Forgive me for being impolitic, but the whole “felon vote” thing… it’s really little more than a technicality.
I base this statement on the following theses: A) if Rossi can’t prove these votes went to Gregoire, they’ll have no impact on his contest, B) there really weren’t all that many felons voting illegally, and C) who the hell cares?
My guess is the vast majority of felons who voted illegally did so unwittingly… after all, why risk going back to jail just to cast a ballot? Plus, many of these disenfranchised felons could have had their voting rights restored if only they went through the confusing process of filing the paperwork.
Yes, I know… the law is the law, and ignorance of it is no excuse. But the same can be said of the contest statute, which clearly states that Rossi must show that illegal votes went to Gregoire in order to set aside the election, a burden of proof his lawyers have argued they cannot meet. Indeed, of the six felons who have revealed their ballots in press accounts I’ve seen, five voted for Rossi, and one for Bennett.
Republicans claim that over 400 convicted felons voted illegally statewide, though the number is probably much smaller. For example, of the 64 names provided to Snohomish County elections officials by the BIAW, only 18 have been found to have voted illegally. And GOP efforts to use the felon vote as evidence of incompetence on the part of county officials ignores the fact that tracking these felons is impossible without a central, statewide database.
But while we argue over how many felons voted, who they voted for, and who is to blame, we fail to ask ourselves the most important question: So what? As The New York Times points out in a plainly titled editorial today (“Why Felons Deserve the Right to Vote“), none other than the American Correctional Association (ACA) has called for ending the practice of withholding voting rights from parolees and people who have completed their prison terms.
These laws serve no correctional purpose – and may actually contribute to recidivism by keeping ex-offenders and their families disengaged from the civic mainstream. This notion is clearly supported by data showing that former offenders who vote are less likely to return to jail. This lesson has long since been absorbed by democracies abroad, some valuing the franchise so much that they take ballot boxes right to the prisons.
The GOP’s emphasis on the felon vote has always been more of a moralistic PR argument than a legal one… a cynical attempt to insinuate that felons overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. That they have absolutely no evidence to back up their thesis (indeed, the anecdotal evidence suggests the contrary), does not seem to dissuade them from contending that these votes alone are enough to call the election results into question.
But that’s not the point.
According to the ACLU, 3.7 percent of otherwise eligible Washington voters are disqualified due to felony convictions, roughly twice the national average. And this policy of disenfranchisement disproportionately impacts minorities, with an estimated 25% of black males disqualified.
And for what?
State Sen. Pam Roach proposes routinely purging the voter rolls in an attempt to make it more difficult for felons to vote. But this would surely disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters, if through nothing but inconvenience alone.
Rather than making it more difficult for everybody to vote, it is time to follow the advice of the ACA and ACLU and others, and automatically restore voting rights to felons upon their release from prison. If we want these people to productively contribute to our Democracy, we need to make them part of it.
Who cares: I do.
If a sportings good store clerk is required to run a background check on me (when I exercise a state and federal constitutional right (i.e. purchase a firearm so that I may bear arms), then I don’t see why a County Auditor can’t do a quick scan to see if I “might” be a convicted felon, and warrant a closer examination to see if voting rights may have been restored. After all somebody is suppose to keep convicted felons (who havent had their rights restored) from voting under the law.
Unless Goldy, you would like to encourage vigilantee committees to form to police the voting roles? I hope that is not your suggestion as some elected officials have been arguing.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” Article 1, Section 24.
Washington needs to take a lesson from Texas:
Newly seated Democratic Rep. Hubert Vo of Houston defeated his opponent, veteran Republican Talmadge Heflin, by a slim margin in November, a lawmaker overseeing the election contest reported Monday.
Hubert Vo
Rep. Will Hartnett, who was named “master of discovery” in Heflin’s House challenge of the race, found that Vo’s margin of victory was reduced from 33 votes to 16 votes.
Hartnett’s report will move Tuesday to a legislative committee appointed to hear the election challenge. Ultimately, the case will go before the full Texas House, which could declare a winner or call for a new election.
“I appreciate the careful and thorough job my colleague Mr. Hartnett has done under intense pressure and in difficult circumstances,” Vo said in a prepared statement Monday
Goldy,
You said it better than I could. Nearly all of these felons have done their time. A lot of them are prevented from voting because they don’t have enough money to pay their fines. If you done your time, its time to reintegrate into society and civic participation. In any case, felons voting is no great civic harm, unlike double voting and voting by dead people or non citizens.
Republicans have always been about limiting the number of voters, because it helps their election chances.
Bob,
Felons voting is a low law enforcement priority to me. How much money do you want to spend doing that. How much money do you want to spend enforcing the marijuana laws or the under age drinking laws? Is a question of how you want to spend limited law enforcement dollars.
Goldy,
I don’t know what other articles may have said about the candidates for whom felons voted, but here’s one from The Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ns23m.html
The Times found 129 felons who voted despite being disqualified by their convictions.
Of those 129, the article named 5 people. One voted for Gregoire, one was apparently not asked which candidate was marked on his ballot, one specifically declined to comment about the candidate for whom she voted, and two voted for Rossi.
The other 124 felons weren’t mentioned by name or by the candidate for whom they voted.
So, that’s 126 of 129 that we don’t know how they voted; and we know from what they told the reporter that one was a Gregoire vote and the other two were Rossi votes.
Do you think that tiny “exit poll” is a sound basis for claiming that the majority of disqualified felon voters cast their votes for Rossi?
Bob @ 1
I understand your point, but think the analogy isn’t apt. A firearm in the wrong hands can be a deadly thing; a vote can be a dangerous thing, if you are of the opposite point of view of the voter casting it, but it is not likely to kill or maim.
On the larger issue, Maine and Vermont allow voting by prison inmates otherwise eligible. From my limited research, this has caused no problems and has been cited as an incentive for prisoners to become involved in civic matters. Certainly they have time to research the issues. My belief is that the right to vote should be unrevokable. I know that there are in our prisons murderers, rapists, torturers, and others of like ilk. The flip side of this is that there are murderers, rapists, torturers, and others of like ilk who are still enjoying their liberty anad their vote. Prisoners maintain an interest in what government does, if not through personal ownership of property, bank accounts, and so forth, then through family connections, and through schools, parks, and other community concerns involving the places they came from and may return to.
Chew2 @ 3
I seem to remember an era when the ACLU and others had fits over selective enforcement of laws. I hope that is not what you mean by stating that you want police to prioritize crimes they go after.
While underage drinking and marijuana laws may be a low priority to you, DUI laws are a high priority to a lot of folks, myself included, and if tagging the offender with the other violation will keep them from getting behind the wheel of a car again soon, so much the better.
A felony is suppose to be a “serious” crime. In our era of plea barganing, those going to jail with felony convictions, usually have a lot of prior arrests. These are generally not upstanding citizens concerned with the well being of society.
If those legally empowered by elections (i.e. state legislators), want to introduce legislation to allow felons to vote and automatically have all rights restored after serving their time, go for it. (But beware the wrath of many angry voters.) If they want to add those who are mentally incompetent to be voters as well, let them pass the legislation. I don’t want to see either changes.
Until then, let’s enforce the laws, or else let’s get rid of the laws.
Personally, I have worked with (in college, during the summer, while longshoring on the docks of Seattle) ex-convicts and as part of my current professional job, I have visited 6 different state “correction centers” to provide their staff with help. I really don’t think restoring voting rights is going to change recidivism rates at all.
RCD @ 5
I can understand your argument for those behind bars that what I would classify as the “but for the grace of god, go I” folks. Your commments on having time to study government issues and political positions sounds appealing.
However, I think that the vast majority of felons are not this type of folks. If some former felon gets there act together to the point that they have their rights restored, they should be allowed to vote. The recidivism rates are such that the majority of felons, have not and do not get their act together and are not responsible members of the community.
Bob @ 7
My disagreement with you is a very mild one. My position is as stated in #5, but it is not difficult to understand your point of view. Two things concern me, though. The first is that if voting rights aren’t automatically restored, that means that the ex-felon has to have someone else pass judgement on whether or not his voting rights should be restored. All sorts of predispositons and biases can come into play at this juncture. Second, do you know with certainty that your last sentence is correct? When speaking of recidivism, you are speaking of those who have committed another crime and gone back to prison (othewise, you wouldn’t know if they’d backslid or not). These people could be denied the vote again. But I don’t think it is fair to assume that this will happen with all felons after release, and at the time of release, who knows what the future will hold?
More than being a technicality, as the article you cited hints at and as I point out explicitly at
http://alsoalso.typepad.com/al.....mes_d.html , the problem is not one of electoral misconduct or negligence, but judicial and administrative sloppiness. The materials provided to the counties do not create a properly verifiable system for eliminating felon votes. Calling it negligence, much less misconduct, on the part of election officials is absurd.
I’m feeling outraged and outrageous this morning so I’m going to spout stupidity as our Republican friends so often do to stir up controversy with hyperbole, conjecture and vitriol:
The felons voting for LossI were a plant by his supporters to undermine the validity of the election in the case of a close outcome. Only some felons were too dumb and voted for LossI instead, undermining the undermining. In fact the real undermining of the undermining, which has revealed this undermining, was when the Sharks started making a fuss about it before the party had had a chance to verify who voted for who so they wouldn’t accidentally discover all those that voted for LossI.
Of course everyone is merely concerned that next time only those legally allowed to vote do so, and do so only once – right? That’s what all this bruhaha is all about isn’t it – fixing the problems with our elections process?
I’m not sure that requiring felons to wade through the maze of paperwork isn’t a valuable part of restoring the idea of personal accountability, something that is sometimes lacking in recovery programs.
Make the maze simpler, to be sure, but I’m not sure there shouldn’t be some hurdles to overcome in the process.
As to the effect of felon voting on this last election, it seems rather silly to me to use what the felons themselves say re who they voted for…if it were my vote being contested, I’d say I voted for Rossi even though I voted for CG just to moot the impact on the candidate of my choice.
Whether we can ever go back and reconstruct the election is the major point in my ever so humble opinion. If that can’t be done with certainty, it has to stand as is and the laws must be reworked for the next election.
I think they call that evolutionary. ;0
The point is the Current Law must be followed in the counting of these votes. It is illegal for these felons to vote, and their votes should not count. If the Legislature wants to make it easier for a Felon to vote, then change the law before an election, not during it. And maybe since some of those legislature members believe in re-incarnation, maybe they should also allow dead people to vote also. The King County Election department has an obligation to follow the laws of this state with regards to Felons voting, dead people voting, Vote enhancement, Provisional vote authization, and reconciling their voter counts and votes counted. All of these are reasons to cast great questions on the validity of the current governor. Let the Courts decide who is correct in their interpretation of the laws that have been written and the election workers who supposedly performed these actions!
Micajah @ 4
Do you think that tiny “exit poll†is a sound basis for claiming that the majority of disqualified felon voters cast their votes for Rossi?
Actually this is exactly the kind of extrapolative argument being made by Rossi time and again when he justifies contesting the election.
What laws did King not follow regarding felons, dead people, ballot enhancement, and reconciliation?
I agree felon votes should not have counted, but now that they are, unless they can be identified, by law they should continue to count.
Republicans will never have credibility on the issue of requiring polling place “felon” checks as long as they oppose gun show background checks. They care more about keeping felons from voting than having guns. But they might be shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak, if it turns out felons vote overwhelmingly Republican, as now appears to be the case.
Bob, in your rave on message 4 you say:
Of those 129, the article named 5 people. One voted for Gregoire, one was apparently not asked which candidate was marked on his ballot, one specifically declined to comment about the candidate for whom she voted, and two voted for Rossi.,
The very name felon indicates you cannot believe what a person may say.
Also, if you were a felon and you did vote, would you vote for the party that pushed the 3 strikes law? How bout the hard time for armed time law? This is the type of thing that republicans support and bring into reality. Why would a past felon support such a party? I suggest you wake up on this one and come out of your video game room.
That said, I have no problem with felons once having paid their debt voting and strreamlining the process that allows that to happen. As a matter of fact, I dont think it is right to expect this person to be a productive member of society without a vote…BUT we presently have laws on the books that must be adhered to and I expect the law enforcement to enforce them with the same diligence as they do with someone doing a few miles over the limit on the freeway! Millions are spent on this very “important” sting operation…but it brings in revinue…
Chew2 @ 3
You seem to take rather lightly the fact that these poor, misunderstood felons simply haven’t paid their fines. Do you know where that fine money goes? Do you know how much is uncollected? That money, of which millions of dollars is uncollected, goes to help crime victims with things like their medical bills resulting from the crime. That primarily self-funded program — one that both Rep and Dem should have NO problem with — is in danger of having to shut down because those poor, misunderstood felons won’t pay their fines and people like you excuse them. If they can’t vote until they “make good” on their crimes, I personally won’t shed a tear.
Chuck @ 16
I think you are confusing me with someone else, like micajha?
I am also not sure a convicted felon’s unofficial testimony (even their sworn testimony) is all that compelling.
RDC @ 8
I don’t have a sociological study on recidivism rates with and without voting rights. While some faith-based groups have dramatically changed recidivism rates through counseling programs, if you have a study that shows a dramic change in re-offending due to allowing prisoners to vote, I would be curious to read it.
As to your first point on arbitrary judging of the restoration rights process, the whole parole, return to society process is full of evaluation and responsibilities. One more to restore voting and other rights before a judge isn’t that difficult for someone who has gotten their act together.
Don @ 15
As to gunshow background checks, it is illegal (actually a felony) for a felon to possess a firearm and providing a firearm to a felon (whether at a gun show, in the back of a car, or from your garage) is also against the law. If someone is hell bent on selling a felon a firearm, a gunshow background check isn’t going to stop things. You are raising a red herring.
The largest gunshow club in Washington State is concerned about the problem and has come up with an interesting approach. The Washington Arms Collectors (WAC) is an NRA affiliated club. New members information is run through a Washington State Patrol criminal background check prior to issuing a membership card. Only members in good standing are allowed to sell or buy firearms at WAC gunshows. This is strictly enforced and “straw man” purchases are also preveted, but club policy and federal law. If you purchase a firearm from a commerical dealer with a Federal Firearms license at the show (and there are many) then you have to go through a federal firearms background check. If the “federal instant check” indicates a problem your WAC membership is immediately taken by WAC provided security guards. Yes, I am a member of WAC.
Most of the “gunshow background check laws” I have read are designed to put gunshows out of business by making it impossible for them to operate and get insurance. The “gunshow background check laws” I have read are not about stoping felons from getting firearms, but are aimed a stoping gunshows.
As someone who collects a certain kind of handgun that was manufactured from 1899 to 1917, I find gunshows and a few select gunshops to be the only places I can improve my collection. I can assure you that what I collect is not highly desired by drug dealers or gangs.
Most of what is bought and sold at gunshows is ammunition, clothing, reloading equipment, books, gun maintenance related equipment. I would estimate at this past weekend’s gunshow, that of the firearms being sold over half were sold by commerical firms or FFL holders that required the federal instant check to be performed.
P.S. There are bunch of laws that already govern the sale of firearms by individuals. So anybody who sells a firearm at a gunshow or from their home had better be real careful, even if it is a “private sale.” Most of the folks who do the selling don’t want to be convicted of a felony, as they would loose their right to ever again own a firearm.
RDC,
You have a point. But then is it fair that only rich felons get to v vote and poor ones don’t. What about the poor felons who can ‘t simply pay their court costs. Or the felons who were convicted of drug possession (a pretty small amount from my recollection) and can’t pay their court costs. But a rich felon, he can vote.
I hope the Dems immediately bring forth Legislation that all convicted felons immediately have all their rights restored…especially rapists & killers. It seems like the Lefty’s posting here all want that to happen…so draft a Bill, contact your Legislator and Governor…and get it done. You have absolutely no excuses.
The devel is in the details however:
1) Should voting rights be restored if felons still have unpaid restitution?
2) At what point do you restore these rights?
3) How is this communicated to County Auditors?
Lefty’s always come up with touch-feely visionary BS…it’s when they actually try to draft a Bill and put it on paper that they show their dyfunctionality!!!!! Go for it G Davis, Don, torridjoe et al. BRING FORTH THE BILL YOU LOUDMOUTH MORONS!!
GS,
You say:
“It is illegal for these felons to vote, and their votes should not count.”
So what can you do about it now, when their votes have been commingled with everyone else’s?
Chew2 @ 19
Perhaps the solution for that poor felon would be… hmmm… to not commit the crime in the first place?
Mr. C @ 20
Right at this moment, there are MILLIONS of dollars in uncollected restitution and the victim compensation program is going broke.
What surprises me the most is that Dems are willing to go all “torches and pitchforks” for the rights of criminals — who they see as victims of society. Where is the outrage on behalf of the real victims like the poor woman who was raped and can’t afford the medical or psych care she needs?
In a prior post, our 30-year career retired Lefty State Government Lawyer, Mr. Don, decided to continue repeating the Democratic Party lie that a Governor’s Election in November would cost taxpayers $4 million. That is absolutely false!!!!!
Many, many communities already have elections or issues that will be on this November’s ballot. County’s must pay for these elections whether there is a Governor’s Race or not.
THE COST OF THE GOVERNOR’S RACE IS THE “INCREMENTAL COST” OF THIS ELECTION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT COUNTY’S WOULD PAY IF THERE WAS NOT A GOVERNOR’S RACE.
Don, you ought to look into this before you shoot your mouth off and look stupid!!! You do understand “incremental costs”, don’t you Don?? I know the truth gets in the way of good old-fashioned “fear-mongering” but on these blogs you run the risk of someone actually calling BS on you.
Oh, and keep in mind more communities may still have ballot issues to put on in November that have not yet been identified. Special levy’s and other ballot issues are common in November.
Mr. Cynical, at this point the courts have determined that the governor cannot be elected in 2005.
I agree we should streamline the process to allow those who have paid for their crimes to regain their voting rights.
I agree, however, that under current law, felons who voted illegally should be prosecuted.
It is painfully apparent that this problem existed long before the 2004 election.
It is painfully apparent that the WSRP is grandstanding on this issue, that the felon vote cuts both ways, and that this former non-issue for them is merely a talking point in their never-ending odyssey to undermine confidence in elections and government as a means to their ends.
Meanwhile, over in the Texas lege, Democrat Vo has been declared the winner (again) over Republican die-hard election challenger Heflin.
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/a.....tml#004897
D Huygens @25
“….never-ending odyssey to undermine confidence in elections and government as a means to their ends.”
I don’t have confidence in this past election.
How odd, my Democratic Party loyalist wife, my youngest son (who is in college and favors the Liberarian Party) and I (a card carrying Republican) all have no confidence in how King County counts its votes. My son and wife are both very upset over the inaccuracy shown in this past election.
I don’t work or live in King County. Of course some of my family’s lack of confidence may be due to the guy I work with who lives in King County and they didn’t send him an absentee ballot prior to the election (even though he called a number of times), but sent his house an absentee ballot for somebody with a name that doesn’t live there (completely different name.)
Or maybe it could be that my youngest son who is at a university in King County and voted at his appropriate polling station in Seattle, but on the voter roles is not listed as not having voted.
Or maybe it is the absentee ballot sent to our house in Snohomish County for our oldest son who works and votes in California, even though the County had been previously informed he had moved.
The above examples were provided to me firsthand not by evil republicans nor by talk radio.
I think that you don’t really understand how many people either have first hand or second hand experiences with problems in this past election.
My feeling is that the numbers were so high that “most” of the people in this state either had someone in their immediate family experience and election problem or had someone who was a close friend or co-worker’s family experience a problem.
If my experience is any guide, I would say that rather than one problem in a family, friend or co-worker, that there were multiple problems identified as happening to people one knows.
It will take a lot of reform before I regain confidence in the electroial system. King County in particular and Washington State in general have “electile dysfunction.”
Bob @ 27–
“Electile Dysfunction”– A beauty.
Logan & Huennekens ought to be taking that medication the push on TV called __________…I can’t remember.
I do remember the character Bob who took it and was “Livin’ Large”!! Logan & Huennekens seem to be living in denial…standing in front of all of us, like the Emporer with no clothes. They fail to understand how inadequate they are.
Bob, did your son make sure he voted in the right precinct? Multiple precincts are arrayed at a single location; if he went to the wrong table he would have been missed at his proper table.
Did your other son notify the county board in writing? If so, how long before the election?
I’m glad it’s “your feeling” the numbers were so high, but what evidence can you provide that they were? Mine says they weren’t.
Well you see the problem is joe, when we tell you polls say over 65% say they don’t agree that Chrissy is the legitimately elected governor all you libs start whining/screaming about Republican pollsters. You can’t accept evidence, or complain of lack of it, when you refuse to see and hear what IS out there.
Bob @ 18
Re recidivism. I doubt any studies exist, and just comparing recidivism rates from Maine and Vermont versus states like Florida (where I understand it is difficult, if not impossible, to get voting rights restored) would leave too many variables unaccounted for. I wasn’t challenging your statement about the Washington recidivism rate; I just don’t know what it is and thought you might. I’ll do a quick google check. My guess is that it varies dramatically based on the age of the offender and the crime committed. My underlying motive for my admittedly liberal stance on this issue is self-interest. I don’t see where my interests are harmed by prisoners voting, and, if it has any effect on easing a prisoner’s re-entry into civil society and preventing backsliding, it saves tax dollars.
RDC–
Unless of course the felon you want to allow to vote raped your daughter.
Someone the thought of a convicted rapist cancelling out my vote is not too appealling.
But RDC, I encourage you and your comrades to immediately draft Legislation allowing this to happen. By all means, PLEASE do it!
RDC@31-
Unless of course the felon you want to allow to vote raped your child.
I encourage all you Leftists to please immediately propose Legislation allowing all felons to vote. PLEASE do it!!
Bob @ 18, my 31
Bob…here is a link that will get you to several briefing papers on recidivism: http://www.doc.wa.gov/planningresearch/studies.htm
A quick glance showed a rate of about 33% five years out from release, with most rearrests occuring in the first couple of years.
RDC – I’m not sure there are recidivism statistics, but permanently stripping someone of their right to vote doesn’t do anything to decrease crime (or cause criminals to think twice about committing a crime). Alexander Keyssar wrote as much in “The Right to Vote”
http://www.christianitytoday.c.....nov15.html
I’m with you – there’s simply no reason to put the type of hurdles WA state currently has in front of felons who have served their time. Serves no purpose other than to discourage people from re-joining “regular” society. Combined with serving time, having to check “yes” to “have you been convicted of a felony” on every job application seems punishment enough.
Cynical, what I actually said was that Carlson (of KVI infamy) had no problem with the taxpayers forking out $4 million for a revote, and that is — in fact — what he said. More than once. Of course, the new spin is that it won’t cost that much because the counties can just stick it on the ballot in November. My, how fast things change! Just a few short weeks ago they wanted a revote in February. They spin so fast you get vertigo just by listening to them.
Getting under you skin, Cyn? You’re going ballistic. Calm down, buddy. Take an aspirin.
Three cheers – let them vote. You paid the price, back to full citizenship – by the easiest route possible.
By the way – some of these felons are first times and have charges like minor theft, etc. – not all felons are guility of capital crimes.
Go Goldy – the moralists and blue noses be damned.
Remember how many felons Nixon and Regan created. Hundreds in those two administrations.
Becuse Rossi was such a lamb-soft and cuddly- guy. And Gregoire was the arch type law and order lady – and as the AG- not far off – MOST felons voted for Rossi.
The phrase is trust your instincts and common experience.
Mr C @20 good comment…..by the way,, when did You get your voting rights restored? and how much did it cost you?
Don @ 33 & 34–
If I were any calmer, I’d be asleep!
Don, you managed to avoid answering my challenge to you Lefty’s to IMMEDIATELY bring forward a Bill to restore the right of felons to vote. Please do it. Of course you won’t because you know the public doesn’t want that, do they.
RDC @ 31 & 32
I am enjoying your thoughtful comments and debate. As to the recidivism articles you reference, that is a big list. I have read some like these in the past, but never seen one that refered to voting. Are you just providing articles on recidivism or is there one that talks about voting as a factor? The next time I talk to one of the people I ocasionally work with at the Washington Dept. of Correction I will ask them if they are aware of any such studies on voting and reoffending. Thank you again for your comments.
torrid joe @ 29
According to my son, he did vote at the precinct he was suppose to and he did sign up ahead of time in writing with King County in one of those voter registration drives on his college campus. He had a voter ID card, so I suspect he really was registered and went to his precint. As to what happened, who knows.
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
While you may not feel that the numbers of “errors” people saw were high, my experience is just the opposite. Again, my comment (not to you) was that lack of confidence in the elections may not be totally blamed on either Republican rantings or blamed on talk radio, it could be from first or second hand experiences, like mine.
I think some people should consider that the criticisms of the election and its mess are “real” as opposed to partisan in nature. While I am sure that there is partisan spin, I also feel that there is some real critism. Those ignoring the real critisim and branding all criticism of the election as partisan spin, are doing their political party and position a great diservice.
bby @ 35
“By the way – some of these felons are first times and have charges like minor theft, etc. – not all felons are guility of capital crimes.”
True, but……..from what I have seen at a number of Washington State DOC faciltiies and from the stories one of the guys I work with (whose son is a County jail correction officer) has told, the number of “first time in trouble with the law types” who are behind bars as felons is trivial in number.
From what limited information I know, with the crowding situation at county and state correction facilities, you usually don’t get “sent up the the river” for a felony unless you have made some serious and repeated mistakes.
I am sure that there are some drunk drivers convicted of manslaughter who just made a one serious mistake that resulted in a felony and jail time, but I also suspect that there number is a very small percentage of the prison population.
If someone who has made one mistake or many mistakes, pays their debt to society (in terms of time and money), gets their life together and becomes a “productive member of society” then I applaud them and their strength of character and want them to get their rights restored.
If an ex-felon isn’t a productive member of society, then not restoring their rights is just fine with me. There are both rights and responsibilities associated with full citizenship. I have no problem with holding people accountable to the responsibility part.
bby @ 35
“Remember how many felons Nixon and Regan created”? Actually, no I don’t. How is an ex-pres. or two the creator of felons? And how does Clinton figure into all this (admitted perjurer in case you forgot)?
I do remember learning in grade school that if you are convicted of a felony, you lose your voting rights. Belive it or not, that is the type of law that makes an impact on a young mind, streese the permanence of one’s actions, etc. It’s not too much to ask that felons at least be required to make full financial restitution to get their voting rights restored.
Bob @ 39, 40
I doubt there are any studies linking prisoner voting and recidivism. Only two states allow prisoner voting, and trying to isolate the effect of prisoner voting on recidivism would be very difficult. I recall reading an pre-November election article in a reputable newspaper (NYT, WSJ, or WP Wkly, can’t remember which) in which the reporter interviewed inmates in a Maine prison about voting. Those interviewed seemed quite enthusiastic, and, not having much else to do, they had devoted much time to researching candidates and issues. The ability to vote seemed to have a very positive psychological affect. This, of course, isn’t “proof” of anything, but is something to ponder. To prevent a prison population from dominating a local election, prisoners in Vermont (and probably in Maine) cast their vote, absentee obviously, in their place of residence prior to incarceration.
Re 41, last paragraph. The only violation of “responsibility” I know of linked to voting is incarceration as a felon. Aside from this, a person can be as irresponsible as he/she likes without having the right to vote affected in any way, and, for that matter, can be a very un-productive member of society. I know all of the reasons why felons are denied the vote, but there is an element of double standard involved here. I can’t see how denying prisoners, and more especially denying released felons, the right to vote accomplishes anything positive, and may (I repeat may) have some deleterious effect on reintegration into civil society.
Cyn @ 38
What makes you think I can “bring forth” such a bill? I’m just a voter, not a legislator. Hell, I can’t even bring forth grass in my front yard. Keeps dying.
Bob–I don’t “feel” the errors are not high; that was pretty much my point. Feeling and anecdotal evidence may show the errors are real, but they don’t show they were widespread. What I’m relying on are the numbers I’m receiving from the individual counties across the state, and the discrepancy rates they’re reporting.
“Remember how many felons Nixon and Regan created”?>>>
No but I remember how many vicious criminals Clinton pardoned…by the way it is Reagan…as in Ronald Wilson Reagan, one of my personal heroes….
makes sense chuckie, you seem like a ‘wilson’kinda guy
Don–
I kinda figured you were a lot of hot air and partisan Dem spinmeister. I mean to say felons ought to be able to vote is clearly a misguided Dem spin to try and mitigate the fact that it is currently ILLEGAL and a major issue in this election.
I’m just calling BS on you Don. If voting felons is important to you, then contact Chris and her gang. You already told us that you know her! For God’s sake, your Dems are in charge of the House & Senate too. No excuses Don. I smell the stench of Dem. partisan spin eminating from your posts. Get “R Done Don!
Bring forward the FELONS OUGHTA VOTE ACT!! See where that gets you.
torridjoe @ 44:
That is the key point in this whole, long, sad saga. Of course there were voting anomalies. Some of us here even have first-hand knowledge. But, these sorts of things happen in every election. And, they did not happen in this election in any higher proportion than might be expected. If Gregoire-Rossi had not been so close, we would not be here talking about it now.
What I wish would happen: GOP challenge goes forward, but eventually the courts follow the law and rule the election cannot be voided. In the process, we learn of ways we can reform elections to improve on the 99.9% successful vote counting rate. We implement those reforms. Everyone shakes hands and gets ready for the next gubernatorial election in 2008.
There is a good op-ed piece on the subject of felon voting in today’s Seattle Times. Perhaps someone who knows how could do a link to it.
D Huygens @ 48
… and then everyone goes out for cake and ice cream.
The fact is that the state and King County, specifically, have been very aware of the problems AND solutions. They’ve simply chosen not to implement the fixes and/or have simply ignored the warnings (King County).
For one, a number of heads must roll for this to get anywhere. Elections officials need to know that the public means business and the Dems must at least make a superficial show that they won’t protect the very party-faithful lackeys they put in place to begin with.
But I have real doubts that anything will get done. The system in place has put and kept these Dems in power. Why gum up the works now??
Cynical @ 47
I’m calling the BS on YOU, Cynical! Read the Seattle Times op-ed piece … then give us your ideas on how to enforce the felon-voting law:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....per08.html
The Times says it better than I can, so here’s just a summary of the problems you face:
1. Disenfranching legitimate voters by mistakenly identifying them as felons;
2. A system so confusing that even elections officials and corrections officials can’t figure out who’s entitled to vote and who isn’t, let alone felons; i.e., much, most, or all of the “illegal felon” voting is inadvertent;
3. Wrongly disenfranchising individuals who were arrested for felonies, but convicted of a misdemeanor or acquitted;
4. Lack of any central database to identify felons;
5. Discriminating against felons based on economic status; i.e., rich defendants who can pay off fines get their voting rights restored, while poor defendants unable to pay fines are disenfranchised for life as a result of convictions for non-violent felonies (e.g., drug possession);
6. Partisan abuse of the system, as when Florida GOP officials targeted black voters in 2000 based on the belief they were more likely to vote for Al Gore.
Of course, all the current hooting and hollering by card-carrying Republicans (e.g., our very own Mr. Cynical) obscures the fact that we have a felon-voting problem in EVERY election, and if this election is tainted, so is EVERY election held in this state, so if we’re going to remove Governor Gregoire from office then let’s also remove EVERY Republican (and for that matter, Democratic) legislator and office holder from EVERY office, state level on down, because they ALL received illegal felon votes!
ROSSI FLIP-FLOPS AGAIN
Dino the Whiner held another news conference yesterday (does anyone go to these things anymore?) and announced that if the judge decides he won the election, he would ask the legislature to order a new election “before” accepting the office of governor. Translation: He would accept the office.
This is a 180-degree turn from what he previously said, which was, he would not accept the office based on a judge’s decision, but only if he won a revote. But, as we’ve already seen numerous times, what Dino and/or Chris Vance and/or the WSRP says is subject to change, depending on whatever serves their interests at this moment.
And some people actually want this liar to be our governor? Say it ain’t so, Sam.
Mark @ 50 …
I am all for fixing the things that went wrong. If that requires heads to roll, fine (though I don’t think that will be necessary).
These problems (which amount to a few ten-thousanths of one percent of the total vote) have always been there. Heck, King Co., per capita, isn’t even in the top ten of counties that corrected votes during the recounts. Okanogan and Adams Counties, to name a couple, did a crappier job of counting votes than King Co. Where’s the outrage?
Should we fix the things we can? Absolutely. Will we ever hit 100% perfection? Not as long as there are humans involved.
But it is easier to yell about King County being a tool of the Dems. Hey, if the state and KC are so intentionally corrupt, why didn’t they fix it so that Senn beat McKenna?
This bleating and hyperventilating serves no legitimate purpose at all. Let’s fix what we can, acknowledge that auditors aren’t perfect whether they live in Omak or Seattle, and get on with our lives.
Should we fix the things we can? Absolutely. Will we ever hit 100% perfection? Not as long as there are humans involved.
Just to put a “fine point” on it, Even if machines are doing all the vote recording and vote counting/tabulating, there will still by less than 100% perfection. Machines will fail to record votes, or be hacked, or be improperly configured. And not everyone (at least currently) can vote, in-person, by machine.
Even with audit trails, there’s still the possibility of centralized, undetected fraud. Or voter error.
Banks don’t have 100% perfection. Neither do doctors, NASA engineers or the CIA. It’s not an achievable goal. Can they all get better at their jobs? Sure, but there’s no system that’s 100% perfect all the time.
DH @ 57
Should we fix the things we can? Absolutely. Will we ever hit 100% perfection? Not as long as there are humans involved.
Hey, how about we throw out the hand recount, go with the machine result, call it a day, shake hands and go out for cake and ice cream?
Hey, if the state and KC are so intentionally corrupt, why didn’t they fix it so that Senn beat McKenna?
Because — and I have this on good authority — people in Senn’s office, some in the Dem Party and Olympia in general hated her.
How about we behave as adults, follow the law (as we are doing) – which allows for hand recounts and contested elections, and fix any problems we identify? How about we stop insulting one another and spreading rumor and vitriol on the radio? Oh, and then shake hands and go out for cake and ice cream.
DH @ 60
Works for me.
Personally, I’d rather hear much less from Chris Vance & Kirstin Brost. Unless, of course, you want to start some sort of a Carville/Matalin-type rumor. Woo-hoo!!
jpgee @ 50
Very nicely done. Sorry I missed this when you posted.
Best Wishes,
T. Hanks
mark @ 61
What’s with this Republican obsession with affairs, rumors of affairs, and innuendos of affairs? Is it because (check one):
__ 1. Republican males are horny all the time because Republican females are frigid all the time.
__ 2. The GOP’s “values” charade provides perfect cover for sex-obsessed perverts hoping not to get caught.
__ 3. Republican males are insanely infatuated with Democratic females.
__ 4. Republicans have dirty minds.
Don @ 63
What’s with this Dem obsession with conspiracies and secret agendas?
I was unaware that either Vance and/or Brost was married and an affair wasn’t my point. I see them as two blowhards on opposite sides of the fantasyland coin. They deserve each other and we, the public, do not deserve them.
Don @ 63
And so as not to ignore your question… 3 & 4 are correct. And the reason Dem females like us is that we bathe and have real jobs. ;)
Earlier someone said that Republicans will never have credibility in the felon question because if they object to criminal background checks at gunshows, how can they support criminal background checks for voters.
Well I think that Dem’s will never have credibility on the election issue as they seem to say that no election will ever be 100% perfect, and they expect a few fractions to percentage points worth of errors in any election; and yet when it comes to medical malpractic litigation and to defective product litigation, nothing less than 100% perfect will ever be good enough. Hmmmmm.
For Dem’s criminal data bases are too flawed to use in determining who should vote, but they are just fine for checking to see if folks should be allowed to buy firearms, when folks are pulled over for motor vehicle violations, for when folks volunteer to help out at an elementary school. Hmm.
mark @ 65
In reply to your lame attempt at humor, why don’t you go to the Democrats’ office and try to get a date. That should be quite amusing.
Don @ 67
My S.O. is a rabid Dem (& a former Dem “political operative” on the nat’l. level). Amused yet?