Taking a closer look at the Secretary of State's new statewide voter database, there appear to be many more duplicate registrations than the SoS and county officials are owning up to. And Sam Reed's claim that his office "hasn't found anyone who voted illegally" notwithstanding, it wasn't very hard for me to identify numerous instances where the records indicate that a doubly registered voter has voted twice. Now that I have a searchable version of the state database online, let's look at some of these probable double voters --
Links to specific examples follow, first some background.
The SoS official "Scheduled Maintenance Checks" as well as an email from Steve Excell indicate that the duplicate check is for first name, last name and birthdate. They also check based on WA driver's license and Social Security. I don't have access to DL and SS numbers, but based on just name and birthdate I found 31,214 pairs of matches, which is most of the 32,383 that the SoS claims to have identified. Excell explained that
there are a lot of Robert Smith's or Mary Smith's born on the same day -- even living in the same city. An elections official must go though the dupes and compare the signatures. Many raw dupes turn out to NOT be dupes.Fair enough, but there are a number of cases of matching pairs at the same address, which could have been taken care of first.
* I found 1,353 pairs of duplicates where both members match on first, name, last name, birthdate and exact address. 1,112 (82%) of these are in King County. Go figure. The SoS database only reports that date of last vote for each registration record and they haven't yet released enough information to reliably match with the county records which have more voting history, so it's hard to catch all the people who have voted twice in previous elections. As I've noted earlier this Seattle resident was credited with voting twice in Nov. 2004 (and we found both of her ballots), but her prior double voting is obscured by the "date last voted" field in the statewide file as one of her registrations voted in the Sep. 2005 primary and the other in the Nov. 2005 general election. Then there is Ms. H of Seattle, for whom the statewide database indicates that one registration is unused, but King County credits her with voting twice in 5 separate elections in 2002, 2003 and 2004. We also have Ms. S in Maple Valley, Mr. S. in Seattle, Mr. L in Seatac, Ms. S in Seattle, all of whom were credited twice in Nov. 2004, not to mention Mr. S of Bellevue, credited with voting twice in both Sep. 2005 and Nov. 2005.
* There are 11,715 additional cases of potential duplicates in a category that the SoS has given no indication that it's looking for -- people who have different names, but the same birthdate and identical addresses. A fair number of these appear to be identical twins, or spouses and roommates who have the same birthdate, but a non-trivial number are also people who were registered twice under different variants of their name, or where one registration has the name misspelled. Take for example Alfred T. Birnbaum of Seattle. There is another registration under the name Alfred T. Birngaum, same birthdate and same address down to the apartment number. Both registrations are credited with voting in Nov. 2004 -- by mail from the same address in Japan. We also have Pavel A. Orlovskiy and Pavel A. Drlovskiy of Auburn, both credited with voting in Nov. 2004. We appear to have had such double voters in Nov. 2005 too, including Michael D. Archery and Michael D. Archey of Burien, Alex V. Bountharath and Alex V. Bounthafath of Connell, Franklin County, and Kimberley K. House and Kimberley K. Woods of Pt. Townsend. If these are not double voters, then they are amazing coinky-dinks.
* Another category of potential duplicates apparently overlooked by the Secretary of State are cases where the name and address match, and the birthdates are too far apart for twins, and too close for a parent/child pair. I found 1,990 such matches. Some of these cases do appear to be different people, but in many of the case the birthdates are close enough to suggest that it was recorded incorrectly on one of the registrations. For example, there is Mr. H in Seattle where one registration has birthdate Jan. 6, 1959 and the other is Jan. 1, 1959. King County records show that both registrations are credited with voting in Nov. 2004. Mr. F in Mukilteo (Aug. 6, 1942 and Aug. 6, 1947) was also credited with voting twice in Nov. 2004. There is also Ms. S of Seattle (June 16, 1982 and June 16, 1984) credited with voting twice in Nov. 2004 and a proud owner of a third (unused) registration.
* Finally, there is another category of duplicates that is hard to find with a computer search, but that a careful registration clerk should be able to prevent when processing the voter's second registration form -- two registrations at the same address where the names and birthdates are only slightly different and where it's almost certainly the same person. I found this one serendipitously -- King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson, who was registered for years as "Julie Patterson". She apparently tried to change her name of registration last summer, so she is now registered as both Julie (birthdate Dec. 1, 1952) and Julia L. (birthdate Dec. 1, 1953). (She is only credited once per election). We also note that Patterson's son Alexander didn't vote for his mother in November, but that's a topic for another post.
The above are just a few of the many examples of voters I found who appear to have voted twice in at least one election. Of course, the records could be wrong or misleading in some of these cases. There are also thousands of other examples of duplicate registrations where either it appears that no double voting took place (but the potential exists) or that it is impossible to determine from available information whether the voter voted under more than one registration in the same election.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 06, 2006 06:00 AM | Email ThisIs there an organization that we can contribute funds to continue the oversight of SoS and KCE. I realize that a lot of this work is being done by volunteers, but I'm sure they would appreciate a hot meal and/or beverages.
Please continue to scrub the data. My gut feel is that most of the duplicate registrations were done in error. A good registration clerk should have prevented the duplicates from getting into the system.
Occam's/Ockham's Razor "the simplest explanation is generally wanted happened" probably explains most of these duplicates. Since KCE and SoS never adequately scrubbed the database, it's not surprising (though upsetting) that there are so many duplicates.
Duplicate registrations can be removed from the database.
In cases where the registrant did vote more than once in an election, I am not too sure how you prove sienter, intent to deceive/receive. My hunch is the county and State Supreme Court would hold the duplicate votes were made in error and not intended to deceive.
An interesting case is whether a valid arguement can be made that KCE has violated state and federal RICO (Racketering, Ifluence, Corrupt, Organization) statues to punish organized crime and whether there has been a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Voting Act by failing to take reasonable methods to prevent duplicate voters.
Once again is there an organization that we can contribute funds to continue the oversight of SoS and KCE.
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on February 6, 2006 07:15 AMAre we really supposed to believe that someone could accidentally / un*intent*ionally / innocently cast two ballots in the same election? Good grief!
Posted by: Patrick on February 6, 2006 08:24 AMWhy can't you get a 100k consultant contract to Stefan to weed through these registrations?
Posted by: swatter on February 6, 2006 08:46 AMI used to think that charging Dean Logan and his crew under the RICO statutes would probably be a stretch. I'm not so sure anymore. Just when you think it can't get any worse, Stefan keeps finding more smoking guns.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 6, 2006 08:56 AMNever underestimate the power of stupidity.
Posted by: Mike H on February 6, 2006 09:05 AMIf Washington State (SOS) is unwilling or unable to screen (scrub) the obvious. Why am I as a citizen, voter and taxpayer supposed to believe that the unwillingness or inabilities of the SOS Office is in my best interest? I can only imagine that what Stefan discovers is only the tip of the iceberg. As the little people and illegal immigrants are not called into question.
It would seem logical that the State's charter is to protect the voting franchise. Yet the actions of the State seem to disenfranchise voters. The last Governor's race and possibly the last Senatorial contest dramatically underlines the need for a fair election contest. Apparently this need is at cross purposes with the State's agenda.
Given the lack of public concern by the SOS Office and some counties most notably King, Snohomish and Pierce, one may suspect that in future elections the Counties will be shielded by the State. "Don't blame us, the SOS is responsible for the voting base."
All of this leads to one question. What remedy is immediately available to citizens to hold the SOS responsible.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 6, 2006 09:09 AMIn cases where the registrant did vote more than once in an election, I am not too sure how you prove sienter, intent to deceive/receive. My hunch is the county and State Supreme Court would hold the duplicate votes were made in error and not intended to deceive.
Come on, Mark. You must be more intelligent that what you wrote here.
There is no need to prove intent. Voting twice is illegal, and anybody who does it is automatically guilty of breaking the law. Why even bother with trying to divine intent, sinister or otherwise. Wake up, Mark!
Also, TH says:
If voting really worked, they wouldn't let us do it.
This made me laugh hysterically for about 5 seconds, but then it made me think. I stopped laughing.
Posted by: huckleberry on February 6, 2006 09:11 AMGiven everything Stefan has found, there is no doubt that the result was never really determined.
I can't wait for 2008.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2006 09:34 AM2. Just a little excellence folks just a little. You're good at cashing our tax checks and not much else. Look at the duplicate voters firing bullets into democracy even from Japan. ICBMV's incoming! (Intercontinental Ballistic Multiple Votes).
3. How many non-citizens voting? Not even a field for citizenship? I know it is not really needed but since it is easier to vote than buy cold medicine at least the "auditors" could do something about that.
The circle of voting is not closed but pried open enough to take care of those pesky little close races.
Huh? We do have a secret ballot and I have no idea which candidates any individual voted for.
The records indicate, however, that Julia Patterson's son did not cast a ballot last November when his mother was up for re-election.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 6, 2006 10:12 AM(I state this cautiously, because I truly believe that as parties go, the Republican Party has some degree of integrity left within its ranks, whereas the Democrat Party has driven people of integrity out of its ranks or into oblivion.)
With champions like Stefan digging up the evidence of wrongdoing, it cannot be left to the political parties to reform and correct the wrongdoing. Both parties still care more about their reputations and credibility to the majority of uninformed voters than exposing the corruption and flaws that they have allowed to occur forever. They rightfully feel threatened that "they" will pay with their cushy governmental positions if the majority of voters ever truly understand just how inept, inefficient and/or corrupt government is.
The only path to reform any of this is for the informed minority to blister the media at all levels with this evidence and demands for coverage. Only through education of the uninformed voters will government feel the pressure to acknowledge these problems and correct them.
When you read a news story in the Time or PI, or see something on the local news that is missing something, biased, or engaged in helping government cover-up clear wrongdoing, call themm on it. Write the reporter an email. They will almost always respond if it is respectful and doesn't come off as an attack on them. Find you who the reporter's editor is. I am convinced that the problem with the media is less with the reporters, and mostly with those "invisible" editors that have the power to coerse reporters into writing the story the editor wants the readers to see. Write them too. See if any of them have the courage to write you back. Over the years I have had very little success getting editors to write back, but then been amazed to get responses from publishers.
Turn up the heat and let the media know what the informed minority thinks about their reporting. Stefan is providing the ammunition, but bullets don't accomplish anything until they are loaded into a weapon and fired. If we count on either party to fight for these reforms, we will be waiting until they align with some other poltiical agenda, where the benefit to the party outweighs the damage the evidence of corruption and ineptitude will cause. And from the action (or inaction) by Sam Reed that we're all witnessing, it is clear that real reform of Elections is not on the Republican's agenda.
Posted by: MJC on February 6, 2006 10:13 AMA cross check of these databases (if allowed) with county or state voting records would be most enlightening.
Regards,
TheePhilosopherStone
Posted by: Stefan on February 6, 2006 12:20 PMI had checked Stefan's database earlier for my street and know that she was only registered once in King County at that time. She has been at school for a while, so maybe they've given you home addresses instead of mailing addresses or something.
LORD, why can't they figure this OUT!?!
Posted by: roughrider on February 6, 2006 12:28 PMThe SoS has already come out and said that he does not plan to purge the rolls and make everyone reregister. Supposedly, that would be unfair to the shut-ins - which I don't buy. The Dems would predictably drag their heels about doing this. Stefan - any plans on how you might approach this to make sure that this monumental database problem will be corrected ? What about public involvement here by those of us who want clean elections ?
Posted by: KS on February 6, 2006 01:01 PMThe records indicate, however, that Julia Patterson's son did not cast a ballot last November when his mother was up for re-election.
Okay, that's better. I read your post and inferred from what you said that he'd voted for the other candidate. Disclosing whether or not someone has voted is totally okay, as I'm sure you'll agree.
I haven't looked at the database as you have and was afraid that KCE was dumb enough to release who voted for whom. My bad.
Thanks for clarifying,
-steve
Right now, we have very good "biometric" readers for computers that read one's finger or thumb print for use as a login key or "verification" key for documents. Since no two persons have TOTALLY IDENTICAL finger and thumb prints, it would be a (relatively) minimal task to have each person register TWO fingerprints (say, thumb and forefinger on the right hand) in a digitised voter registration database after initial verification of identity (hospital birth certificate - american hospitals take FEET AND HAND PRINTS of newborns, and they do not change as one grows older!).
To vote at a precinct, one simply presents the two "digits on record" to two biometric readers to get instant verification. Mail voters supply inked fingerprints of the same digits in two boxes on the ballot. If the prints don't match (as far as the computer records can determine), the voter/ballot is DISQUALIFIED.
Far-fetched? not really. Ever see the movie "Gattica" (DNA from blood determines identity, etc.) or "Thunderball" (iris scan: no two irises are identical!) "Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan" (retinal scan - like fingerprints, no two retinas are the same!)?
Finally, there's always the IMPLANTED ID CHIP that's used for pet identification, etc. these days. Biologically safe AND, if implanted deeply enough, CAN NOT BE REMOVED! plus, each chip has TOTALLY UNIQUE NUMBERS that cannot be "cloned" or otherwise duplicated as no two chips are manufactured with the same number.
If you haven't already, better break out your Book of Revelation and start reading because that's where we're rapidly heading. To prepare you for this, I suggest a Sci-fi book called "The Ice Children"(?) that broached this concept of "non-forgeable, etc. unique personal IDs" more than 40 years ago...
Posted by: PromptJock on February 6, 2006 11:35 PMGiven the motivation of the present system administrators, biometrics provide no shield as they are obviously not motivated to maintain the integrity of the voting system and data base.
Washington State is not ruled by incompetent people. Washington State is ruled by powerful interest that want to maintain the status quo at all costs. The people who share and support the status quo may be found in all branches of State and Local government and many individual departments. the payoff for them is career, money and power, the payoff for taxpayers is a yolk around the neck.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 7, 2006 07:19 AM