The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is upset about the Republican challenge of nearly 2,000 people who registered to vote illegally by providing a private mail box instead of their valid residence. For once we agree with the conclusion of a P-I editorial, though not with the tortured logic upon which the conclusion is based:
Perhaps another Republican, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, needs to review the case for criminal violations.Indeed. Maleng should prosecute the voters who committed a class C felony by supplying an improper address. Maleng should also prosecute Dean Logan for committing a class C felony [RCW 29A.84.720] for his deliberate policy decision to not report the fraudulent mail box registrations to the canvassing board [RCW 29A.84.010]. If Maleng fails to take action against Dean Logan and the illegal mail box voters, he too would be in violation of 29A.84.010 and 29A.84.720 and subject to felony charges and removal from office. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 20, 2005 10:45 AM | Email This
I think that would be fair in that YOU and the nutbags at EFF think it is fair that unions seek WRITTEN PERMISSION on a yearly basis from every union member in order for the union to make political contributions.
Obviously, all your efforts are geared toward preventing democracy rather than in enhancing it. All the things you want to do are merely obstructionist tactics meant to prevent voting. Legality is not your concern or you would be concerned with the illegal things Sotelo and the Republican Party did and the legal voters they illegally inconvenienced. But all you are ever concerned with is how you can throw a spanner in the works and prevent people from voting.
You are a worthless , undemocratic person with hilarious pretensions to political relevance. But , please, stay here in WA state where we can keep you boxed-in and ineffectual----- forever....
Posted by: Apache Fog on November 20, 2005 12:01 PMThis is just about as perfect an example of Orwellian thought as I've ever seen.
Note that the difference between your accusations of criminality and Stefan's is that Stefan actually cites the law, while you just bleat and whine like...well, like a Democrat.
Posted by: ScottM on November 20, 2005 12:20 PMBy the way, who ran these precincts in question? That's right, those issues all came in Dem-controlled areas.
Posted by: MES on November 20, 2005 01:06 PMI'd love to Norm do his job re KCE. I wonder if he hesitates because there is bound to be cries of "partisan witch hunt" from the uber-liberals infesting KC the minute he attempts to.
Posted by: starboardhelm on November 20, 2005 01:21 PMHe would be forced to recognize that Dean Logan and Ron Sims - in their purposeful effort to disregard state election laws that require them to check the validity of residences listed on voter registration cards - broke the law. This would place Logan and Sims in the position of accomplice to the crimes.....and we all know that Maleng wont prosecute King County employees.....
incredible.
Posted by: Deborah on November 20, 2005 01:22 PMThey believe that they can mold the law according to their every whim.
They still have the illusion that they operate under the rule of law, only that the law is what they decide it is.
That is only one small step from despotism, tyranny and dictatorship. Where one man or a cabal decide that they are they law.
Sims & crew with the enabling press are a threat to this republic.
Posted by: JCM on November 20, 2005 01:38 PMWhen did democracy stand for registration fraud and votes that illegally cancel out others' legal votes???
That's the insanity being put forth by the trolls. No rules; no nothing. With THAT logic, we ought to stop arresting people for murder, since law and order apparently isn't an enhancement of our democracy!
When Dean Logan claims that bad registrations need to be challenged by the people--and not his office---then why are they so upset that some folks actually take him at his word and try to do so?? This is insanity and cannot stand. You can't simultaneously claim to run a democracy-enhancing election (that would consist of clean and fair elections) and not enforce any rules that are there to enforce such. Please, Logan and trolls, understand that they ARE those who thought election law existed for some kind of ACTUAL useful, democracy-enhancing reason.
"But all you are ever concerned with is how you can throw a spanner in the works and prevent people from voting."
Where y'all from Mr/Ms Fog? Are you naturalized or one of those aliens who don't want their right to vote here questioned? (Or maybe "spanner" is the latest in political correctness and animal rights by the D's. Do we need to use a different phrase for your desire to "monkey around" with elections?)
Posted by: BJ Gadfly on November 20, 2005 03:26 PMhttp://aarons.cc/category/memes/deck-o-bloggers-2005/
Posted by: Cicero on November 20, 2005 03:26 PMHere's the response from a spokesman for Georgia's Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue:
"Georgia citizens are educated enough not to let somebody steal the governor's office."
Posted by: Mchele on November 20, 2005 03:45 PMThat's the sheer, unmitgated hell of the whole situation. You've got lousy, dishonest 'Rats like Logan claiming it isn't his problem, the people have to shoulder the burden of ensuring honest elections (even though Logan is the one paid to do it). You've got useless, brainless dolts like Sam Reed saying he can't do anything about dishonest elections (even though he is elected and paid to do just that), the citizens are responsible for that. You've got lousy, rotten crumbums like Bridges saying gee, he can't do anything about dishonest elections, the voters have to work to fix it. So when someone actually steps up and takes up the challenge (Sharkansky et al.), all the stupid, lousy 'Rats do is scream bloody murder. I mean, which it it, are we supposed to step into the breach and take up the job the elected officials shirk, or not?
Posted by: Interested Observer on November 20, 2005 04:42 PMI'd say the republicans need to be aware of this mentality and not be so obvious... Doing the election cleanup right before the election makes them look wicked. Republicans don't feel the love.
I'd say the republicans need to be aware of this mentality and not be so obvious... Doing the election cleanup right before the election makes them look wicked. Republicans don't feel the love.
I'd say the republicans need to be aware of this mentality and not be so obvious... Doing the election cleanup right before the election makes them look wicked. Republicans don't feel the love.
How are signed affadavits from the alleged illegal voters coming ?
Posted by: KS on November 20, 2005 08:13 PMI remember when NAMBLA had some kind of convention here in Western Washington and they had some author as a speaker who had written a how-to book for seducing little boys. I couldn't understand why we didn't just arrest him. All you have to do is look over the previous 5 years worth of molestation cases and see how many defendents had a copy of his book- then charge him with inciting those crimes.
Instead the press was pontificating on the how tempting it is to violate freedom of speech but that we have to resist that temptation.
Posted by: Cicero on November 20, 2005 09:12 PMRepublicans are trying, however imperfectly, to reduce vote fraud. Democrats are trying, with much greater success, to ensure that vote fraud is not reduced.
And then the leftist scum try to take the moral high ground. It would be laughable, if I didn't think the scum would succeed in destroying the Republic.
Posted by: ScottM on November 20, 2005 09:34 PMJust which RCW is violated in challenging a vote?
So as you don't have to strain yourself I'll give you a hint.
Go back to you kool-aid.
RCW 29A.08.810
Initiation.
Registration of a person as a voter is presumptive evidence of his or her right to vote at any primary or election, general or special. A person's right to vote may be challenged at the polls only by a precinct judge or inspector. A challenge may be made only upon the belief or knowledge of the challenging officer that the voter is unqualified. The challenge must be supported by evidence or testimony given to the county canvassing board under RCW 29A.08.820 and may not be based on unsupported allegations or allegations by anonymous third parties. The identity of the challenger, and any third person involved in the challenge, shall be public record and shall be announced at the time the challenge is made.
Challenges initiated by a registered voter must be filed not later than the day before any primary or election, general or special, at the office of the appropriate county auditor. A challenged voter may properly transfer or reregister until three days before the primary or election, general or special, by applying personally to the county auditor. Challenges may also be initiated by the office of the county prosecuting attorney and must be filed in the same manner as challenges initiated by a registered voter.
[2003 c 111 § 253. Prior: 2001 c 41 § 9; 1987 c 288 § 1; 1983 1st ex.s. c 30 § 2. Formerly RCW 29.10.125.]
NOTES:
Right to vote
loss of: State Constitution Art. 6 § 3, RCW 11.88.010, 11.88.090.
restoration of: RCW 9.92.066, 9.94A.637, 9.94A.885, 9.95.260, chapter 9.96, RCW.
RCW TITLES >> TITLE 29A >> CHAPTER 29A.08 >> SECTION 29A.08.820
29A.08.810 > 29A.08.830
RCW 29A.08.820
Voting by person challenged -- Burden of proof, procedures.
When the right of a person has been challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 or 29A.08.830(2), the challenged person shall be permitted to vote a ballot which shall be placed in a sealed envelope separate from other voted ballots. In precincts where voting machines are used, any person whose right to vote is challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 or 29A.08.830(2) shall be furnished a paper ballot, which shall be placed in a sealed envelope after being marked. Included with the challenged ballot shall be (1) an affidavit filed under RCW 29A.08.830 challenging the person's right to vote or (2) an affidavit signed by the precinct election officer and any third party involved in the officer's challenge and stating the reasons the voter is being challenged. The sealed ballots of challenged voters shall be transmitted at the close of the election to the canvassing board or other authority charged by law with canvassing the returns of the particular primary or election. The county auditor shall notify the challenger and the challenged voter, by certified mail, of the time and place at which the county canvassing board will meet to rule on challenged ballots. If the challenge is made by a precinct election officer under RCW 29A.08.810, the officer must appear in person before the board unless he or she has received written authorization from the canvassing board to submit an affidavit supporting the challenge. If the challenging officer has based his or her challenge upon evidence provided by a third party, that third party must appear with the challenging officer before the canvassing board, unless he or she has received written authorization from the canvassing board to submit an affidavit supporting the challenge. If the challenge is filed under RCW 29A.08.830, the challenger must either appear in person before the board or submit an affidavit supporting the challenge. The challenging party must prove to the canvassing board by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged voter's registration is improper. If the challenging party fails to meet this burden, the challenged ballot shall be accepted as valid and counted. The canvassing board shall give the challenged voter the opportunity to present testimony, either in person or by affidavit, and evidence to the canvassing board before making their determination. All challenged ballots must be determined no later than the time of canvassing for the particular primary or election. The decision of the canvassing board or other authority charged by law with canvassing the returns shall be final. Challenges of absentee ballots shall be determined according to RCW 29A.40.140.
[2003 c 111 § 254; 1987 c 288 § 2; 1983 1st ex.s. c 30 § 3. Formerly RCW 29.10.127.]
NOTES:
Right to vote
loss of: State Constitution Art. 6 § 3, RCW 11.88.010, 11.88.090.
restoration of: RCW 9.92.066, 9.94A.637, 9.94A.885, 9.95.260, chapter 9.96, RCW.
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.
(2) Any such challenge of a voter's registration and right to vote made less than thirty days before a primary or election, special or general, shall be administered under RCW 29A.08.820. The county auditor shall notify the challenged voter and the precinct election officers in the voter's precinct that a challenge has been filed, provide the name of the challenger, and instruct both the precinct election officers and the voter that, in the event the challenged voter desires to vote at the ensuing primary or election, a challenged ballot will be provided. The voter shall also be informed that the status of his or her registration and the disposition of any challenged ballot will be determined by the county canvassing board in the manner provided by RCW 29A.08.820. If the challenged voter does not vote at the ensuing primary or election, the challenge shall be processed in the same manner as challenges made more than thirty days prior to the primary or election under RCW 29A.08.840.
[2003 c 111 § 255. Prior: 1987 c 288 § 3; 1983 1st ex.s. c 30 § 4; 1967 c 225 § 2; 1965 ex.s. c 156 § 2. Formerly RCW 29.10.130.]
do you really think for one second that Stormin Norman Maleng will open that can of worms? If he does, he will have to answer as to why the R's supposed offenses were so much more greivious than the multitude of D's offenses. He will not address any imagined violations of republican chicanery anymore than he will the wide and varied democrat fraud and conspiring.
He will remain content where he is, with his head crammed where the sun doesnt reach.....
Posted by: hookr23 on November 20, 2005 10:26 PM"the Republican Party in WA State CHANGED a government document" What document? Do you mean the ballots that were altered by KC Elections Dept in violation of the RCW with red and green pens to "divine" voter intent?
"illegally hindered hundreds of LEGAL voters fromm (sic) exercising their franchise" Again, the challenged voters were not prohibited from voting.
Do facts not matter to you?
Get some anger management, learn to type with one hand while playing a solo game of Bill and Monica with the other, learn to read, figure out what the law is, and change kool-aid vendors before you post your bile again.
Posted by: Locked and Loaded on November 20, 2005 11:31 PMFirst of all....No they didn't.
"and you are all going to pay a price for your illegal and undemocratic hi jinks!!"
Second of all....No one uses the term "hi jinks" unless they are over 50 years old...To use that ancient term in the same statement you used "pussy sotelo" makes me think we have a rabid and very unbalanced throw back to the 60's liberal here in Mr. Poon......
His accusations of "illegally hindering hundreds of voters" is just such an ignorant sound bite from the Dems camp...and completely baseless...More like wishful thinking....
We have a live one here! A full fledged rabid -foam spitting liberal communist democrat from the 60's! Probably ponytailed with receeding gray hair and always volunteers to stand on street corners with protest signs...
Amazing! Thank G-d they are a dying breed...
Posted by: Deborah on November 21, 2005 12:37 AMAnswer the question posed.
If you could read you would note in the LAW that a challenged vote can vote and the vote will be counted if the challenge cannot be proven.
No one is disenfranchised. The only votes not counted are those cast by ILLEGAL voters.
What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand?
I would suggest you learn to read, when you can read you will be able to support you position with cogent arguments not copied and pasted talking points. Till then you play the fool.
Posted by: JCM on November 21, 2005 07:24 AMMailbox registrations have been an issue before. Illegal voters have been issues before. In the past (unfortunately not the present) we've had INVESTIGATIVE reports from the "MSM" showing the problems of lax procedures in elections operations. Why do we still have the problems? King County told us they were fixing them - 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004, and now 2005.
Just as the past elections have been run under the law, so too have the registration challenges. Nobody has been perfect. Everybody should look at what has gone wrong and FIX the problems.
The point is, with elections appearing to get closer and closer, our system needs to be beefed up to where it can withstand the scrutiny of close results to the satisfaction of the majority of voters - we're not there yet.
I'm all for having as many LEGAL CITIZENS registering and participating in our elections. However, every time I see a new election law to make it "easier", I only see it being made easier for ILLEGAL or NON-CITIZENS to register and vote. This will not do.
Some of these "well intentioned" laws create loopholes (unintended I hope) that allow voting cheaters. Washington State law is pretty clear that, once an illegal ballot makes it into the ballot pool, there is nothing that can be done except to count it (unless the illegal voter confesses to the crime and "truthfully" states how they voted.)
The people that currently have illegal registrations should correct them and make their registration legal.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 21, 2005 09:52 AM...as if any was needed...
In editorials yesterday and today both the Times and P-I are bleating, erroneously, about how the challenge is about taking away the right to vote.
Nobody's right to vote is being taken away. Some of the challenged voters might not have their vote in the last election counted, but they can fix that problem by filing a LEGITIMATE registration.
I suppose that sort of accuracy is just too much to expect from the hopelessly-biased leftists writing for the Times and P-I.
Posted by: ewaggin on November 21, 2005 01:08 PMThis link has the quote from the spokesman for the Georia governor. It looks like Washington has a new national image thanks to our infamous governor and her accomplices.
Posted by: PW on November 21, 2005 01:12 PMPlease continue to force the issue with Maleng. We should get some resolution here.
The baseless flak coming from nitwits like Apache (Headless Lucy) and Harry fool is testament to their emptiness. If any of them ever had a point they would make it. They don't.
Please continue to force the issue with Maleng. He may not be legally required to take action, but he IS politically required.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 21, 2005 01:23 PMMaleng needs to be aware that he either for or against status quo when it comes to these criminal violations - there is no in between. If he can't take a stand, then it is time for him to retire
at the end this term. Meanwhile, keep pressing Stefan.
I keep hearing "Oh, the Republicans made mistakes but at least they admitted it." The problem is that if you say you have personal knowledge that someone doesn't live where they're registered to vote, that's not a "mistake", it's perjury.
And if the GOP is correct in 1,700 of 1,944 cases, great. But charge Sotelo in those other cases where she clearly *lied*.
Posted by: D. Andersen on November 21, 2005 11:52 PMYou say, "charge Sotelo in those other cases where she clearly *lied*."
It is not clear that she lied. Indeed only a tone deaf jerk like you would conclude that Sotelo lied when upon discovering her mistake she immediately came forward and corrected it. She will not be charged with anything only because she didn't break any laws.
It is easy for you to say things like this because you are a liberal and facts don't matter, but don't think your impudent stupidity goes without notice.
Posted by: Amused by supercilious liberal dips on November 22, 2005 02:03 PMTo belabor the obvious, are you reeeaaaly that friggin' stupid??
You are definitely a democrat.
(sarcasm off)
Posted by: ERNurse on November 22, 2005 06:35 PMNonsense. She didn't have personal knowledge that those people didn't live where they registered, rather, she relied on some sloppy computer work that those weren't residential addresses. That's a guess, not personal knowledge.
The form didn't say "Oh, I have some idea that these people don't live at the address they're registered," it says you have personal knowledge, under penalty of perjury, that they don't live there.
And as for my political affiliation, I consider myself a libertarian (small l) who is disgusted with the way the fundamentalist right-wing have taken over the GOP. That only makes me a liberal in the classical sense.
Posted by: D. Andersen on November 22, 2005 11:09 PMI have news for ya: the "fundamentalist right wing," as you refer to us, have been the base of the Republican party since its inception. You aren't seing a takeover, pal. You're seeing a housecleaning.
If someone writes like a liberal, recites the same tired cliche's like a liberal, and hides behind the libertarian furniture when exposed as a liberal, then that person is most likely a liberal.
Posted by: ERNurse on November 23, 2005 07:14 AMNonsense yourself.
Sotelo will not have to prove anything about "personal knowledge" dip$hit, or anything else for that matter because there is no justiciable issue. Mistake is an affirmative defense. As you sagely comment, “The problem is that if you say you have personal knowledge that someone doesn't live where they're registered to vote, that's not a "mistake", it's perjury.” There is a small problem here genius.
Lori Sotelo gained personal knowledge of illegal registrations from workers under her supervision, swore that she had personal knowledge that they were illegal, discovered that her personal knowledge was mistaken, and admitted to the mistake. What the hell do you think personal knowledge means? RCW 29A.08.830. When not specifically defined by the statute, the ordinary meaning applies. Personal knowledge means exactly what it says and nothing special. All she would need is to say where she got the information.
All she must prove is that she used “due diligence” which is easy; either she did, or she didn't. The fact that she immediately reported her mistake alone more than satisfies this requirement and defeats other elements of intent necessary to convict. No one was harmed, there was no foul, and there is no issue or violation of the intent of the statute. Watch what happens with Scooter Libby.
No matter how blindly dimwits like you stab in the darkness, you can't conjure a violation of law where none exists. Voters who ignore the requirement to register with a residential address are not making a mistake.
Post some more irresponsible silliness in substitution for fairplay.
You are shooting with blanks. Read a little and try to understand what is being said and the context of the discourse before you comment. Your remarks are meaningless to the issue being discussed on this thread.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 23, 2005 11:39 AM