You've seen the photos of the various provisional ballots that were unlawfully counted last November --
* the provisional ballots from people who also cast absentee ballots
* the provisional ballots from people who had returned unsigned registration forms and were not legally entitled to vote ("fatal pends")
* the provisional ballots from people who hadn't returned any registration form at all.
Here is a detailed spreadsheet listing the ones I've managed to find and photograph so far (records indicate there are many more out there), and a document that explains the spreadsheet.
Also listen to Ron Sims non-response to these astonishing findings to Mike Siegel: here and here. Remember: the buck stops with Ron.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 04, 2005 01:04 PM | Email ThisGOOD JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Norm on November 4, 2005 01:09 PMThis also refutes the claim on Mike Siegel's show that Sims made saying that most of the irregular ballots / registrations came from women who had gotten married and taken a new name.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 4, 2005 01:23 PMThus the total is 105 / 267 = 39% obvious male names. Hardly an obvious and trivial fact that most of these voters were simply females who had married or divorced and changed names.
Sims ducked the issue yet again.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 4, 2005 01:35 PMI clearly heard Sims say: "The system is fixed," then very quietly "so I can be assured re-election."
Posted by: JCM on November 4, 2005 01:42 PMIt certainly seems you are solving the mystery of last election and are accounting for all the mysterious votes that appeared in Gregoire's favor at the last minute.
But we can't know for who these votes went but we can guess they went overwhelmingly for Gregoire.
That leaves the question open as to ballotless voters, where are their ballots? And who did likely vote for?
This really is beginning to smell bad especially to hear of a partisan teamster democrat (Moore) in charge of these records.
Thanks for your tireless investigatory effort.
Posted by: Michael on November 4, 2005 01:46 PMTo follow on your comments -
It's not really important to know for whom these people voted (for many reasons, but in this case) because....it's King County. If you count three illegal ballots, odds are that's two votes for Gregoire and one vote for Rossi. So if you need to make up a 100-vote difference, count 300 illegal ballots, and you've found your 100 extra votes.
Posted by: Larry on November 4, 2005 02:12 PMBut it will also be interesting to see when these votes were counted and how they correlate to the machine recount and the final hand recount.
If Stefan can establish a timeline of when these votes were counted, he may indeed solve the mystery of the last election.
Further it will be interesting to see from where (which precincts) any improperly registered voters were left properly uncounted OR whether they were properly registered and still left uncounted.
It's also important to see a precinct breakdown of the improperly registered votes that were counted.
A timeline and a precinct map of all the discrepancies may not only explain what happened but also point to where and when, if any, a bias (or fraud) occurred.
The way it should work is that all results from all counties should be sealed, and sent to Secretary of State. Once he /she receives the final results from the last county, then he / she can report the results, and only then.
It's dangerously tempting for any large county that reports last to know exactly how many votes are needed to influence the outcome of a close race. This does not mean that there was a wilful attempt to inluence the 2004 election, but human nature being what it is, it's much safer to simply remove this temptation to begin with.
This issue was kind of addressed by the election reforms, but there may still be wiggle room for this to be screwed up. The reform as I understand it requires all counties to certify on the same day, but it does not say anything about reporting results. If Sam Reed is reading this, I would urge him not to report results of any close races until after all counties have certified.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 4, 2005 02:30 PMThe last sentence of your explanatory document is ambiguous.
There has not yet been an opportunity to search for absentee envelopes for the matching envelopes and consequently none have been located. However, there are no anomalies in the corresponding absentee data records which indicate that the absentee ballots were tabulated.
"Which indicate" appears to refer either to "records" or "anomalies," and the first time I read that sentence I thought you were saying that the ballots weren't sent for tabulation.
I think you mean to say that both the provisional and absentee ballots were included in the vote tabulation, so that last sentence would be less susceptible to a "huh?" if it were worded something like this: "However, there are no anomalies in the corresponding absentee data records--indicating that the absentee ballots were tabulated."
Posted by: Micajah on November 4, 2005 02:43 PMSo why should there be a problem with the Repubs calling foul before the election ? Sims, Logan and his ilk have the audacity to whine and yell disenfranchisement now - they made their own bed here - and if Sims happens to get fewer votes because of this - its his own damn fault !
Posted by: KS on November 4, 2005 02:49 PMHell, where is Jimmy damned Carter, election monitor extraordinaire?
I think he is out promoting Supreme Court nominee Sammy Alito. Read about it in the Washington Times.
Posted by: huckleberry on November 4, 2005 02:54 PMReed has already gone above and beyond to screw this up, so it would be unreasonable to ask him to fix it.
McKenna has no authority to get involved unless asked to by the Governor (ya, right!) or the KC Prosecuting Attorney.
Maleng is apparently content with the corruption, as he refuses to do anything about it.
McKay was appointed by Dubya's predecessor, and apparently falls into the same category as McKay.
The FBI, I believe, would not act on their own, but would be called in by the US Attorney or other elements of the DOJ.
The DOJ Inspector General has been notified of the situation with McKay by EFF; whether they do anything or not remains to be seen, but it would be not at all surprising for them to wait until after the election to act -- if they act -- to avoid the all-too-predictable charges that George W. Bush is trying to throw the election to David Irons.
Jimmy Carter, anomalous reasonable remarks notwithstanding, is still an oxygen-wasting imbecile, and we are better off if he stays out of this state.
Posted by: TB on November 4, 2005 06:43 PMDuh. One would hope so. But that should read:
McKay was appointed by Dubya's predecessor, and apparently falls into the same category as Maleng.
Maybe Chris Vance can accelerate these in the media before the election. "Democrats heist another election"
On an unrelated note I hear that the head of the county IT resigned last week. Wasn't he working with the elections staff?
Posted by: holt on November 4, 2005 11:00 PMRequest that a restore of data from that time period. At two weeks and at four weeks after the election, and a week before. If you find personal email accounts listed request those also.
Outlook PST files on desktops, laptops, internet space also.
Posted by: holt on November 4, 2005 11:04 PMWhen are you going to get truley productive on voting issues. Sudenlly this matters now? The issues you are talking about are miraculously new?
Be level headed, pragmatic and do right by the voters.
I respect the challenge to these voters. 4 months ago. doing it now is a stunt. You are way too good of guy to play with this now, days before an election. You know what this looks like and you should avoid that at all cost to establish legitimacy.
Your trolls will quickly attack that but I know you understand this. And a level headed approach needs to be taken.
Posted by: Jimmy on November 5, 2005 11:07 PMIt is you that would have us give up the fight for clean elections. it is people like you that would refer to the steady, consistant, honorable efforts to fix this mess as a stunt.
The Shark is already legitimate....the elections office in KC is not. I too would hope for level-headedness...from the liberals. Who knows, maybe someday we'll see it from one of them.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on November 5, 2005 11:21 PM