Just who are all of these illegally registered mail box voters, anyway?
Various crackpot bloggers and crackpot law school professors claim they're mostly lower income and homeless people who have no other options, but that turns out to be a canard. As I do more research on the list of mail box voters (research which the GOP regrettably failed to do before filing the challenges), I discover a number of affluent homeowners and even some celebrities. Keep reading for details, including the heretofore unreported name of the millionaire rock star who is falsely registered to vote at a West Seattle private mail box service --
In the challenge deliberations, Dow Constantine pointed to the case of one David Combs, who claimed he was homeless and sometimes slept in his car in the parking lot of the UPS Store on Klahanie Dr SE in Issaquah. Constantine even cited Combs testimony that the store manager gave him a key to the facility so he could sleep inside on cold nights. On the basis of Combs' testimony, Constantine concluded that the UPS Store was his bona fide residence and therefore it would be impossible to conclude that the other mail box voters were not also bona fide residents of their mail boxes.
In fact, I phoned the Klahanie UPS Store and spoke with a manager. He told me that every mail box renter gets a key to access their box after store hours, that no mail box renters are authorized to sleep in the store and he had no knowledge of Combs sleeping there. Nevertheless, Combs' exaggerated tale was the justification for the decision to reject the challenges of dozens of implausibly registered voters.
I've found a number of the other unsuccessfully challenged voters in county property records and the managers of their mail box stores have assured me that nobody is living in or around their stores.
Then there was Soundgarden guitarist Kim Thayil, who admitted to being registered at a mail box where he didn't reside in order to protect his privacy. The GOP rescinded the challenge against Thayil's registration, but I disagree with that judgment call. Laws on transparent voting residence apply to everyone for a good reason and there are no statutory exceptions for the rich and famous, formerly famous, near famous, aspiring famous, or infamous-but-don't-want-to-be-famous.
Finally, we get to the Big Kahuna of all mail box voters, Pearl Jam vocalist and guitarist Eddie Vedder, whose registration was not challenged by the GOP, but whom I discovered was registered at the Mail Box West store on the corner of California and Fauntleroy in West Seattle.
Vedder's voter registration says he lives at Box 175
I spoke with Donna Olson, who with her husband owns the building where Mail Box West is located and is also the resident manager for the apartments in that building. She insists that no homeless people are living in or around the building and that Eddie Vedder does not reside in any of the building's apartments. I have other evidence that Vedder resides elsewhere (not in the same precinct as Mail Box West) and is therefore not properly registered. I've contacted Vedder's representatives for comment and am waiting to hear back.
Interestingly, Vedder is a voting registration activist, one of the leading musicians involved with Rock the Vote and Vote for Change. Pearl Jam has apparently set up voter-registration tables at some of its concerts. I disagree with much of Vedder's politics, but I commend him at least for encouraging others to register and vote. I hope he will voluntarily change his voter registration to his proper address and even make a public announcement that he is doing so. It would set the right example for all the young people he is encouraging to register, that honest and transparent registration is indispensable for fair and credible elections. And it's not like he would be compromising his privacy. Anybody who is determined to find Vedder's house can probably figure out easier ways to obtain his address than going through the voter rolls.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 01, 2005 05:40 PM | Email ThisI really don't understand why it is so difficult for Logan/Sims to follow the law. The law says you have to register at your home address...there are even provisions for homeless people. How can registering at a post office box therefore be allowed??? It is technically against the law. Why is that SO hard to understand???
Keep it up Shark!
Posted by: megs on December 1, 2005 07:59 PMI live in rural King County, where I walk alot, and have found especially around Christmas, bags full of stolen mail strewn along the roadside disgarded by mail theft
Enough in fact that it prompted me years ago to transfer all my delivered mail to a secured Post Office Box.
And furthermore, at that time there was no available PO boxes in the City I lived in, so I had to get one in an adjacent city.
Of course I can have the absentees sent to my home address and left unsecured, but that was not what I wanted when I changed my mail delivery to a PO.
I know alot of people who have done the same thing.
Having said that I don't believe you should be able to list the PO address as your only address!
I would like to get a Ballot for my own home location, but have it sent to the PO of my choice due to these security reasons.
I have no problem writing my real home address on the Voter registration.
Posted by: gs on December 1, 2005 08:26 PM
The only objection I have is to providing a mail box in lieu of a bona fide residence address.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 1, 2005 08:52 PMAnyway, I'm a little uncomfortable with rules exceptions for 'the rich and famous', even while I understand his concerns. But he doesn't probably realize that mailbox 'residences' opens up too much fraud possibilities. And what about the rest of us poor shmoes who don't get the privacy he thinks he deserves unlike the 'unwashed'?
Posted by: Misty on December 1, 2005 09:12 PMIt seems to me, then, that there ought to be a way to show, on the voter registration (a little check box, maybe?), that the voter does not LIVE at the residence shown, but the actual place of current residence is recorded on a confidential document somewhere that is of limited access (to, say, people like elections officials, the police, etc.)
Thus, when a registration like this comes up for review or challenge, it would be an easy matter for a person with the required level of clearance to check on that address, and say "Yes, John Doe can legally vote in this precinct."
Thus, privacy and confidentiality can be maintained, and John Doe maintains his right to vote. Or is this too much common sense for Seattle?
Posted by: pseudotsuga on December 1, 2005 10:40 PM
Yup, something kind of like that.
It seems to be limited to crime victims at the moment, but I'll bet it would be pretty simple to accomodate rock stars, zillionaires, and maybe even the odd paranoid or two who want a confidential address. Posted by: pseudotsuga on December 1, 2005 11:09 PM
You are making an awfully big assumption, assuming they HAVE a soul. Posted by: SnoCo Voter on December 1, 2005 11:37 PM
Hey Right Wing Kook-
Was it ok for me to vote absentee when I was a non-handicapped Army Lieutenant in Brcko, Bosnia?
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 1, 2005 11:51 PMIt's particularly noteworthy how often Goldy at the HorsesAss does his research by just blabbing a few liberal plattitudes and possibly making a phone call or two to an anonymous lawyer or witness with supposed first hand knowledge.
Thanks for proving what we all know to be true, the election rolls are filled with erroneous voters, and together these votes clearly threw the result of last year's gubernatorial election into eternal uncertainty.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 2, 2005 12:46 AMYou have to outwork the Ds.
Posted by: swatter on December 2, 2005 07:36 AMWho in the Washington State Republican Party should I report this henious crime to?
We've all must practice constant vigilance in order to stamp out illegal sidewalk spitting and against the light street crossing.
Remember, watch you neighbor and report any unusual or suspicious or unpatriotic behavior to the proper authorities (That's the Wash State Republican Party).
They'll know how to handle the situation.
After all Dobermans don't talk...
Posted by: The Phantom on December 2, 2005 09:06 AMWhy couldn't the Rs have done something that easy as checks? Too giddy with their discoveries? Short on volunteers? This is what tree mail is all about. The party could have 20 or 50 people doing internet research on some of these things and it wouldn't overwhelm any one person.
Posted by: swatter on December 2, 2005 09:13 AMTwo words....Who cares? Ever notice that your posts get 30 to 40 comments? While DG get 100's to each of his posts.
Time to take a pause and reflect.
Dug
Posted by: DugoutNut on December 2, 2005 09:15 AMThe GOP sent out 1900 challenges. King County had hearings. Instead of talking about that, you find some multi-millionaire singer who wasn't even on the list as an illustration of the kinds of people who don't follow the rules. Are we supposed to believe that the other 1899 were multi-millionaire rock stars too? Does two multi-millionaire rock stars remotely advance the assertion that the bulk of the list aren't homeless and low income people?
You guys are completely unhinged.
Posted by: Get a Clue on December 2, 2005 09:18 AMTypical liberal obfuscation. When presented with evidence that a prominent liberal rock-and-roller who conducts voting drives at his concerts is illegally registered to vote....your response is that he's not the guitarist, he's the lead singer.
You're a parody of yourself. Too bad there's one million of you illogical freaks here in King County, you're really mucking up the joint.
Posted by: Larry on December 2, 2005 09:38 AMWhen the partisan canvassing board (2 Democrats to 1 Republican) rule for the aparatchik, no one is hardly surprised.
Saddam probably had lots of voter challenges in his last 'election' too but they also got over ruled by the ruling dictator.
As for the rock star examples, they are a what is know as a counterexample to disprove the theory that the mailbox voters are all poor downtrodden living-in-cardboard types. You know, the type of poor souls the Demagoguery (aka Democrat) party always exploits in order to seize power.
I have a hard time buying Stephan's posture of prodigious research skills if he doesn't know a commonplace local icon of pop culture for the past ten years, especially if he is researching that figure, and even snapping pictures of his mailbox.
My point was that Shark is a poser and a sham, and lacks connection to reality - hardly someone qualified to interpret current events. But, everybody but you already knew this, so I suppose my point was wasted.
Moonbat Patrol -
Calling it a "counterexample" doesn't give it any dignity or credibility. If Democrats had claimed that ALL the challenged registrations were from the poor and homeless, a "counterexample" might have some weight. However, even Goldy and other liberal bloggers have already referred to the "famous rock guitarist" who was seeking to protect his privacy. They have also mentioned repeatedly houseboat owners, who are not poor or homeless. They've never made the claim that all of them are poor and homeless, but they have documented a number of poor and homeless voters who showed up at the hearings. One "counterexample" of a voter not even on the list on a point already conceded is worthless - particularly to a supposed master of statistics like the esteemed author.
Posted by: Get a Clue on December 2, 2005 10:20 AM"Democrats accused the Republicans of bullying the poor.
"Sotelo's challenges often targeted the downtrodden, those who for an unknown reason do not have a stable address and must use a post office box," said a statement from the state Democratic Party."
Posted by: Clues Blues on December 2, 2005 10:34 AMHow about if we allow all the poor people who were treated so shabbily by the Republican's challenge to not follow the speed limits? They are allowed to go 70 mph through your neighborhood as recompense.
Makes as much sense as wanting 2000 republicans who reside in eastern Washington voting in a precinct in Fremont.
Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how you feeeel about it!! Posted by: Your feelings don't matter on December 2, 2005 10:40 AM
"if he doesn't know a commonplace local icon of pop culture for the past ten years"
The release date of the CD 'Ten' by Pearl Jam was August 27, 1991 - over fourteen years ago. My friends and I knew who Eddy Vedder was when we sat next to him and met him at the Rockets-Sonics playoff game 7 at Key Arena in May 1993, 12.5 years ago.
I have a hard time buying anything you say because you said Eddy Vedder has been a pop culture icon for the last ten years, when really it's been at least 14 years. You didn't know Eddy Vedder until 1995? What kind of loser are you?
My point is that you're a poser and a sham - hardly someone qualified to interpret current events. But, everybody but you already knew this, so I suppose my point was wasted.
I'm using your logic, Get a Clue, and it doesn't make you look pretty. As I said above, you're a parody of yourself. I've received no good, logical argument in rebuttal, only confirmation of my hypothesis. Thanks for that.
Posted by: Larry on December 2, 2005 10:46 AMYou understood! We have made a breakthrough.
You are absolutely right - I was completely wrong to say Eddie's been a fixture for ten years, and also completely inaccurate in saying that the GOP made 1900 challenges.
And so you are right that you would be a complete idiot to take my word or my analysis on current events, as I have shown myself to be culturally illiterate and careless with the facts....
...just as Shark has, again, and again, and again.
I'm glad to know that in the future, you'll be treating his words with the same disdain as you do mine. I love it when we can reach across the partisan divide and have these breakthroughs.
Internet *hugs* to you, my friend.
Posted by: Get a Clue on December 2, 2005 11:01 AMSo that's the final disposition of your rebuttal? You admit that you're an idiot, and therefore we can consider everyone else an idiot?
No thanks, GaC, I'm completely at ease with your idiocy, and I don't need to transpose nor project it onto anyone else. It's all about you, buddy.
The parody goes on. Maybe you should start a Parody Pride Parade in Seattle.
Posted by: Larry on December 2, 2005 11:17 AMThis is the least impressive post you have made in a long time.
People deserve privacy and dignity. And they deserve the right to vote.
The politicians (both sides) of the past created many barriers to prevent "unwanted" votes.
Our beloved forefathers made sure only males could vote...and what about the slaves.
You are attempting to recreate the segregation of the past. Please...focus on other things.
And, for goodness sakes, get that awful picture of Rossi down. It makes me gag almost as much as Bush's constant smirk. Yuck.
Posted by: LovinUSA on December 2, 2005 11:21 AMNice. You make your party proud.
Posted by: LovinUSA on December 2, 2005 11:35 AMWe were getting along so well for a minute. I'm truly hurt.
You Republicans really ARE heartless bastards. *sniff*
Or, maybe, this has nothing to do with Republicans - you're just a bullheaded ass who will try to get the last word in, no matter how dumb the exchange gets, which makes discussion a complete waste of time.
I made my point. Agree or disagree. But don't pretend I said things I didn't just to get the last stupid dig in.
Posted by: Get a Clue on December 2, 2005 11:40 AMThe problem is, because of voting by mail, the idea of the PCO's has become obsolete, and all they do now is phone the party faithful come election day. They ought to be out on the street pounding on Eddie's door and verifying that Eddie still lives where his registration says he does.
Without this distributed authority, our elections are pointless.
Posted by: huckleberry on December 2, 2005 12:11 PMYou younguns fail to realize there is a whole generation of folks who just don't care who you made your icon, who don't watch silly entertainment shows or read celebrity gossip.
Get off you arrogance... the entire population doesn't follow your fads or revolve around your choices in pop culture.
"Or, maybe, this has nothing to do with Republicans - you're just a bullheaded ass who will try to get the last word in, no matter how dumb the exchange gets, which makes discussion a complete waste of time."
Once again, you are what you accuse others of being. Your entire post was only to call me an ass and get the last word in.
I only use your logic to point out how ridiculous your arguments are. I don't pretend to buy into your logic, because that would be...you guessed it....illogical!!
You're a parody of yourself. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
Posted by: Larry on December 2, 2005 12:42 PMContent counts.
Sorry you're a nut.
ewaggin
Posted by: ewaggin on December 2, 2005 01:28 PMThe law does not make exceptions for rich rock stars, garbage collectors, or you, or me, to omit their residential address from their voter registration.
BTW, consider yourself lucky that it takes a picture of your disliked politicians to make you gag. Every time I hear "Gregoire" or read her name, it makes me want to hurl.
Posted by: ewaggin on December 2, 2005 01:34 PMIt takes about 300 comments on the goldy blog to match the intellect of one shark comment. Which would you rather have...300 mosquito bites or one go-round with a shark? Posted by: PC on December 2, 2005 01:52 PM
"You are attempting to recreate the segregation of the past."
We can produce evidence from a court of law of several thousand illegally-cast ballots. We can also show further evidence, found too late for the lawsuit, of several thousand more illegal registrations.
Can you produce evidence of ONE ballot, ONE legal voter, who has been denied the right to cast a ballot in ANY election in Washington State history?
I've asked this of every liberal troll who has appeared here and has claimed 'segregation', or 'disenfranchisement', or 'suppressing the vote', and nobody has been able to satisfy my request.
There have been THOUSANDS of illegally-cast ballots, but there is no proof that ANYONE has EVER been denied the right to vote in this state.
Can you provide any examples, LovinUSA, or are you also just talking out of your hind end about something that DOESN'T EXIST (disenfranchised voters in WA state)??
I await enlightenment.
Posted by: Larry on December 2, 2005 03:24 PMGeez...you shot yourself in your own foot with that one.
Posted by: LovinUSA on December 2, 2005 03:24 PMHow would you feel if, as I found out through this blog, that a stranger was registered to vote at my family home of 80 years!!
You can bet I didn't ask about perjury in my rage when I challenged this illegally registered voter. And what if I told you I was a democrat?
Posted by: Get Serious on December 2, 2005 03:44 PM(1) What means would you propose for ensuring that only people who actually live in a precinct register to vote there? If someone can't even supply a real address in the precinct, what reason is there for believing that's actually where they live?
(2) It may be good to make it easier for people who don't want their address published to prevent its publication. The rules, however, do not generally allow that (there are exceptions for battered women, etc.), and they certainly to not allow people to simply specify an address where they do not live. Should people be allowed to disregard any and all rules they disagree with? If not in general, why in this particular case?
Posted by: supercat on December 2, 2005 04:24 PMWhat are you saying, that if Eddie got another couple of platinum records, he should be allowed to vote twice?
Posted by: ewaggin on December 2, 2005 07:07 PMAs a charter member of the Ten Club and a veteran of numerous PJ mosh pits, I can assure you that Vedder rocks. His political antics are foolish, and yeah, he's a Hypocrite (capital H intended), but all that aside, the dude could blow back in the day. In fact, I'm going to go put on Vitalogy right now.
And, sorry, Get a Clue--he does play guitar, sort of.