has to do is be an anti-Sims.
Posted by: JCM on October 22, 2005 10:04 AM"The big is issues is Sims, all Irons has to do is be an anti-Sims."
EXACTLY!!!!
Sims has much more NEGATIVE momentum than Irons has POSITIVE momentum.
I hope folks understand that.
Too often politicians focus on trying to win elections cuz they are so wonderful.
Huge mistake.
A seasoned candidate checks their ego at the door and clearly assesses his strengths and his opponents weaknesses.
No offense to David Irons, but SIMS has WAY MORE negatives than David has positives in this election contest.
I also believe David Irons will be a HUGE improvement as County Executive over Don Ron Sims King.
Oh, do I need to remind you all that:
If Don Ron Sims King wins====Logan keeps his job.
If Sims loses================Logan is FIRED!!
If David Irons wins==========Logan is FIRED!!!!
That alone is the MAJOR issue and Irons should not be afraid to thump that drum at every opportunity. Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 22, 2005 05:02 PM
Congratulations!! Good questions (even though an attentive, informed observer already knows the answers).
Who thought em' up and who wrote em for ya?
Thanks,
BTW, The Sims campaign knew all about the Irons hit piece - Sims and Goldstein did not get their stories to match though, because Goldy admitted to talking to them before he finished his hit piece, which contradicts the King Sims' press statement. People should be fed up with this stench at the top/Democrat, Republican or Libertarian. Time will tell. Nuff said.
Posted by: KS on October 22, 2005 09:22 PMMs. Rispoli has a valid point, however she should also be pointing the finger at Locke and Gregoire, because they were also involved there. The way I read Holt, he will probably vote for Sims - although he is hesitant about saying so. I would encourage him to not vote for either one OR vote for the Green Party candidate if he is disgusted with the candidates for King Co. Exec. for his own reasons.
Posted by: KS on October 22, 2005 09:32 PMI received a Sims' mailer this weekend. On the front page there was a picture of Irons on a street corner holding up a Bush/Cheney sign. That's going to make the connection in a lot of peoples' minds - Irons is a member of the Bush/Cheney "team." Not very popular in King County. Although this election is all about (and should be all about) local issues, I wonder how much support Irons is going to lose because of the negative perception of the Republican party and the current administration on national/international issue. Posted by: Claire on October 24, 2005 09:38 AM
Just remember - you get the government you deserve...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 24, 2005 12:02 PMAnd golly whiz, we could have elected John Kerry.
That would have been a hoot.
Like Soup says, "just remember - you get the government you deserve..."
Posted by: Amused by liberals on October 26, 2005 11:28 AM