King County Interim elections director Jim Buck (Jimron) told the CEOC today that Ron Sims expects to announce a permanent elections director in 7-10 days.
Sims has previously claimed to have an elections director candidate, only to have the nominee fail to materialize (August and January).
If there really is a nominee this time, he/she should take the job only if he/she is willing to stand for election next February. I-25, the campaign for a separately elected non-partisan elections director, is meeting its targets to qualify for the ballot.
But Sims' appointee will serve at Sims' pleasure, voters be damned, unless I-25 raises the rest of the money to finish the signature drive. If you think the elections director should answer only to the voters, then donate to the I-25 campaign today and help ensure I-25 makes the ballot.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 11, 2007 04:52 PM | Email ThisThe much bigger news, in my opinion, is that council member Larry Phillips got a motion passed to have citizen feedback on the vote by mail business plan. Phillips' idea was to have the CEOC solicit citizen feedback.
Nick Wagner suggested the public hearing could be held in the council chambers. The rough consensus is that it'd have to be in the evening. The CEOC formed two sub-committees, one for the public aspects (planning, agenda, notices, etc) and another for the technical aspects (stuff about the equipment, I suppose).
I'll try to post something about this on washblog.com after I get home tonight. A couple activists were present. They'll hopefully add their comments too.
Posted by: zappini on April 11, 2007 06:06 PMMy I-25 petition is sitting before me on my desk. I will carry it with me where ever I go, and I will gather signatures - VALID signatures -until it's filled. Then I'll get another one.
In 2004, my Marine son was screwed out of his right to vote by the indifference and incompetence of Dean Logan's office. Dean may be gone, but his spirit remains.
Voters participate in elections, and whoever runs them should be directlyaccountable to those voters. When King County went from an appointed to an elected sheriff, things got better. So let it be here.
This is personal with me...
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on April 14, 2007 08:25 AMYou missed my point. Or, at least I made it poorly.
First, though, there is no excuse for anybody being kept from voting.
You think an elected elections person would fix that; I don't agree. But it doesn't matter if we agree because it looks like that will eventually happen in the next government charter.
My issue is that on a post talking about something where thousands of signatures are needed for something, 4 posts existed. Somebody will have to verify signatures and I assume it's the election office. If the signatures come up short and that office had to verify the signatures--well, I think you are unnecessarily setting yourself up for more frustration. It would seem likely that some people will obtain the same signatures and that some won't be registered voters.
I typed that I didn't think it would happen to see if someone really thought it would. Four posts didn't seem like a mandate.
Posted by: Shark Attack on April 15, 2007 12:58 PM"First, though, there is no excuse for anybody being kept from voting."
1. Non-US citizen
2. Non-resident of the voting locale
3. Non-registered person
4. Felon who has lost their voting priviledges
...
Need I go on?
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on April 15, 2007 01:55 PMThanks!
Posted by: Huh? on April 15, 2007 08:33 PMTaking your "logic" a couple steps further, why not do away with elected officials all together and go back to either heraditary monarchy or simple strong-man rule (no doubt Ron Sims' preferred option).
A fish rots from the head down, and so it is with King County Records and Elections. You take it as a given that the culture of that office won't change if an elected official heads it up. Well, that's exactly why we want an elected official: culture change!
Instead of packing bags or carrying water for Royal Ron, how about someone who owes the voters his or her primary allegience?
Your toss-up-your-hanbs-in-frustration comments about initiative signatures getting checked is a smoke screen. That stuff always happens with initiatives. Politics is a messy and inexact business, so what? If your primary goal is to have the trains run on time all for the benefit of those interersts who own the trains, Mussolini's your man. But if what you want is for the process by which we participate in the democratic process - the ballot box - to be credible, then I-25 is not only necessary, it's long past due.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on April 16, 2007 07:08 AM