From the Everett Herald -- "Candidate didn't live in the county, auditor concludes"
Snohomish County has canceled the voter registration of Greg Stephens, an independent candidate who ran for the Snohomish County Council while living in King County.Unfortunately, Stephens' registration wasn't challenged until after the election. I think it would be hard to prove that Stephens candidacy changed the outcome of this particular race, but this incident underscores why it's important for voters to be vigilant about bogus registrations and challenge questionable voters (and candidates!) before any election.
The incident also suggests an intriguing scenario that I would in no way help orchestrate myself, but which I describe here as a thought experiment --
What would happen if a voter, who was registered to vote at, say, a private mail box, filed for candidacy, but never appeared in public and could not be physically located? In most circumstances non-serious candidates do not win enough votes to make a difference, but what if the phantom candidate had a name which was confusingly similar to another candidate. For example, what if a voter registered under the implausible though not impossible name of "Sam Reed-Incumbent" filed to run against Secretary of State Sam Reed? Many voters might mistakenly infer that the "-Incumbent" portion of his last name meant that he was the incumbent Secretary, as opposed to the upstart who doesn't have the -Incumbent designation. Such a candidate might draw enough votes away from the real incumbent Secretary Reed to alter the outcome of the race, especially in a non-partisan primary, should such a thing ever be held.
Some might be tempted to challenge Sam Reed-Incumbent's registration before the election. But without clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Reed-Incumbent does not reside at the mail box where he is registered (and what evidence would possibly meet that standard, unless he chooses to come forward and provide his actual address), it would be difficult for the challenger to prevail and to invalidate either Mr. Reed-Incumbent's registration or candidacy.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 18, 2005 08:53 PM | Email ThisWhether the Liberals and progressives liek to amit it or not, everyone benefits from integrity and security in the voter registration process.
Goldy and his ragtag band of Bush haters can whine all they want about cheating rebpulicans, but in reality they are barking against steps to ensure integrity, and they defeat their own arguments.
Its a hard position to understand. Why should anyone be afraid to make sure those eligble to vote are the only ones voting?
Posted by: Karl on December 18, 2005 09:22 PMNice paranoid scenario. Keep 'em coming!
If you had cared to check, all candidates must declare under penalty of perjury that the live in the jurisdiction covered by the office they are running for. They also have to file PDC documents, again under penalty of perjury.
But, to extrapolate this loony's misdeed to every other possible candidate is, well, paranoid.
This candidate should and most likely will be prosecuted under both sets of regulations.
However, we have seen a huge recent example of a person who filed about 1900 documents, under penalty of perjury, who basically got to walk away because the prosecutor didn't feel like applying the law...so if the candidate gets off, it wouldn't be setting a precedent.
Apply the law in all perjury cases!
If you care about the electoral process, why don't you come on board? I would love to see this become a bipartisan thing. I'd like to see the Dems nominate a 2008 Secretary of State candidate who (unlike Sam Reed) really gets it. I'd vote for such a Democrat in a heartbeat (since I'm not voting for Reed under any circumstances, it would be nice to have someone to vote for).
Note that Stefan is not inquiring into how people voted, only into whether they voted legally. It's perfectly possible that most of the voters Stefan is challenging are Republicans. Stefan, like the rest of us, doesn't care. He wants clean elections, and let the great axe fall where it may.
I mean, the only reason to oppose such an effort is if one's party actually benefited from cheating, and if one believed that such cheating was a good thing, and--
Oh. I see.
Posted by: ScottM on December 18, 2005 09:47 PMI once was homeless (living in my car, which I used on the (minimum wage) job) for four months in another state while going through a divorce. My DL expired during this time and DMV would not let me renew it without a residential street address (I did not have family in that state at that time, so was unable to use a family address). There was a primary election during this time and I voted at the poll without being challenged, as I had voted there for the previous four years and was known to the poll workers. Under photo ID or similar "steps to ensure integrity" I would be turned away at the poll since my DL was expired and thus not valid.
Is it perfectly okay to disenfranchise legitimate voters like me to "clean up our election system?"
Posted by: terry on December 19, 2005 06:32 AMIt now appears that wasn't just another Eddie Murphy comedy, it was a Washington State Democratic party training video.
The very, very sad truth is that we will see this sort of thing played out here in the State of Washington. Just wait and see.
Another truth is that if it's tried against one of the loyalists such as Simms, or McDermott, it will get cleaned up faster than your coffee gets cold.
Posted by: why not? on December 19, 2005 09:32 AM58 voters' registrations were cancelled by the efforts of the King County GOP where these 58 were deemed to have not submitted legal registration information. How is that a win for you (Democrats) and a loss for Republicans? It should be viewed as a win for our elections process that people who did not provide proper information were not allowed to have their votes counted.
The process, though it was certainly skewed by the two Democrats on the canvassing board, worked to illustrate that we still have problems and if nothing else, the King County Elections Section has agreed to go back to looking for these types of problems in the system. If that's not a win for King County Republicans and the integrity of our elections, I don't know what is...
Posted by: DunnerMeister on December 19, 2005 09:43 AMAnd South, please explain why I might not have been a "legitimate voter." I had lived in (at the same address) and voted at that precinct for four years before becoming homeless. At what point did I become a legitimate voter - you do agree that I was at some point a legitimate voter, no? - and at what point did I cease to be a legitimate voter?
Posted by: terry on December 19, 2005 02:45 PMSo a made up name and registration would be legal because you can't challenge a voter you can't find.
Posted by: Vince on December 19, 2005 06:56 PMOne would have to conclude that this place is infested with regressive left-wing nuts who support a cheap imitation of the hammer and sickle and worship the one-world order.
Posted by: KS on December 19, 2005 08:43 PM