The King County Republican Party will be holding a press conference outside the King County Elections office on Wednesday to announce challenges to the registrations of 1,943 voters who are illegally registered to vote at private mail box services and storage rental facilities.
State law requires that a voter registration can be accepted only if it includes a "valid residence address", which a mail box or storage locker obviously are not.
Concerns about mail box voters were first publicized in a 1998 KING-5 exposé. KC Elections subsequently implemented new procedures to prevent registrations at private mail box companies. Those safeguards have since been removed by Dean Logan.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 24, 2005 04:23 PM | Email ThisEven so, obscuring his failure to do his job will get more and more difficult for Mr. Logan.
Tick, tock.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on October 24, 2005 05:15 PMIf not, things might get interesting pretty quickly.
I doubt there are many Washington residents who realize what a dumb thing their legislature has done by requiring that the person submitting the challenge provide the actual residence address of the person being challenged:
"The person filing the challenge must furnish the address at which the challenged voter actually resides."
In some situations, that may be easily done; but can it be easily done for all the persons the GOP intends to challenge?
How can democrats vote this way? Years ago the Democrat were a respectable party. Now look at them: Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Hillary & Bill Clinton, Gore, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Vomit, Puke, Crap...
Posted by: RealMen on October 24, 2005 06:03 PMIf 100 people did this, they might get a little tired of the emails and do something.
Posted by: Norm on October 24, 2005 06:19 PMOr, ... they'd hit the little "Create Filter" button on their email and never hear from you again. Call me cynical but...
Posted by: Calvin A on October 24, 2005 06:34 PMA deeper look into the *actual* residences of those mail box voters could prove to be more damning to King County than the original challenge!
Many of these mail box voters list their mailing address out of state or out of the country......causing one to question residency and /or citizenship eligibility...
You've got one law - requiring the county auditor to check that the voter is using a valid residence address on their registration.....then you have a law that requires a challenger to provide the voter's valid residence address... I'm thinking the Republicans need to challenge the county auditor - not the individual mail box voters...
It was Dean Logan, acting as the county auditor, who first broke the law by not bothering to check the mailbox voters residence addresses...
I'm watching King 5 news right now and they are showing a felon who continues to get absentee ballots - even though he went down to the KC election department in person to have them stop sending them....
This should be enough to show the public that Ron Sims and Dean Logan have done NOTHING to clean up their election problems! They are soooo busted!
I can only hope that after the dust settles the real crooks get their justice.
Keep them on their toes Stefan, their "incompetence" is an unacceptable and illegal abuse of administrative power.
The persistent obsession w/electoral law minutiae has gone beyond sad, it's now simply laughable. Real people register at P.O. boxes or make myriad numbers of errors that violate your green-eyeshade standards all the time. That does not equate to fraud. Some people have jobs, lives, and such.
You surpass the Pecksniffian standards of Kenneth ("I'm proud I spent $47 million dollars to discover that egregious act of sodomy") Starr.
Posted by: bartelby on October 24, 2005 07:21 PMObvious from your posts, you must be an illegal alien....Cause YOU DONT CARE about the rest of the voters of this state who are disenfranchised by the ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES that just spew from KC Elections.
Get a Life, or at least a passport.
Posted by: Chris on October 24, 2005 07:34 PM
Try nineteen hundred f@cking votes, moron...you aren't too bright, are you?
Actually....
If this occurred once or twice - it may be considered an *error*....However, considering that it occurred 1,943 times?........Well..I'd say that demonstrated a large volume of fraud! Considering that the one person (Dean Logan) in the county - in the position to enforce this law, is on record for purposely ignoring it...makes him the perpetrator of a crime against a Washington Administrative Code...
Considering his boss, Ron Sims, is on record for endorsing all of Dean Logan's actions within the King County Elections office....I would say that he (Sims) is a co-conspirator in this crime against the WAC...
Considering that their actions (Logan and Sims) may have contributed to the election of members of their party (Democrats) - who may not have won their races without the perpetrated fraud by the illegal mailbox voters......I'd say - there's enough here to investigate whether or not Logan's actions were an error or fraud.
Don'tcha think?
Posted by: Deborah on October 24, 2005 07:48 PMAw Jeeze!
I should have just used south county's approach here.....(snicker).....
What part of illegal do you not understand?
Since you're to dense to click a link here is an excerpt:
RCW 29A.08.110
Auditor's procedure. (Effective January 1, 2006.)
(1) An application is considered complete only if it contains the applicant's name, complete valid residence address, date of birth, signature attesting to the truth of the information provided, a mark in the check-off box confirming United States citizenship, and an indication that the provided driver's license number, state identification card number, or Social Security number has been confirmed by the secretary of state. If it is not complete, the auditor shall promptly mail a verification notice of the deficiency to the applicant. This verification notice shall require the applicant to provide the missing information. If the verification notice is not returned by the applicant within forty-five days or is returned as undeliverable, the name of the applicant shall not be placed on the official list of registered voters. If the applicant provides the required verified information, the applicant shall be registered to vote as of the original date of mailing or date of delivery, whichever is applicable.
Emphasis mine so you aren't forced to read a whole paragraph and strain you limit capabilities.
What you have is the director of elections violated state law, recorded in KCE documentation, not hearsay, speculation or conjecture.
Sims and crew greater crime is undermining confidence in the process of electing representation to our government. When confidence in that process is gone, our very form of governance is gone.
Since you support that process one can make the logical speculation you are an anarchist, and support the overthrow of the American system.
Posted by: JCM on October 24, 2005 08:03 PMIt's interesting that you mention sodomy in your comment - for every time I read your worthless $h!t I feel like that's what you've done to me.
Do you think before you $h!t, er, I mean write?
Posted by: Larry on October 24, 2005 08:05 PMThis tactic of yours -- conveniently forgetting all facts proven hitherto in order to make us waste our time retelling the entire story, from the invention of the wheel up through the third recount, is really tedious. Either you instinctively avoid reading SP posts which look like they might be rather damning; or you read them and actually have the ability to forget unpleasant facts; or you read them and remember them, but have the dishonesty to pretend they never happened. In no one of these three cases may you be accused of being someone with a taste for, or in close contact with the truth.
For outright fraud, here's a couple:
* Who filled out the ballot of Donald Sims Jr.? Did Uncle Ron forward it to him in Spokane so that he could vote in a county in which he does not live? That would be fraud. Or did Uncle Ron fill it out for him, to save his nephew the hassle? That would also be fraud.
* Knowing that no meaningful vote reconciliation had been performed, KC Elections submitted a bogus reconciliation report to the canvassing board, which then certified the election, based on that bogus report. Fraud.
Sadly though, the most damning evidence is not the occasional smoking gun, but the mountain of circumstantial evidence that all points invariably in the same direction; a true idiot would be required to believe that it was all simply some wild coincidence. I don't know if you're a true idiot, though; you might be a false one.
Posted by: TB on October 24, 2005 08:17 PMFriday, Oct. 21, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Julien Recoussine (425) 453-6482
IRONS CAMPAIGN RESPONDS TO NEGATIVE ATTACKS
Having responded in the past to media stories and inquiries about personal family differences, the David Irons campaign will not respond further. Mr. Irons notes that Ron Sims’ campaign manager stated their plan to begin ‘mudslinging’ this week and what’s being seen now is result of this plan. David Irons further notes that it is apparent that as Ron Sims continues to slip in voter polls, he appears less willing to discuss the issues of concern to voters. “I want to talk about finding real solutions to King County congestion relief, activating measurable changes within the Elections Office and regaining public trust in county government. Mr. Sims prefers the game of smoke and mirrors, instead,” states Irons.
Questioning the timing of the fabrications just as the absentee ballots are in the mail, Irons further states, “If you talk with other members of my family and the people I’ve been working with for years, you’ll find that my reputation is intact.”
Fellow County Councilmember Kathy Lambert had this to say of the recent developments: “I’ve worked with David Irons, side-by-side, for over four years now and I know that he’s the same person today that he’s always been respectful, considerate of others and a good friend.”
That is certainly true. The problem with the 1,943 votes identified by the GOP is that they gave a private mail box in lieu of a bona fide residence.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on October 24, 2005 08:43 PMNow how many opulent dinners will that be? I hope you have cash because I know they wont take a rubber check. It seems you can't add things up. Sims + Logan x votes needed = FRAUD.
Make mine a Ruth's Chris, I'll pick the wine, you've had yours already.
Posted by: The Big Hungry on October 24, 2005 08:46 PMI'm sure bartleboy asks the same question of the teller at his 99.98% accurate bank.
It doesn't matter if his savings and funds are not secure and left open to be withdrawn by others. If the bank loses his money, it's not fraud or abuse, it's merely a technical error - so it's A-okay.
I'm sorry, BUT FOR ALL THE EXAMPLES OF VOTER FRAUD AND kce FRAUD SHOWN HERE, YOU NEED TO NOW GO BY THE NAME OF
"BHAGDAD BARTLEBY",
because you remind of 'Bhagdad Bob', who tried in vain to convince TV viewers that Bhagdad wasn't burning when it was. This is hilarious that anyone tries to use the 'there's no fraud' line anymore, so I've taken the liberty of having a little fun at your expense. Readers, do you agree with the new moniker?
Posted by: Michele on October 24, 2005 08:52 PMAny reasonable King County citizen that cares about the county will vote for Irons if for no other reason then to get Dean Logan replaced.
This HAS to stop! Vote for David Irons Jr. and it will!
Posted by: Michele on October 24, 2005 08:59 PM"BHAGDAD BARTLEBY" it is. I am quite sure Ol' Bhagdad Bartleby has a pinging in his ear. This is do to the echo effect when sound travels unobstructed from each side of his empty skull. He sits slack jaw hoping to drown out the noise by moving his lips to Howard Dean sound bite.
Oh the joy it must be for Bhagdad Bartleby going through life without a original thought, lead by the nose, with a colorful buttons on his shirt that read; "Bush lied", "Kerry for President 2004", "Gore for President 2000", and "Draft Hillary in '08".
Posted by: Colonel Godfrey on October 24, 2005 09:22 PMThe press release from the Irons campaign is timely - it would be appropriate if the MSM shows it. I know that the King County Journal will, and perhaps maybe even one of the two major daily dead fish wrappers will do so and local TV news. I encourage Mr. Irons to get out there and discuss the issues and not be hesitant about attacking dung-slinging King Sims - he senses that his kingdom is on the brink of toppling - then OMG - he might have go out and find a private sector job - like selling real estate or possibly junk bonds !
Posted by: KS on October 24, 2005 09:53 PMIt might be a good idea for the Republican party to do some research on local media election expose's over the past 10 years......Maybe something from 5 years ago that is continuing today in King County....
Let's face it...King County - under Ron Sims - has not corrected anything.......ever! Taxes, election problems, traffic, economy, enviroment, education, employment,..etc....Ron Sims talks a good talk - but he has actually done NOTHING for King County....
Posted by: Deborah on October 24, 2005 10:09 PMTo be fair, when the King 5 expose came out in 1998, Bob Bruce took control of the situation, and used the news story as an opportunity to request the funding needed to add staff to clean up the voter rolls.
Voter Registration staff did an excellent job of removing "post office box" voters and of pruning other deadwood from the rolls. The voter rolls were very clean in King County from 1999 - 2002.
Because Bob Bruce and his key staff wouldn't allow Ron Sims to manipluate elections, Sims eventually pushed Bob Bruce out and forced him to take retirement in January 2002, and things went to hell in a handbasket thereafter.
On of Dean Logan's first acts was to hide behind a "process management" examination to remove all of the safeguards that had been put in place to prevent mailbox voters and duplicate registrations.
Do you think this was an accident? Not Likely!!!
Posted by: Observer on October 25, 2005 12:51 AMBartelby...yes. Once KC released part of the information they were illegally withhold from Stefan, it is very apparent that KC elections dept is guilty of fraud, conspiracy, and systematic abuse of the electoral system. So get with the program, get angry for your right to a fair election...and get out your wallet because dinner is on you.
Posted by: dl on October 25, 2005 07:58 AMThe primary purpose of this requirement is not to prevent fraud, or demonstrate residence. The purpose is to assign them to a precinct.
It has occurred to me that our entire election system is founded on the honor system. There are no measures in place to ensure that voters are "legal." There are several requirements voters must satisfy... but think about it... are there any attempts anywhere to validate that those requirements are met? What are they?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 25, 2005 09:08 AMAre you suggesting that tax collection should be based on the honor system, or that the voter registration system should be strengthened. Or are you just exasperated and bringing in an unrelated matter?
Let's say you opt to toughen registration verification. Aren't you open to charges of "poll taxing" and intimidation?
For me, the time has come to ignore charges such as that, whether there is substance to the charges or not. The privilege has been abused.
I would be willing to work at polling places to observe and challenge where appropriate, but it is a waste of time as long as 2/3 of votes are cast absentee.
Posted by: huckleberry on October 25, 2005 10:35 AMFollow your thinking to its logical conclusion.
Say I place my confidence in government officials, and government officials alone, to protect democracy for me. Where does that lead? What do I do when the government officials become corrupt?
Our old way of voting was correct. Authority for counting votes in a precinct was distributed to local, non-governmental officials, with both parties standing toe-to-toe and watching each other's every move. That sounds pretty good to me right now.
As we move more and more to your way of thinking, where all authority for counting votes is invested in government officials at the county, no let's make that state, no, better yet, let's make that federal, offices, how in the hell am I or my local party going to hold them accountable?
Do you see what I am saying? There is no security in election laws that give ownership of elections to elected officials.
Posted by: huckleberry on October 25, 2005 12:51 PM...and another thing.
You said "I would think you would expect more of public officials entrusted with the most important part of our democracy, elections."
What in hell does it matter what I expect from public officials? That is just feelings!
I would prefer that we devise an election system that functions well despite the lack of integrity of the public officials. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 25, 2005 01:00 PMIf we don't have fair and clean elections, we really don't have anything.
Nailed it!
Way to go, Michelle.
Posted by: huckleberry on October 25, 2005 01:03 PMWhere we part, I think, is that I prefer to place my trust in God and keep a watchful eye on my elected officials. You seem content with placing all your faith in government. Would you agree?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 25, 2005 03:36 PMFind two absentee voters and convince them to cancel their absentee status. Then they need to find two, and so on...
Let's get the tallying back in the polling places, so we can post precinct numbers that contains something near 100% of the ballots. They can't screw with the precinct numbers if the precincts own those numbers.
Posted by: huckleberry on October 25, 2005 07:31 PMNow, we all live in our nice fancy homes, (or in a trailer park, in Geezer's case) but I do know two folks who literally live in storage units.
Also, there are smart street folks who vote.
So, how do those folks register to vote?
My residence is listed on my voter's reg, but I have a mailbox where I get mail. Clearly legal. The blonde bimbo "I'm from NY, and we would never allow that there" that challenged me at the polls in the primary, because I had my mail addy on my DL, which I used for ID, almost wouldn't let me vote.
So, the laws are fine, but are we disenfranchising folks? And, franlky, I resist all efforts of the gub'mint to know where I live. We have too much big brotherism.
The Geezer
Posted by: The Geezer on October 26, 2005 08:41 AMDid you notice this article in the PI?
It seems the Dems have raised the need for the challenger to provide the actual residence address of the person challenged.
Logan appears to be taking a different tack than I would have expected, claiming that the actual residence is only needed if the basis for the challenge is that the voter doesn't maintain a residence in the precinct.
Article VI, section 1 doesn't require registration.
It's in Article VI, section 7 that such a requirement is stated:
SECTION 7 REGISTRATION. The legislature shall enact a registration law, and shall require a compliance with such law before any elector shall be allowed to vote; Provided, that this provision is not compulsory upon the legislature except as to cities and towns having a population of over five hundred inhabitants. In all other cases the legislature may or may not require registration as a pre-requisite to the right to vote, and the same system of registration need not be adopted for both classes.
The statute doesn't appear to enforce Article VI, section 7:
RCW 29A.08.830
Affidavit -- Administration, notice of challenge.
(1) Any registered voter may request that the registration of another voter be canceled if he or she believes that the voter does not meet the requirements of Article VI, section 1 of the state Constitution or that voter no longer maintains a legal voting residence at the address shown on his or her registration record. The challenger shall file with the county auditor a signed affidavit subject to the penalties of perjury, to the effect that to his or her personal knowledge and belief another registered voter does not actually reside at the address as given on his or her registration record or is otherwise not a qualified voter and that the voter in question is not protected by the provisions of Article VI, section 4, of the Constitution of the state of Washington. The person filing the challenge must furnish the address at which the challenged voter actually resides.
This may get interesting. Is there a statutory basis for challenging a voter's registration based on improperly registering at something other than a valid residence address?
Posted by: Micajah on November 15, 2005 11:25 AM