Of the Democrats on the King County Council who have until now supported the proposal for mail-only voting, the one who is most familiar with the inherent inaccuracy of mail ballot processing is Dow Constantine. I would hope that he bring his hands-on experience to the debate when the Council reconsiders the proposal and its amendments on June 19th. Constantine was on the November 2005 canvassing board and I stood over his shoulder over the course of several hours watching him and his colleagues attempt to divine voter intent on poorly marked ballots, scrutinize postmarks to determine whether the ballots were mailed on time, and try to compare signatures on ballots with the signatures on file. It was clear he had concerns about the amount of time the whole process took and more importantly about how subjective and inaccurate it all was. (It's also worth noting that if the next Presidential election is conducted entirely by mail, the number of questionable ballots would be up to 2 1/2 times the number from November 2005). This audio clip has Constantine and fellow canvassing board member Dan Satterberg discussing the problems with signature verification:
Satterberg: Part of the problem with having signature comparison be a central element [garbled] is that signatures change over time and that voters don't update them.I personally don't trust "signature verification" whether to ensure that my own ballot is counted or to prevent someone else from voting my ballot. If Constantine does end up voting for mail-only voting, I hope he would at least offer a good explanation why the foundation of our democracy should rest on the vicissitudes of people's signatures. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 07, 2006 04:30 PM | Email This
Constantine: And they change from day to day as well.
I'm not saying that we should be so lax about identity verification, or that we should move to all-mail voting. I just don't see how mail-in voting differs from poll-station voting in this particular aspect.
Posted by: David Wright on June 7, 2006 05:23 PMThere are plenty of easy ways that ballot envelopes could be better secured using microprinting or RFID technologies, etc. The process could be improved, but the end result is that currently no one knows who is voting a given absentee ballot and the system can be cheated quite easily.
If we ever wanted to be serious about voter registration, then we should simply require the same level of scrutiny and authentication we do for issuing drivers licenses and IDs. To get a license, you have to go to the DMV and have your picture taken, present the correct documents, etc. Sure it's a little bit more work, but it would allow for the security of voting if that was really the goal.
Barring real methods to secure voting, the best approach is to simply require poll voting except in case of disability. All poll voting removes most of the security concerns and allows for spur of the moment decisions to vote. And bring out the purple dye. Very simple and inexpensive methods are all that is needed to secure an election.
Why do Democrats fight secure elections every step of the way?
The only people afraid of reasonable security are criminals.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 7, 2006 06:50 PMThe last couple of times I voted at the polls, they asked for ID in addition to getting my signature.
I keep finding it amazing that the legislature could pass a law REQUIRING photo ID to buy cold tablets and in the very same breath claim that photo ID for "grandma" to vote is too much of a burden.
Supercat - maybe in KC they asked if they could help hold the template.....
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 7, 2006 09:05 PMMost half way intelligent people can see right through this crap. However, it is important that the people keep applying pressure on this group of comrades at the next County Council meeting about all-mail voting - the only way that the people will get what they want !
Posted by: KS on June 7, 2006 09:32 PMPlease include postage and handling.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 8, 2006 01:48 AMWhere's Logan? Stories change
By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter
Where was elections chief Dean Logan on Monday when the Metropolitan King County Council debated a historic proposal to conduct elections by mail?
His staff at first said he was attending a statewide election administrators' conference in Spokane.
Then they said he was working, somewhere, on something.
He was actually out of town on vacation, as Logan confirmed by e-mail Wednesday.
Some council members grumbled about his absence Monday when the assistants substituting for him were unable to answer questions raised by citizens and council members. An expected vote was delayed for two weeks in order to hear Logan's responses to those questions.
If adopted by the County Council, the ordinance promoted by Logan and his boss, County Executive Ron Sims, will make King County the largest local jurisdiction in the country to conduct elections almost entirely by mail.
But the changing stories about the reasons for Logan's absence appeared to undermine the credibility that he had rebuilt since the problem-plagued 2004 gubernatorial election.
Logan told the County Council by e-mail last Friday he couldn't attend the Monday meeting, explaining that he would be at the Spokane elections conference "most of next week." Election administrators said Monday that he was at the conference.
But on Tuesday, Jonathan Bechtle of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation pointed out that the conference didn't begin until Tuesday, the day after the County Council meeting.
A spokeswoman for Sims, when asked where Logan was, responded on Tuesday and again on Wednesday morning that he was "working away from the office." She offered no details on where he was or what work he was doing.
Later Wednesday, another Sims spokesman said Logan had taken "personal time" Monday, but had no details.
Logan e-mailed The Seattle Times on Wednesday that he was on a scheduled trip. When asked to elaborate about the trip, Logan responded that the questions were "offensive and irrelevant."
Sims spokesman Sandeep Kaushik said Logan's trip had been scheduled weeks earlier and that the County Council had postponed its vote on the mail-balloting proposal twice.
"There wasn't any intent of his ducking being there or anything of that nature," Kaushik said. "I think the assumption was the presentation [on mail voting] had been made at an earlier session and that Monday might be something more of a formality."
The changing explanations of Logan's absence upset several council members, who called the vote-by-mail proposal — which would take effect in 2007 — the most important restructuring of elections in county history.
"Maybe we should hold our next hearing in Kitsap County, where he lives, to make it easier for him to attend," fumed Councilman Pete von Reichbauer, R-Federal Way.
"It's pretty clear to me that when major election issues come up, if Dean Logan can be somewhere else he generally is," said Reagan Dunn, R-Bellevue.
Dow Constantine, D-Seattle, said the details of Logan's absence weren't that important.
"I think that's a bunch of right-wing blog nonsense," he said. "I think what's important is the answers he gives when he appears before the council."
Those answers have taken on a new importance.
Until Wednesday, the vote-by-mail proposal seemed like a done deal because it was supported by all five members of the council's Democratic majority.
But one of the prime sponsors of the ordinance, Seattle Democrat Bob Ferguson, said he was troubled not only by Logan's absence ("a serious lapse in judgment") but also by information presented Monday about staff vacancies Logan has been unable to fill in his office.
"I have to have confidence that the Elections Department has the resources and staff and the ability to make that change. Right now I'm not sure if I believe that's the case," Ferguson said.
"Dow Constantine, D-Seattle, said the details of Logan's absence weren't that important.
"I think that's a bunch of right-wing blog nonsense," he said. "I think what's important is the answers he gives when he appears before the council."
Apparently Dow is a SP regular.
Good.
Keep reading Dow.
If you are interested in the truth.
It's a window into the oligarchical mindset of the Council that they would even think of making such a huge change without a lot of input from the public and input from third party elections directors and third party elections experts.
Logan has a long history of lying and ducking for cover when honest, forthright and accountable action is required. Logan ducked this meeting because he:
a) Believed that it was a formality.
b) Did not want to be confronted by citizens.
c) Does not feel comfortable addressing large groups.
d) All of the above.
There's got to be someone else out there who can do the job of King County Elections Director more professionally. Frankly, Logan is an incompetent, unconfident little weasel of a man. If you've met him or seen him speak, you'd know this to be true.
Isn't it about time Logan was relieved of his duties?
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 8, 2006 02:40 AM