June 22, 2006
What about Bob?
"Bob's a special kind of friend. The kind that drives you crazy!"
Okay, we do like King County Councilmember Bob Ferguson and he doesn't really drive us crazy. We supported him in his primary campaign last fall because he's a genuinely reasonable guy and a whole lot better than his opponent at the time. But we are disappointed with his decisive vote this week in favor of forced mail-voting --

Yes, he started promoting mail-only voting back in August 2004, during the pre-meltdown Age of Relative Innocence when none of us knew how much of a disaster mail-voting would turn out to be. So one can give him the benefit of the doubt for retaining a sentimental attachment to the idea. However, the subsequent collapse of public confidence in Ron Sims' elections office, culminating in Dean Logan's escape from Washington State, should have given Ferguson both a serious clue and more than adequate political cover to deep-freeze the proposal indefinitely. He had the opportunity to be the independent reformer hero and forge a bipartisan consensus to clean up the elections office, but when push came to shove he voted lockstep with the Sims/Phillips machine in favor of sloppier elections. He did put the brakes on the VBM trainwreck, but only slightly, with an amendment requiring, among other things, that a new director and superintendent of elections be on board before the move can take place. [Search Legistar for 2006-0191. Ferguson's amendment is Section 2 of the text]. But this does not appear to have much practical value, as mandatory vote-by-mail is now a fait accompli, and a new director and superintendent will surely be hired eventually anyway. So vote-by-mail can move forward as soon as they're on board, even though the elections office doesn't currently have the capacity to even plan for the change. Oh, well.

But since Ferguson has been genuinely reasonable and interested in engaging in dialogue with those who don't always agree with him, I thought it would be fair to invite him to argue his positions on some of the issues related to vote-by-mail. I e-mailed him the following questions late yesterday and asked for his on-the-record answers for publication on this blog :

1) Why did you vote against the striking amendment that would have given the citizens have the ultimate say on mail-only voting? I'll observe that the fact that a majority of voters currently vote by mail does not imply that a majority wants to eliminate the choice of voting at a neighborhood polling place ( "regional voting center"s and "drop-off location"s are very different from, and not adequate substitutes for, the neighborhood polling places that we have today). Oregon only went mail-only after it was adopted by the voters in a statewide ballot measure.

2) Why did you vote against the amendment to prohibit forwarding of mail ballots to people who have moved and may no longer be eligible to vote the ballots that are sent to them?

3) What is your position on the proposal to establish an elected office for county auditor in charge of elections? Have you/will you sign a letter to Councilmember Gossett to put the ordinance on the COW agenda?

I'll post his reply once I receive it.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 22, 2006 12:14 PM | Email This
Comments
1. 4.) What kind of pressure did Sims put on you to change your mind?

Posted by: Ken on June 22, 2006 12:48 PM
2. Here is the response I received from Ferguson after I emailed the Democrats on the King County Council and expressed my disgust with their behavior in the public hearing where the Dems worked to minimize Stefan's testimony:

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Ferguson, Bob"
Michael--

Thanks for your email. I will only address the part of your email that
involves me. I take public testimony seriously which is why I
frequently ask questions of those who testify on any subject. I believe
that's part of my job before making decisions that impact King County
residents. I noticed on Sound Politics this morning that the person
reporting on the meeting (and who also testified and answered questions)
thought that the questions and answers between councilmembers and those
who testified was a positive aspect of the meeting: "Most all of us
received questions from the council. In a lot of ways, I think that kind
of give and take is very productive." I'm sorry you viewed my questions
as "attacks." I thought they were constructive exchanges and apparently
those who testified agreed.

Thanks again for writing and for your interest.

Bob

Bob Ferguson
King County Councilmember
Metropolitan King County Council, District 1
516 3rd Avenue, Room 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
ph: (206) 296-1001 | fx: (206) 296-0198

In my comments, the "attacks" mentioned were what I perceived as attempts by Ferguson to discredit those who testified with the repeated question related to what other counties have done and whether they disagreed with what the majority of voters in King County are doing. What he and no other Democrat did was display any interest in allegations that challenged their drive to ramrod all-mail voting through.

If any of the Democrats really took public testimony seriously, they wouldn't invoke rules and stances that prevent informed testimony as they did. The suggestion that they were interested in public testimony on all-mail voting is not credible, and their actions to silence Stefan was, while the norm for this bunch, still outrageous.

I loved his attempt to use SoundPolitics as a defense, after Patterson had attacked it the day before as not being credible.

Bottom line is that Ferguson caved to the partisan pressures. He was more than likely just watching out for himself at the expense of King County voters.

Posted by: MJC on June 22, 2006 12:51 PM
3. MJC, in fairness to Ferguson, I did write that the exchange I had with him was constructive, even though I would not say the same thing about some of his colleagues.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 22, 2006 12:56 PM
4. In my comments, the "attacks" mentioned were what I perceived as attempts by Ferguson to discredit those who testified with the repeated question related to what other counties have done and whether they disagreed with what the majority of voters in King County are doing.

We've been told that most other counties have moved to vote by mail, which supposedly lends credibility.

Why is that not a reason to make Logan's position elected? After all, King is the only county that appoints that position...

Posted by: South County on June 22, 2006 02:03 PM
5. It is telling that public testimony happens on the same day as the vote, at least most of the time. If it was given more weight it would happen earlier in the decision making process.

I got to talk to Ron Sims on a talk radio show recently. I told him that I didn't think that we should move to VBM because other WA counties are. He was quick to say that we were NOT going to VBM because other counties are, etc. If I had a dollar for every time Ron Sims or a KC council member mentioned how the other counties in Washington are moving to VBM I could take myself and some of my friends out to a very nice dinner. Come on! Why does he keep bringing it up then?

Posted by: Juli Pettingill on June 22, 2006 03:29 PM
6. I asked my Council representative to invite Stefan to testify months ago. I was informed that as the minority, Republicans had no power to invite anyone to testify, even someone with facts to present on this critical issue. After the response from Ferguson, I responded very "politely" and challenged him to back up his interest in public testimony by joining the minority Republicans and inviting Stefan to present a full report of his findings to the full council. As expected, that request was met with silence.

Posted by: MJC on June 22, 2006 05:30 PM
7. I think Bob's position is adequately explained by one other name, Maggie Fimia, who's exclusion from the Democrat caucus on the Council was probably her chief reason to bag political life. There were other more personal considerations, but her treatment by the remainder of the caucus has to have been chief.

Running afoul of the caucus leadership is dangerous for any one who seeks to be in office more than one term.

Posted by: Mark on June 22, 2006 06:22 PM
8. I got this email from Bob Ferguson this morning. I can say that it wasn't as bad as the one I got from "I can't smile, so let me whine" Patterson earlier this week.


Subject: All-Mail Voting in King County
Date: 6/22/2006 2:12:59 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: Larry.Phillips@METROKC.GOV
Reply To:
To: peellite@aol.com
CC:
BCC:
Sent on:

Sent from the Internet (Details)
Internet Address Card Attached
Dear Mr. Nichols,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the transition to an entirely vote-by-mail system in King County.

I have always been a poll voter and share the sentiments of many voters who treasure the civic ritual of casting their vote in person at a neighborhood polling place; it is a fundamental way to participate in the democratic process. In fact, the first time I cast an absentee ballot, in the November 2004 general election, my ballot was not initially counted due to a mix-up in the King County Elections Section regarding my signature. As you may know, my absentee ballot, along with approximately 560 others discovered to have similar mix-ups, was eventually counted and made a difference in an extremely close gubernatorial race. For these reasons among others, I have been committed to a thorough investigation of any proposal to shift to an entirely vote-by-mail system in our county.

On June 19, 2006, the Metropolitan King County Council voted to authorize the conduct of vote-by-mail elections and direct the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division to conduct all primary, special, and general elections in King County by all-mail ballot, with regional polling centers, in 2007 or 2008. I co-sponsored the legislation and voted in favor for the following reasons:

· The citizens of King County have made clear their preference for all-mail voting. The vast majority of voters in King County, approximately 70%, currently vote absentee. In the 2005 primary election, 81% of voters voted absentee.

· Regional polling centers will be available for those voters who need to or want to vote in person. While the final number of polling centers has not yet been determined, there will likely be at least one in each Council district. Additional ballot drop-off locations are also being considered.

· It has become increasingly difficult for King County to, in effect, operate two elections systems concurrently. The current dual system of conducting elections by mail and polls requires 528 polling locations and close to 4,000 poll workers for a countywide election, plus a full scale mail ballot processing operation and facility.

· Two reviews initiated by the King County Council, one by the Citizens’ Elections Oversight Committee and one by a national elections consulting firm, The Elections Center, have studied this issue and found that the current dual election system issue must be addressed. The Citizens’ Elections Oversight Committee specifically recommended a transition to all-mail voting, stating: “Running two separate elections processes (poll voting and mail voting) increases the likelihood of breaches in security and of human errors. As the public holds the Elections Section more accountable, there is a related responsibility to simplify the inherently complex election process.”

· By going to a vote-by-mail system, King County is joining the rest of the state: 34 of 39 counties in Washington State have already transitioned to an all-mail voting system.

· Voting by mail is more convenient; it is possible for voters to fill out their ballots whenever and wherever they choose to instead of being limited to one specific polling day and location.

· Voting by mail allows more thoughtful voting; voters have the opportunity to set their ballot aside in the middle of voting if they find an issue they wish to further research or consider before casting their vote.

I supported an all-mail voting system with the following stipulations:

· The Executive will provide a report on progress made to date to improve the accuracy of voter registration records, as well as transmit a plan by August 15, 2006 for further improving and maintaining voter registration records.

· The Executive will provide a report on progress made to improve elections security to date, as well as transmit a security plan by July 31, 2006 that addresses security related to facilities, personnel, electronic systems and ballots.

· The Council must approve an Executive plan that includes cost estimates, locations, and security measures for regional voting centers and ballot drop boxes.

· Both a Director of Records, Elections and Licensing Services and a Superintendent of Elections must be appointed and confirmed.

· Departmental staff, including the director, must complete an organizational cultural change and management training recommended by the Council’s Citizens Elections’ Oversight Committee and the Executive’s Independent Task Force on Elections.

· The Executive will hire a management consultant to assist the Director of the Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division in becoming a model elections operation, functioning at a very high level of competence, with high morale, low turnover and full staffing.

· The Director of the Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division will report to the Council quarterly regarding improvements that have been made, are currently being made, or will be made to the conduct of elections.

King County is striving to streamline elections operations with the goal of accurate, secure and transparent elections. I believe it is important to make this transition carefully and with safeguards to ensure that any vote-by-mail system will be secure, that new procedures and technology are well-tested and fully understood by elections staff, and that opportunities remain for those voters who prefer or need to cast their vote in person.

If you have not already had the opportunity to review the numerous reports issued by King County regarding election reform and vote by mail systems, I encourage you to do so at the following weblinks:

² “Report on King County Elections” (March 2006) by the King County Citizens’ Election Oversight Committee

http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/committees/elections/CEOC_Report.pdf

*See pages 3; 11-12.

² “King County Elections Operations Management Audit” (October 2005) by The Elections Center

http://www.metrokc.gov/auditor/2005/ElectionErrata.pdf

*See Chapter 8

² “King County Elections Moving to Vote By Mail” (January 2006) by Dean Logan, King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division

http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/VoteByMail.pdf

Thank you again for your input and involvement in this important issue.

Sincerely,

Larry Phillips, Chair
Metropolitan King County Council
King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue, Room 1200
Seattle, WA 98104-3272
206.296.1004
larry.phillips@metrokc.gov

For more information: www.metrokc.gov/phillips

To sign up for my eNews: http://www.metrokc.gov/phillips/newsletters.htm

N:\Erika\Drafts.letters\2006\Elections\votebymail_stakeholders.doc

It is rather long, but he does provide links to his rather partisan view. Better than "I can't so smile, so let me whine" Patterson.....

Posted by: Chris on June 22, 2006 06:43 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?