November 29, 2005
Challenged Decision

The punchline of yesterday's voter challenge rulings is that the standards that Dean Logan and the Democrats want to use to maintain the integrity of the voting rolls is impossibly high and they've effectively announced open season for voter registration fraud.

Dean Logan, January 23, 2005

Safeguarding the legitimacy and maintaining the accuracy of those records is a shared responsibility between government and the electorate.”
However, when the electorate assumes some of the responsibility that the government abrogated, Logan passes the buck again. As I mentioned yesterday, the only challenges to mail box registrations that Logan accepted were the ones where the challenged voter volunteered information that they resided elswehere. Even in the cases where any sane and fair-minded person would have concluded that the voter didn't physically reside at the mail box where they're registered, Logan and Councilmember Dow Constantine decided that the challenger did not
present clear and convincing evidence that the voter does not reside at the address listed on their registration.
Logan claims that he will follow up on some of the questioned registrations and forward evidence to the Prosecuting Attorney "if there is just cause". I'll believe it when I see it. But if Logan and Constantine weren't persuaded by the same evidence that led Dan Satterberg to conclude that a mail box facility without any residents is not a legitimate voting address, then I have little confidence in Logan's standard for "just cause".

The most important question then, is what the Democrats on the canvassing board would accept as clear and convincing evidence that an uninhabited mail box facility is not a voter's physical abode. Today's newspaper articles (Times, P-I) fixate on the fact that the GOP's evidence didn't meet the Democrats' standard of evidence, but fail to recognize that said "standard" is impossibly high.

I asked Councilmember Constantine after the hearing what evidence he would have accepted in order to uphold a challenge. It boiled down to the same standard that he applied in his rulings: some kind of an admission from the voter that they do not reside where they said they reside. In other words, any voter who does not really exist or who insists on protecting a fraudulent registration will almost certainly get away with it. Sadly, the Democrats have created a situation where elections will be decided by voters like this one. The presumption is that such voter is a real person. And it's impossible to prove that he isn't.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 29, 2005 12:25 PM | Email This
Comments
1. So, where do we go from here?

These results by the board are more than distressing but what can you or I do now? Hammer the newspapers? Bring out all the Mickey Mouse citizens?

Personally, I don't see a will on the part of the electorate to fix the problem. Most people trust their elected officials. Unless they are caught taking bribes, anything goes.

Will the Rs do anything?

What about refiling some of those with pictures of the residence (or lack thereof)?

I think they got us.

Posted by: swatter on November 29, 2005 12:47 PM
2. So, if your registration is challenged, just stay quiet, don't appear before the board and you will win by default?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 29, 2005 12:56 PM
3. This decision does not appear to comply with state law.

Posted by: dl on November 29, 2005 12:58 PM
4. Stefan--
Good concise assessment of the CLOWNS bottom-line here....if the ILLEGAL VOTER doesn't admit he is an ILLEGAL VOTER, he is then a LEGAL VOTER. Common sense BE DA*NED!!!!

swatter--
Good question, where Do we go from here??
I believe citizen groups need to walk thru a couple LEFTIST Seattle precindts and validate voters live at the address indicated on the Voter Registration. If they don't, we need to try and find out where they live. This is a painful, time-consuming and frustrating process. However, if we can do it on a couple precindts and really do our homework....we may be able to sway the court of public opinion. There are no short-cuts short of some Legislative reforms.
Re-registration would help too.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 29, 2005 01:00 PM
5. I guess it’s simple yet brilliant
The dems in King CO throw up as many bogus registrations as possible. We all know the standard to remove a fraudulent registration that disenfranchises another voter in the state. We all know that the MSM will make challenging these bogus registrations unpopular.

If the MSM and libs make this challenge impossible, we have no choice but to join them.
If you do not, your vote will be canceled by fraud in King county.

I suggest PO boxes be given to conservatives by conservatives as a great Christmas gift in all counties outside King. Remember all you election supervisors…the rule is NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

Let us all start playing on a level field.

Posted by: Brad on November 29, 2005 01:00 PM
6. Great pic, Stefan,
Did they talk about getting an opinion from the State Attorney General? Nei Modie's article in the PI mentioned it.

Posted by: sgmmac on November 29, 2005 01:02 PM
7. Unless and until KC fixes this the votes from the entire county should not be counted in any Federal election.

Posted by: JDH on November 29, 2005 01:02 PM
8. Groan. Unacceptable. We need more honest and common-sensed-blessed people running KCE and on the canvassing board. Dean Logan is admitting that he has no intention of following registration laws, such as posted by another reader.Said law states Logan must review the registration and notify the person if information is lacking before the reg. can be legal. Dean Logan, do your job according to the law or please get out of the way and let someone else.

Posted by: Michele on November 29, 2005 01:09 PM
9. Stefan:

If the standard is impossibly high, then explain to me how 57 challenges were upheld.

The answer is that the standard is not impossibly high.

For once, I agree with Cynical, on both the points he raises. You want to challenge voters? Go door to door.

And, I agree with Cynical that there needs to be a legislative fix. The requirement that a voter list an actual place of residence (not a mailbox) has collided with the equally binding requirement that a challenger have detailed knowledge of a voter's actual address.

So Cynical agrees with Dean Logan, because that's what Logan said.

Posted by: Ivan on November 29, 2005 01:09 PM
10. It is time for vigilanteism, pure and simple.

The Judge in the Dino Rossi case said the public needs to clean things up.

King County will not clean up the voter rolls.

I would say that some form of initiative, some form of civil lawsuit that fines King County and individuals at KCE, some form of federal legal action , some legal action by the Sec of State or Attorney General (highly unlikely), or some form of State Audit are about the only ways to more forward in cleaning things up.

Short of that KCE has established a really expensive process for the Republican party to use.

The only other choice is organized encouragement of voter fraud, but that would be very illegal and likely backfire.

And the Dems wonder what Republicans are so angry.

Posted by: Robert on November 29, 2005 01:12 PM
11. In order to challenge the decision successfully or to hope to; You'll have to shop it to an outside judge. Why put up with this garbage ? Also how about contacting the A-G Mr. Gonzalez and continue pressing for a Fed. investigation - the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Have your act together to demonstrate lawbreaking & don't give up here or the R's will look like chumps !

Posted by: KS on November 29, 2005 01:13 PM
12. Actually Ivan, the standard is impossibly high as long as you're sure to check your common sense at the door...providing a shining illustration of why you can see no problem with Logan's position.

You are not such an ignorant fool. Stop behaving like one.

Posted by: Danny on November 29, 2005 01:14 PM
13. The state law pretty much requires that the voter provide 'clear and convincing evidence' of his/her/its existence, its age, its citizenship and its residence address.

Dean Logan and Dow Constantine are not in the law enforcement business; unfortunately, Constantine is in the law MAKING business. The stark contrast between Dan Satterberg's informed and responsible interpretation of these 'residences', and the blase inclusion by Logan and Constantine of the microcephalic fluffbrains who inhabit postal boxes, is way too indicative of the King County political class's tolerance (or support of) a few extra votes here the there, wink wink.

That Logan and Constantine have invested the time to find the ringing phrase of 'clear and convincing' - as if they were judges! - is just more evidence that they are abusing this concept by using it to cover their misfeasance. Out with the both of them.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on November 29, 2005 01:17 PM
14. Danny:

Logan's position, which is in the Times and the P-I, is that there needs to be a legislative fix for the conflict between two legally binding requirements: that the voter provide some physical address, and that the challenger provide detailed personal knowledge of the voter's real address.

The presumption is in favor of the voter, because voting is a right. I know that drives you wingnuts crazy, but that is the law in this state. He's not going to rule in favor of the challenger, and no other county in this state would.

You can hate on Logan all you want, but he's obeying the law, not YOUR version of it.

Go fix it in the Legislature, as Logan has said. Isn't that what you want?

Posted by: Ivan on November 29, 2005 01:37 PM
15. It's interesting how they set up the legal Catch-22:


The standard of evidence to prove a fraudulent registration requires the admission of the alleged violator.


However, such an admission probably cannot be used as as evidence against them in a court of law due to the protections against self-incrimination.


Thus, a prosecution could only be begun by gathering evidence, confronting the accusing at the canvassing board, securing a confession from the accused at the canvassing board, then presenting all evidence less the confession in a court of law.

The country auditor is a member of the canvassing board, and is he is convinced that someone that voted improperly, he shall refer the case to the county prosecutor. How convenient is it that he gets to set the rules so high that he can claim to be "unconvinced" without a confession, no matter how damning the evidence?

Posted by: gmcraff on November 29, 2005 01:41 PM
16. Ivan...you are mistaken, it is Logan who is inventing law. WAC says that a PO box is not proof of residence, and my not be used on voter registrations in lou of an address of residence. Without a physical residential address, voter registration is invalid.

Posted by: dl on November 29, 2005 01:47 PM
17. Ivan - Get a freakin' clue, will ya? Satterberg provided a legal opinion on what the law says, and Logan and Constantine disregarded it.

Your tortured logic fails, because an individual who attempts to register at a mailbox has never completed a valid registration in the first place.

Thus there is no conflict in the law.

Posted by: ewaggin on November 29, 2005 01:48 PM
18. Brad, it's called PLAN B. Outlined here almost a year ago by a certain "Activist" blogger. To kill a terrorist you have to become like one, similarly, to beat a fraudulent election system you have to play by THEIR RULES. After all, THEY made the rules. Hoist them on their own pitards.

Posted by: Gene From Woodinville on November 29, 2005 01:49 PM
19. Why not file lawsuit regarding breech of zoning laws against those mailbox places. Then once decision is made by a court that no one lives there, present it before the canvassing board. If they reject it, then you could cite a judicial decision and provide the proof.

Posted by: Thr33of4 on November 29, 2005 01:51 PM
20. Ivan,

In two different RCW's, State law requires, "complete residence address", "complete valid residence address".

It can be said that a reasonable person would agree that a mailbox is not a residence nor valid residence.

Would not failure to provide a valid residence address then cause the registration to be invalid?

If so, why should a challenge now have to prove that someone doesn't live in a mailbox and also where they do live?

RCW 29A.08.110 - "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 or is returned as undeliverable the auditor shall not place the name of the applicant on the county voter list. If the applicant provides the required information, the applicant shall be registered to vote as of the date of mailing of the original voter registration application."

Should failure of the auditor to ensure a valid residence address guarantee a registrant with a "legal" registration?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 29, 2005 01:53 PM
21. Ivan - Oh, wait, I forgot. You're a "good neighbor", so law-abiding voters being disenfranchised is okay, because you say so.

I can hardly wait to hear your other-worldly explanation as to why it was acceptable for Logan and Constantine to ignore the legal opinion rendered by Satterberg. Is it because they're "good neighbors", too?

Posted by: ewaggin on November 29, 2005 01:54 PM
22. They'll start paying attention when someone starts stuffing the box with GOP ballots. Until then, it's accuracy ANY bank would envy.

Posted by: Andy on November 29, 2005 01:54 PM
23. If I read the KC article correctly, only 199 registrations were dealt with in this round because they represented ballots in this election.

Does this mean that the other 1500 or so people didn't vote?

In a morbid sense of curiosity, I wonder if there were any address overlaps between the rejected registrations and the non rejected ones.......

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 29, 2005 01:58 PM
24. When a fraudulent voter is caught as in the Wenatchee trial, you can double the disenfranchisement by taking the word of the criminal. We actually ask the criminal who he voted for. This allows the fraudulent vote to be counted and the criminal then has the ability to pull a vote for the GOP out of the pile. The dems must still be laughing about that one.

How can one continue to do business with a gang of thieves? They have no shame and no desire for truth. Only a fool would continue to do business as usual.

Beat them at their own game, or at least try to play with them.

Posted by: fed up on November 29, 2005 02:00 PM
25. It is a very good thing that Mr. Mouse made a copy of his voter registration form before sending it in.

Mr. Mouse would have been better advised to check "YES" for the "Ongoing Absentee Voter Status" request.

Since Mr. Mouse is a poll voter, he will have to go to the polls and vote in person. Since he won't have any of the required forms of ID, he might possibly attract attention to himself. He will have to fill out a provisional ballot instead, which will be counted if his signature matches the voter registration form (the alternative method of positive voter identification provided by state law).

If Mr. Mouse had instead become an absentee voter, things would be much easier. He could even have his ballots mailed to his vacation home in Anaheim or Orlando by putting a different mailing address in Item # 5. He could carefully sign his absentee ballot envelope in privacy, and make sure that his signature matched to provide the positive identification mandated by state law.

Fortunately, there is still time for Mr. Mouse to correct his mistake by filling out another form. But if he is going to all this trouble, he can simply put his date of birth as 11/19/1928 on his new registration (instead of 11/18/1928) so that he will be registered twice as two different persons in the eyes of Dean Logan. He can always vote his 11/19/1928 absentee ballot registration, and if he is in town, vote his 11/18/1928 poll ballot registration as well.

Posted by: Richard Pope on November 29, 2005 02:01 PM
26. Ewaggin:

Legal opinions are like anal orifices. Everybody has one, and most of them stink.

Who the heck is Satterberg that they should by default accept *his* legal opinion, just because *you* prefer that interpretation?

Tha law grinds slowly, not in blog time. If there is a legal basis for invalidating all the mailbox registrations, it will happen on a case-by-case basis, with each case decided on its merits, not with any one bold swoop, to satisfy one partisan agenda or another.

Unfortunately for you, Vance and Sotelo have been so inept and (I hope) so criminally culpable, that they they have discredited your tactics, and your motives, behind repair in this county.

Except on this blog, of course. Here the faithful, with their shining eyes turned unblinkingly toward heaven, await the rapture.

Posted by: Ivan on November 29, 2005 02:09 PM
27. Ivan--
I never said I agree with Logan.
Far from it.
My comments were about where we go from here.
When you have CLOWNS like Logan & Dow on the Canvassing Board.....when you have an unelected, political CLOWN like Logan interpreting Election Laws to defend his actions....and this CLOWN is in there for another 4 years thanks to Don Ron Sims King..............
The only options are Legislative and continue to "play Logan's game". I'm sure when vigilante's show up trying to confirm Voter Registration data, Logan will again be outraged.
How convenient....a reasonable person would conclude Logan really doesn't care about the accuracy of his Voter Rolls.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 29, 2005 02:34 PM
28. Cynical:

Don't worry. Nobody would mistake you for a reasonable person. That's why we luv ya, big guy.

Posted by: Ivan on November 29, 2005 02:41 PM
29. Dow's criteria for ditching a registration only if the voter steps forward and says 'Yep, I really DON'T live inside my little 6x12 inch space' is ridiculous.

Even criminals claiming innocence get convicted when it's obvious on its face that they 'did it'. What's so hard not to see when someone clearly ignores registration directions and only puts a PO box? And did Logan and company bother to follow election law and notify the registerees that they submitted an incomplete registration form at the time of the submission?? That's a very important step that should have been used to help clean this problem up. In fact, IT IS A FAILURE OF KCE THAT THIS SITUATION EVEN EXISTS, when you consider what the law says they should have done in the first place!

The Dems running this asylum are clearly inviting mail vote fraud. Not even a question about that one. They will conveniently ignore law that would prevent this situation, knowing that once the reg. gets in the system, it's almost completely unlikely it will come out.

Stefan, thanks for being there. Just your presence alone, plus the fact that they know you'll tell the whole story (and not the wrong one, as the Times caption does) has got to be at least a small deterrent to something

Posted by: Michele on November 29, 2005 02:50 PM
30. If I had a list of the mailbox and storage facility voters - I would first crosscheck the information with the King County property tax site to see if I could find any actual residences..(ie; homeowners..) Then - I would contact the National Voter Database project for assistance in locating the voters on the list. I'm sure the Post Office has a database that would be useful too.

There are ways to force this into a Federal issue. Simply by sidestepping our regional alphabet boys..and going to the top for assistance in voter location requests. If Chris Vance and the state Republican party had done this - they could have red flagged our state and county elections and maybe the Feds would take our problems more seriously.... Instead, our Republicans seem to like the low-budget, feeble approach to these serious investigations..

There is nothing more pitiful to watch, than 3 guys with magnifying glasses going over illegal ballots and voting to forego state election laws...and believing their 3 little votes could actually overturn state law..

Posted by: Deborah on November 29, 2005 04:06 PM
31. Call me a dreamer, but, what if KCE was flooded with so many fraudulent PO Box registrations that they could no longer brush it off? Let's say 200 people quietly sent in 20 bogus registrations each over the course of the next few weeks. Wouldn't KCE have to clean the entire voter rolls in order to ensure they get rid of all of the new bogus ones?

WA Voter Registration Form (pdf)

Note #4: "Address Where You Live". Hard to get that one wrong.

Of course, we can always just complain about KCE's blatant abuse of our voting rights . . .

SoS Voter Concern Form

Assuming that cryto-Liberal Reed will care . . .

Posted by: starboardhelm on November 29, 2005 04:23 PM
32. What about having mail ballots where the voter has to punch out a chad!, like Florida! If they make a mistake, they have to go into the polling place, show their original ballot, get verified and get another ballot. I wouldn't mind doing that. If there's a hanging chad and an un-punched hole (sorry, but I don't know the terminology), then the hole with the hanging chad would be counted. If both holes are punched, the ballot is invalid. Period. Everyone has a pencil, right? And there would be no touching or marking of ballots.

Posted by: Nancy on November 29, 2005 04:38 PM
33. Richard Pope,

Your mr mouse story only works if the person at the polls actually requests ID!

I voted at SPU in queen anne, where no ID was ask for or apparently required.

Posted by: dave on November 29, 2005 04:40 PM
34. If King County Prosecutor Maleng will request a comprehensive opinion from the State Attorney General, perhaps the logjam can be broken.

To get Stonewall Logan to budge, we need a legal opinion that describes his legal duties from start to finish. While it would be nice to know what burden of proof must be met to reject a ballot from someone who was unlawfully placed on the voter registration rolls by Logan's gang, it is obviously necessary to spell out in excruciating detail what his favorite lawyer in Maleng's office ought to be telling him is his job.

The article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer indicated that a very limited request for an attorney general's opinion would be made:

Logan said he based his decisions on a state law requiring "clear and convincing evidence" that a registration is invalid. Although Sotelo's evidence "raises a suspicion" about many of the registrations, Logan said she did not prove conclusively that voters do not live at the addresses listed -- for example, in an apartment in the rear of the building housing the private mailboxes.

Constantine agreed.

But Satterberg argued that if the registrations were flawed from the beginning, they can be canceled without satisfying the narrow requirements of the law governing challenges.

Although it won't affect Monday's rulings, the prosecutor's office will seek a legal opinion from the state attorney general as to which interpretation applies, Satterberg said.

Posted by: Micajah on November 29, 2005 05:02 PM
35. komo 4 just ran a little story on it featuring Sims complaining that the prosecutor won't take action against Sotelo....... he kept rattling on about now there's no standard and the bar has to be high..

Posted by: sgmmac on November 29, 2005 05:27 PM
36. I can't believe the Republicans were so sloppy that they didn't anticipate this. What were they thinking? It makes them look inept & opportunistic.

What they need to do is get some Republican volunteers and start going door to door to verify where the private mailbox voters actually live. That shouldn't be too hard to do with all the information available on the internet these days.

Posted by: Clean House on November 29, 2005 05:41 PM
37. Ivan,

Are you simply a bot whose job is to find plausible dianibility to excuse every decisions that is made by the Dean Logan and company or do you actully have an opinion of your own regarding whether it is apporpriate to have illegal registrations and whether it was ok to have the appropriate agency allow the illegal registrations to be admitted? You seem to be saying that since they are in the system and one law conflicts with the other that there is nothing to do but throw up our hands and say que sera sera. You seem to have no care that the peopel responsible for making the current decisions about who can be challenged are the same ones who created the catch-22 by failing to do their job in the first place. Unless, you believe that it is NOT their job to reject improper registraions and that the screwed up laws in Washington then, by defualt allow illegal voting to occur. And since it is only the evil republicans complaining about the illegal voting then it must be ok because repugs never stand for anything right, just or good.

Please state your position on the acutal merits of invalid registrations rather than just being an apologist for the current administration.

Thanks

Posted by: Eyago on November 29, 2005 06:00 PM
38. Hmmm. I'm wondering why you don't mention that 58 out of 199 is a little less than 30% (less than one in three) -- considering that your post yesterday states that "one out of three isn't good" in terms of Mr. Dickie, I am confused why you don't apply this same measuring stick to the ratio in the challenged ballots. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say, and same for what "isn't good".

Posted by: CS on November 29, 2005 06:33 PM
39. Eyago:

I answered your questions already, at least some of them. In the first place, 57 challenges were upheld. In the second place, King County Elections is going after others whose validity is in doubt. If they are found to be invalid, those people will be removed from the voter rolls, or will update their voter information with the required entries.

It doesn't get done when and how you might like it to be. These have to be taken on a case by case basis, and not you, not me, not Stefan, and certainly not Lori Sotelo know what each voter's circumstances are.

These voters are not invalid because Stefan says they are, and all his little sheep fall into line shouting baa, baa, baa, fraud, fraud, fraud.

If your desire is to maximize integrity in the King County voter rolls, let the system work, be sure to keep them honest, and stay the course.

If your desire is just to smear Democrats with whatever you have, whenever you have it, however you can, just keep supporting the actions of Chris Vance, Lori Sotelo, John Carlson, and the owner of this blog, and keep marching in lockstep on the treadmill to political oblivion. Because we will kick your butts from one end of King County to the other. And we'll do it with a smile.

Posted by: Ivan on November 29, 2005 06:34 PM
40. Richard Pope,

You are right on about Mr. Mouse. Except for some pesky little laws about the registration information being true and correct, ID being required and something about residency, the scenario you pointed out for Mr. Mouse actually does work, right Dean?

Per RCW 29A.08.120, you may register by mail. Cool, don’t have to show ID or even be seen.

Per RCW 29A.40.040, you may request to be an ongoing absentee voter. With the requirement of some counties for all mail balloting, this is moot (sort of).

Per RCW 29A.08.010, if you don't have any of the ID listed, you are given a unique registration number. No indication of what they do with it…

Per RCW 29A.08.112, you can say you live in Pioneer Square, Volunteer Park, Golden Gardens, etc. and register the address as the nearest government building - King County Elections Office – (unless you’re a Democrat lawyer, then any address will do, right Kevin Hamilton?). You can also register at a mailbox, just don’t put P.O. Box or MBO in the address, right Dean? Also, use a different address for your mailing address. Just be careful to not be too obvious, but what would that be Dean?

Per RCW 29A.08.113, when you vote absentee the first time, your ballot will be treated as a provisional. If the signatures match the voter registration records, your vote counts.

Per RCW 29A.08.830, a challenger must prove that you don't live where you said and they must prove where you do live. Right Dean? Since the laws are arranged to make it easy to register, you wouldn’t even need to exist. If someone challenges your registration, don’t appear before the board and certainly don’t admit you don’t live where you registered and you’re off the hook, right Dean?

About those pesky little laws (this is long) -

ARTICLE VI
ELECTIONS AND ELECTIVE RIGHTS
SECTION 1 QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS.
All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and who have lived in the state, county, and precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote, except those disqualified by Article VI, Section 3 of this Constitution, shall be entitled to vote at all elections.

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.

RCW 29A.04.151
Residence.
"Residence" for the purpose of registering and voting means a person's permanent address where he or she physically resides and maintains his or her abode. However, no person gains residence by reason of his or her presence or loses his or her residence by reason of his or her absence:

RCW 29A.08.010
"Information required for voter registration." (Effective January 1, 2006.)
As used in this chapter: "Information required for voter registration" means the minimum information provided on a voter registration application that is required by the county auditor in order to place a voter registration applicant on the voter registration rolls. This information includes:

(1) Name;

(2) Residential address;

(3) Date of birth;

(4) Washington state driver's license number or Washington state identification card number, or the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security number if the applicant does not have a Washington state driver's license or Washington state identification card;

(5) A signature attesting to the truth of the information provided on the application; and

(6) A check or indication in the box confirming the individual is a United States citizen.

If the individual does not have a driver's license, state identification card, or Social Security number, the registrant must be issued a unique voter registration number in order to be placed on the voter registration rolls. All other information supplied is ancillary and not to be used as grounds for not registering an applicant to vote. Modification of the language of the official Washington state voter registration form by the voter will not be accepted and will cause the rejection of the registrant's application.
RCW 29A.08.210
Application -- Information required -- Warning. (Effective until January 1, 2006.)
An applicant for voter registration shall complete an application providing the following information concerning his or her qualifications as a voter in this state:

(1) The address of the last former registration of the applicant as a voter in the state;

(2) The applicant's full name;

(3) The applicant's date of birth;

(4) The address of the applicant's residence for voting purposes;

(5) The mailing address of the applicant if that address is not the same as the address in subsection (4) of this section;

(6) The sex of the applicant;

(7) A declaration that the applicant is a citizen of the United States;

(8) The applicant's signature; and

(9) Any other information that the secretary of state determines is necessary to establish the identity of the applicant and prevent duplicate or fraudulent voter registrations.

This information shall be recorded on a single registration form to be prescribed by the secretary of state.

If the applicant fails to provide the information required for voter registration, the auditor shall send the applicant a verification notice. The auditor shall not register the applicant until the required information is provided. If a verification notice is returned as undeliverable or the applicant fails to respond to the notice within forty-five days, the auditor shall not register the applicant to vote.

The following warning shall appear in a conspicuous place on the voter registration form:


"If you knowingly provide false information on this voter registration form or knowingly make a false declaration about your qualifications for voter registration you will have committed a class C felony that is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, or by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars, or both imprisonment and fine."
RCW 29A.08.230
Oath of applicant.
For all voter registrations, the registrant shall sign the following oath:


"I declare that the facts on this voter registration form are true. I am a citizen of the United States, I am not presently denied my civil rights as a result of being convicted of a felony, I will have lived in Washington at this address for thirty days immediately before the next election at which I vote, and I will be at least eighteen years old when I vote."
RCW 29A.08.110
Auditor's procedure. (Effective until January 1, 2006.)
(1) On receipt of an application for voter registration under this chapter, the county auditor shall review the application to determine whether the information supplied is complete. An application that contains the applicant's name, complete valid residence address, date of birth, and signature attesting to the truth of the information provided on the application is complete. 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 or is returned as undeliverable the auditor shall not place the name of the applicant on the county voter list. If the applicant provides the required information, the applicant shall be registered to vote as of the date of mailing of the original voter registration application.

(2) If the information is complete, the applicant is considered to be registered to vote as of the date of mailing. The auditor shall record the appropriate precinct identification, taxing district identification, and date of registration on the voter's record. Within forty-five days after the receipt of an application but no later than seven days before the next primary, special election, or general election, the auditor shall send to the applicant, by first class mail, an acknowledgement notice identifying the registrant's precinct and containing such other information as may be required by the secretary of state. The postal service shall be instructed not to forward a voter registration card to any other address and to return to the auditor any card which is not deliverable. If the applicant has indicated that he or she is registered to vote in another county in Washington but has also provided an address within the auditor's county that is for voter registration purposes, the auditor shall send, on behalf of the registrant, a registration cancellation notice to the auditor of that other county and the auditor receiving the notice shall cancel the registrant's voter registration in that other county. If the registrant has indicated on the form that he or she is registered to vote within the county but has provided a new address within the county that is for voter registration purposes, the auditor shall transfer the voter's registration.

(3) If an acknowledgement notice card is properly mailed as required by this section to the address listed by the voter as being the voter's mailing address and the notice is subsequently returned to the auditor by the postal service as being undeliverable to the voter at that address, the auditor shall promptly send the voter a confirmation notice. The auditor shall place the voter's registration on inactive status pending a response from the voter to the confirmation notice.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 29, 2005 06:37 PM
41. Ivan,

"If your desire is just to smear Democrats with whatever you have, whenever you have it, however you can"

Oh, and that's not the modus operandi of the Democratic party nowadays - the constant smear campaigns? I'd $h!t twice and die if your party every had a new idea rather than an old smear. Pick up the phone, it's the Kettle calling, he says you're black too. I'm not condoning the smear tactics, but from Howard Dean to Ron Sims, you know this is how your party does business.

"Because we will kick your butts from one end of King County to the other. And we'll do it with a smile."

Hah. You make me laugh. Your private little echo chamber of King County may be your safe haven - but feel free to venture out of your secure cocoon so we can wipe the floor with your worthless @$$. But for Seattle and San Francisco, you pathetic little liberals are on the run. And as soon as we break a few more Democratic enclaves of illegal votes (see Milwaukee), we'll own more states in the Midwest like we own the south.

We own the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, Ivan. But you're definitely the KING of Rufus King County. You're a dinosaur and you don't even realize it. :) That makes me happy.

Posted by: Larry on November 29, 2005 06:53 PM
42. "Auditor's procedure. (Effective until January 1, 2006.)"
"Application -- Information required -- Warning. (Effective until January 1, 2006.)"


Do I dare ask what happens to these "after" January 1, 2006?

Posted by: Deborah on November 29, 2005 07:03 PM
43. Hi Larry:

Tim Kaine, the newly elected governor of Virginia, says hello. Pleasant dreams.

Posted by: Ivan on November 29, 2005 07:05 PM
44. Deborah,

The law is pretty much the same after January 1. The text was modified to add the SoS into the mix.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 29, 2005 07:07 PM
45. Whew!

Thanks!

With our current rabid "liberal" legislature in Olympia....I expected more loopholes written in to make it easier for future fraud......

Posted by: Deborah on November 29, 2005 07:13 PM
46. Hi Ivan:

John Roberts Jr, the newly elected chief justice and Judge Alito, soon to be elected justice say hello, and wanted to remind you that they will still be in the court far beyond Tim Kaine's governor tenure. Sweet Dreams, the court will not be liberal in your lifetime!

Posted by: GS on November 29, 2005 07:19 PM
47. The consensus on this website has a collective hatred for the dishonesty and quasi-totalitarianism of King County Records & Elections and King County Government in general comparable to the hatred by the political left of this region for Bush.

However, there is one major difference - the collective hatred here for KCRE and King County Government uses truth and facts to convery their case, which the far left uses primarily propaganda and lies to convey their hatred of the Bush Administration. We also believe, that if done well, there is recourse to take down the existing KCRE with some eventual modifications in King County Government.

I challenge the far left to defend either of these examples (King County - in support or the Bush administration - against) with facts and truth. There will be some attempts, but I would be surprised if the leftist trolls are capable of the integrity and intelligence it takes to pass the truth test. One caveat - Bush did not lie to get us into Iraq - so fuggetaboutit, although I will agree to do it the way we did was not a good decision.

Posted by: KS on November 29, 2005 07:23 PM
48. Ivan,

Hold on buddy, I'm on a conference call with John Kerry and John Edwards. These guys have so much free time now, I may need to up my rate plan. It turns out that Edwards didn't technically 'vanish', even though it seems like it, because that's not technically possible.

Posted by: Larry on November 29, 2005 07:45 PM
49. Mickey has as much right to vote as the rest of you. He has finally found his voice in a city that value the diversity he brings to the table. Mice are people too.

Posted by: BananaLand(akaIguana) on November 29, 2005 10:43 PM
50. Ivan,

Hey big feller, how as you say, is "King County Elections . . . going after others whose validity is in doubt" where "the only challenges to mail box registrations that Logan accepted were the ones where the challenged voter volunteered information that they resided elswehere, and where Dow Constantine requires, "some kind of an admission from the voter that they do not reside where they said they reside.

Kind of tough to GO AFTER someone if they must COME AFTER YOU in order to be caught don't you think?

Wise up fool.

Posted by: Amused by lying liberals on November 30, 2005 10:51 AM
51. Ivan says” ”King County Elections is going after others whose validity is in doubt. If they are found to be invalid, those people will be removed from the voter rolls, or will update their voter information with the required entries. It doesn't get done when and how you might like it to be.”

Literal translation: Democrats are actively engaging in an effort to catch law breakers, but only if perpetrators turn themselves in, and if "caught," they will do any of a number of things, when and how DEMOCRATS might like it to be, but only so long as it deliberately defies Republicans' insistence of compliance with the law.

So long as Democrats refuse to admit to any real problems associated with the system or to abide by the law, Ivan asserts that he doesn’t care, because "[in his words] we will kick your butts [i.e. law abiders] from one end of King County to the other. And we'll do it with a smile.
Ahh yes, "That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain . . . " Hamlet Act I Sc. 4

Ivan is a hit-and-run liberal hack, petty criminal with a small brain, no point, and the usual blind liberal arrogance of unreasoned faith in imaginary party virtue.

Posted by: Amused by arrogant liberal scofflaws on November 30, 2005 02:16 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?