Working off a tip, I've been digging into this question, and have at least found some indication she did. Labels & Lists, a firm that provides assorted forms of data and voter lists to interested entities, confirmed to me that they have Darcy Burner listed as voting Republican in either the 1996 or the 2000 Presidential Primary. Since she wasn't registered to vote in this state until 1998, that seems to make things pretty clear Darcy Burner did indeed select a Republican ballot in the 2000 Presidential primary.
Political observers will recall election officials kept temporary records of that ballot selection choice, though did do so not permanently. Moreover, organizations such as the political parties and Labels & Lists did lawfully obtain the information for obvious purposes when it was available. Republicans used the voter's choice of Republican, Independent, or Democratic ballots to help identify previously unidentified voters. Regrettably, I've confirmed that while the information influences the party ID showing in the Republican's Voter Vault database, it is not extractable as an individual piece of data. I can say without much fear of contradiction someone in the Democratic Party is probably not going to answer the same questions for me based on the data I'm looking to obtain.
So why does this matter you might say? Well, given that this is one of the few times Darcy Burner bothered to vote prior to 2004, and since some have found "it is hard to discern where Burner differs from the Democratic Party line," it seems reasonable to want to know what choice Burner made when she did buck her party.
I'm going to assume Burner wasn't one of the slightly more than 3% of Republican ballot casters selecting Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, or Orrin Hatch. So, could Darcy Burner clarify whether she voted for George W. Bush, or whether she voted for John McCain? Perhaps she just really wanted to vote for Orrin Hatch, but I doubt it. Yet, if Darcy Burner would like to counter the belief she is nothing more than an "overtly partisan political novice" then her answer to such a question, and related reasoning, would be enlightening
Note: The cheapest list I could purchase from Labels & Lists to get the information in hard copy is $110. As much as I'd like to make that investment based on all the money I make writing here, I stuck with getting the information over the phone, plus the verification of the person who provided the tip and has a list in hard copy. Those seriously interested in double-checking my confirmation can call Labels and Lists for themselves.
UPDATE: Commenter Ed Trimble raises an interesting point about partisan primaries. Let's clarify things here:
In 2000, voters in the Presidential primary (which was in February, apart from the regular September primary) had to pick a Republican, Democratic, or Independent ballot. The parties in Washington state only used the non-Independent votes for the purposes of Presidential nominations, but all votes were reported in grand total. Moreover, that was a unique primary where the ballot selection choice was actually kept temporarily by elections officials. In the September 2004 primary, voters indeed got to pick which party they voted for, but no record was kept, and unlike the special Presidential primary Burner apparently voted Republican in, September primaries do have multiple races to decide.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 03, 2006 01:09 PM | Email ThisRemember that?
Posted by: Ed Trimble on November 3, 2006 01:40 PMI know a lot of D's who took R ballots in open primary states to vote against Bush (for McCain).
Posted by: dnskey on November 3, 2006 01:46 PMIt was widely reported that alot Democrats "crossed over" to vote for McCain in the 2000 primary because they knew GWB was a bigger threat, and Gore was already assured of the nomination. I suspect that's what Burner was doing here. It's not illegal, but certainly is interesting for a Democratic candidate for Congress to do it.
Posted by: Palouse on November 3, 2006 01:48 PMGuess her judgement isn't what it's cracked up to be.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on November 3, 2006 01:49 PMIn fact, as one thinks about it, it shows her to have an open, independent mind untied to a single party.
Exactly the opposite of Mr. Reichert who was proud to talk about how he votes the way party bosses tell him to (except when he doesn't...but gets promised legislation to make up for it).
So..all you folks...please publicly decry Reichert's now provably false claims that Burner is a party hack (like the RNC ad that shows her interviewing for a job).
You did the work to determine she's independent. Have the decency to trumpet that loud and clear--and call a public apology from Reichert and the RNC for claiming otherwise.
No, I'm not surprised. Let not facts interrupt partisanship.
Posted by: Ed Trimble on November 3, 2006 02:20 PMOn a sidenote, if Darcy was a Republican, I wonder whose antics chased her out of the big tent party. Chris Vance, Reagan Wing, Moderates...
Whoever they are, we need to send them a No-prize.
That's all the DNC and the DCCC have to run, because Darcy Bruner has no positive values of her own.
Successful MSFT executive, er, program manager. Community leader, er, homeowners association "pres for a day" and soccer coach.
Independent, er, anti-Bush and Daily Kos shill.
Well, you do see a pattern here! Like yourself, I welcome Ed's evidence showing Darcy's campaign is independent and non-partisan. He'll need to exclude all of her DCCC ads to start with. Doesn't leave much after that.
Posted by: Yo yo on November 3, 2006 03:05 PMPlease Spankanski; find something positive about Dave to get your folks excited about him.
He can work on one job for 18 years, so he has experience as a Guvment employee. Not completing the job so he could pick up a paycheck.
Now there's a platform.
Give me 18 years in congress, and I'll be just as effective.
Still seeing the (R) or (GOP) hidden in the ads.
What's wrong wingnuts, something wrong with the leadership wanting not to be associated with you?
Which of the 2 stories Sheriff hairdo told about the Bus driver is true. The one to the minions? or the one to the news.
Either way he is a liar, on par with Richard Pope.
Let's go dig up his domestic violence papers, and get those up here.
Come on you're a real journalist.......NOT.
Posted by: danw on November 3, 2006 03:11 PMSince Darcy Burner was known to be a "liberal activist" while at Harvard, (until 1998) it is unlikely that her voting Republican is a sign of her independence and open mindedness.
This from a newsgroup post of the Harvard Science Fiction Club:
"HRSFA is not a political organization, and throughout its history has sought (as most small, young organizations do) to be as inclusive as possible. Its membership has thus spanned the political spectrum, including Peninsula Council members (Fred DeCaro), liberal activists (John Abbe, Darcy Gibbons), reformed communists (myself), and many others. HRSFA has managed to accomplish this by remaining steadfastly apolitical or as disengaged from politics as is possible in Harvard's intense and volatile political environment."
If validation is needed, check it out:
http://www.hrsfa.org/apoc/constitu.html
She also admitted somewhere recently that she briefly protested the first Iraq war.
Based on these facts, and her documented record of questionable campaign tactics, and her documented stretching of the truth about her background, this seems to be just typical of her.
Pretending to be something that she isn't to effect the results of an election to her liking.
Do others on both sides participate in this underhanded tactic? Of course. I've been tempted myself, but have never done it.
But as Palouse points out rightly, I'm not running for Congress.
But, as a "successful businessman and father" who also lives at Ames Lake, I guess I'm qualified - eh?
BTW, why hasn't anyone asked her how she feels about I-933? As I drive around the rural parts of the 8th, based on signs, it appears that most think - Yes. The democratic party is encouraging a No vote.
Darcy claims she knows what the people of the 8th want, and she is in sync with them. Well, Darcy, yes or no on I-933?
This would portray who she really would represent if by some miracle (or voter fraud) she actually wins this election.
Posted by: ameslaker on November 3, 2006 03:23 PMI hope you're really proud of yourself Mr. Earling. Or is it that democracy isn't as important to you as winning an election for your side?
Posted by: Randy Grein on November 4, 2006 12:22 AM