The other day I received an email from the infamous Lawyer X, who suggested I may have got it wrong in implying that registering at a PO Box is necessarily improper, as the GOP contends. He pointed me towards the WAC:
Registering to vote — Nontraditional address. No person registering to vote, who meets all the qualifications of a registered voter in the state of Washington, shall be disqualified because of a nontraditional physical address being used as a residence address. Nontraditional addresses may include shelters, parks or other identifiable locations which the voter deems to be his/her residence. Voters using such an address will be registered and precincted based on the location provided. Voters without a traditional address will be registered at the county courthouse, city hall or other public building near the area that the voter considers his/her residence. Registering at a nontraditional address will not disqualify a voter from requesting ongoing absentee voter status provided the voter designates a valid mailing address.
Let’s parse this, shall we?
The first sentence is absolutely clear that a voter may not be disqualified for using a “nontraditional physical address” as a residence address. The second sentence defines nontraditional addresses as “identifiable locations which the voter deems to be his/her residence.” I don’t think there’s much of an argument there.
But it’s the third and fourth sentences that are key to understanding the GOP challenge.
Voters using such an address will be registered and precincted based on the location provided.
It doesn’t take a legal degree to dissect this sentence, just a basic understanding of grammar. “Will be registered” is in the future progressive tense, whereas “location provided” is in the simple past tense. Thus, these instructions can only be understood to be directed at elections workers, acting in the future, based on information provided by voters in the past.
You see, voters don’t register to vote (let alone precinct themselves)… they merely fill out forms applying for registration. The actual act of registering and precincting the voter is then conducted by elections workers, based on information provided by the voter on the form. This brings us to the fourth sentence, the one that the GOP relies on to disqualify many of the challenged voters.
Voters without a traditional address will be registered at the county courthouse, city hall or other public building near the area that the voter considers his/her residence.
In the context of the previous sentence, the future progressive “will be registered” can only be understood as an instruction to elections workers, not voters. I’m not exactly sure what the purpose of this particular provision is — perhaps its merely an accommodation to the computer systems — but the failure of a voter with a nontraditional address to be registered at a public building is not a failure of the voter. Take a look at the voter registration form as defined in WAC 434-324-050: nowhere on it is any mention of nontraditional addresses, or registering at public buildings… or even, an explicit instruction to the voter that he cannot list a mailbox number or storage facility as his address.
Upon close reading, the WAC simply does not require voters with nontraditional addresses to list the address of a public building as his residence on the voter registration form. Indeed, it would be impossible do so, as the form does not accommodate both the address of the location he deems to be his residence and the address of a nearby public building on the same line. If the WAC requires the voter to be registered at a public building, fulfilling this requirement would clearly be the responsibility of the election worker who processed the registration card… and an election official’s error is not sufficient reason to toss out a ballot from an otherwise qualified voter.
Thus, according to Lawyer X, challenged voters like Terri Carpenter and David Combs, who both have nontraditional addresses, are free to register at a PO Box, if that is the location they deem to be their residence… regardless of whether they can physically reside inside.
Residency is a state of mind, not pinned to an exact location. This is particularly true where the person has no other residence. When you are dealing with a homeless person, and where the GOP has made no effort to show the person has any other residence, the residence has to be the address provided by the voter. Every citizen of the state is entitled to vote. They can’t have it taken away because they do not own or lease property. Unless someone shows a voter has some other residence, the one the voter provided is it.
In this context it becomes all the more clear why the challenge statute requires the challenger to provide the actual address of the voter in question, because without it one can never truly determine that the location provided, whatever its dimensions, is not in fact the location the voter deems to be his residence. And so it seems likely that should the canvassing board follow the letter of the law, voters like Carpenter and Combs will survive the GOP’s challenge, as will other voters for whom the Republicans cannot prove, by clear and convincing evidence, their actual address.
And once again, the only thing the GOP will succeed in proving, is that administering elections is a lot more complicated than they pretend.
Damn Goldy! So, basically, the GOP has to prove that these folks live somewhere else, as opposed to just proving that the address they are registered at in not legit? What you say sounds reasonable, considering the ability of a person to own a house or rent a apartment shoudln’t matter; folks get the vote.
Washington is one of the states that have taken steps to assure that homeless people have the right to vote. And why shouldn’t they vote, if they are citizens over the age of 18, and haven’t been disqualified? Now watch the trollfucks argue that only the propertied class should be allowed to vote. Fuck ’em, this is America, not Tsarist Russia.
Hey Stefan, if you win your PDA lawsuit against KCRE, are you gonna share the $$$ with the generous contributors to your “legal action fund” who paid for your lawsuit, or keep it all for yourself?
Once again it boils down to the right wing (Me first hacks) vs. the normal US citizens. The ‘privelaged’ far right have a long way to go to understand democracy.
Roger Rabbit@2
That is exactly why this government will crumble much like the Roman Empire did.
Let’s make voter fraud a capital offense. Roger, I’m sure you will agree with this!!! [hehe]
Democrats: The Robert Mugabes of America!! Wahington, Detroit, Gary, and the Windy City: all Harare’s, and all full of Democrats
Goldy, once you finish the hair splitting, definition of ‘is’ exercise,
How would you allow only non-felon citizens to vote once?
The lying cowardly traitors at Steffy central are calling for the prosecution of fuckin’ everyone BUT the republican party. They even want the PROSECUTOR prosecuted. (Republicans think a perfect world would be one that contained nothing but prisons and prison guards.)
They think that the KC prosecutor should prosecute people who used post office boxes etc. This breakdown shows why that won’t work. But yet, strangely, the GOP controlled coward Steffy doesn’t think that the clear case of perjury should be prosecuted because after all, laws should only apply to Democrats.
at 8:
You mean, once he’s finished explaining what the LAW says? And what does allowing only non-felons the vote have to do with the subject at hand, which is that the fuck-faced, dumb-ass Republican’s vote challenge is flawed, much like their election challenge.
Rebublicans can’t get erections unless it’s over elections!
Chuck @5 You obviously have no knowledge of the Roman Republic or the Empire so why don’t you leave them out of this equation. As if a military state supported almost entirely by a slave-based economy should be our model anyway.
Cut and Dry, Sotelo needs to be arrested and prosecuted with pergury.
We will rid this country of Neo-Cons one prosecution at a time. Perhaps some class action prosecutions will be in order.
Build the gallows! On to the Hague!
I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of the challenged registrations do not belong to homeless people. Given that many did not vote, I have to wonder if the people actually exist, or are legal residents of the state. It sounded more like the ploy by various vote registration groups to sign up anything that looked like a democrat, and don’t ask too many questions.
If someone challenged my vote, I would go defend it. The hooting and hollering by those who were caught up in this seems a bit extreme.
We need some way to allow legal residents to vote, without letting in all the other fraud that can creep into the system. I don’t see KCRE doing a proactive job. That’s why the GOP got into it.
What the Republicans are really saying is if do not own or rent property then you are not entitled to vote. Their intent is to disenfranchise homeless citizens and transient citizens and others who are not economically well off. Also affected are people who may be mobile or temporarily out of state without a permanent address. Say someone sells their house and is still a Washington state resident but decides to take a cruise around the world. They have their mail come to a PO box in Washington state and have it periodically forwarded to where they can collect it at a certain date. The Republicans would have this person lose their vote because they are on a trip. Or what about a Washington state resident who goes off to college in another state but has their mail forwarded from a PO Box because they want to keep Washington state residency. I’m sure there can be many possible reasons for not having a permanent physical address but the purpose of voting laws should be to facilitate allowing people to vote in their home state. The Republicans are more intent on making it hard for people to participate in voting than they are in complying with what the state law actually says. One reason is that they want to continue rehashing the gubernatorial election that they lost both in votes and in the court. If I remember right their court case was thoroughly dismissed by the judge and they did not even appeal it because it was not winnable.
righton complains about “hair splitting”.
Have you ever read a legal document righton? Talk about splitting hairs! So do we dismiss the law and just make up our own rules because they are less complicated and nuanced?
Of course not, we have exacting laws for a reason, and we must follow them. If the laws are bad then we must change them.
Umm, the WAC defines what it means by nontraditional address. Nowhere does it say a PO box. Clearly that definition went right over your collective heads.
I like how to rightie trolls grasping at straws, “May include” is a complete definition~
You can do better than that, Michael!
Has anyone ever been invited over to someones mail box for some BBQ ribs and a few brews?
I couldn’t help notice the two examples given for non-traditional residences were parks and shelters (places where people could actually live or reside.)
Thanks to Lawyer X – again – and to you, Goldy for bringing this to our attention. It seems huge. Now, this is more than a petty, disenfrancishing action of Sotelo’s – urged on by Rove or someone at the White House, as I recall. It is also a blatantly non-legal, anti-democratic action. Really Rovian.
Goldy: The , ” future progressive ” ??? Did you look that up or can you really parse a sentence that well?
Ironically, the repulsivecrats aren’t challenging military voters, who all have APO, FPO, or other military POST OFFICE BOXES for addresses.
But then again, the repulsivecrats in Washington dissed the business community on 912, so maybe they’ll diss all the military voters as well?
Goldy,
You and Lawyer X (Speed Racer’s brother?) seem to forget that the law gives specific examples of locations in an attempt to clarify what a non-traditional address is:
“Nontraditional addresses may include shelters, parks or other identifiable locations which the voter deems to be his/her residence.”
Both shelters and parks are places where one might reside, but not know their address. Unless one is insane (and, IIRC, not allowed to vote), they can’t rightly believe they RESIDE in a 6″x6″x12″ box.
Also, there are TWO lines on (at least the KingCo) registration form. One says “where you live” (or words to that effect) and the other says “where you get your mail.” You have to swear that the two are correct.
As I’ve said before, KCGOP screwed up the challenge. However, regardless of whether it is the letter or intent of the registration law being violated, there ARE people who have improperly registered and that is a recipe for shenanigans.
IF the law is as unclear as Lawyer X wants to parse it to be, then you declare amnesty for all parties involved and we take the next 180 days to make sure EVERYONE in the state is properly registered.
bamajerk @ 22: “the repulsivecrats aren’t challenging military voters, who all have APO, FPO, or other military POST OFFICE BOXES for addresses.”
See, Roger, you Lefties ARE all about hating the men & women in uniform. This “bamajerk” idiot is SOOOO quick to try and disenfranchise the military that s/he (or perhaps “he-she?”) doesn’t even think that the military folks (unlike the homeless hippies) can read the registration form and know that “where you live” is in WA and “where you get your mail” is the APO, etc. — making it a LEGAL registration. Bamajackass!
I swear to God, I hate the troops. I hate them so much that I am so MAD at Sen. Patty Murray and her cowardly attempts to add billions of dollars to the Veterans Administration. What a traitor! And her brazen attempts to hold the Bush people accountable for fucking over another generation of vets, well, has she no shame?
If you believe that a mail box can be a residence then Logan is guilty of discrimination because not all mailboxes are treated equally in King County.
He currently does not process voter registrations with “PO Box” or “PMB” as a part of the residence address. – source KCE website.
He will allow you to register a mail box as your residence if it is not obvious from the address that it is only a mail box.
This is a huge inconsistency, so regardless of which side of this issue you are on this is clearly needs further scrutiny. I wish to thank the GOP for bringing this issue to public attention. I am hopeful that it will be resolved in a consistent and legal manner.
Ahhh, Markee, markee…..
No one said anything about not wanting the military to vote…in fact I welcome any and all non-felon voters. (and given the fact that the repulsivecrats refuse to listen & give the troops daily ask for–more troups–they’d probably vote democrat right now anyway!)
I just thought that since the repulsivecrats are going to such trouble to rid PO boxes from the voter rolls, they should include ALL po boxes, including the military. I jus tthink they need to do a thorough job, not half assed….but wait, they’re R’s and don’t know better.
Mtn. Man @ 26, you’re right!
Hey, Goldy! It looks like you and
RacerLawyer X finally did something the GOP couldn’t do — get Dean Logan fired (or even fined or thrown in jail)! Why? Because if PO boxes ARE legal residences according to your paralegal buddy, then Logan and Sims have admitted in writing that they deliberately disenfranchised or at least violated the civil rights of (allegedly) legal voters by purging them from the rolls and/or flagging them in the database.Way to go, Goldy!
@4
“Once again it boils down to the right wing (Me first hacks) vs. the normal US citizens. The ‘privelaged’ far right have a long way to go to understand democracy.”
Oh, they understand democracy, all right. That’s why they don’t want any part of it.
Since the minnow and his lakey’s are so keen for prosecutions, when are charges going to be filed against him for his voter intimidation which he gladly splashed all over his web site?
§ 29A.84.630. Influencing voter to withhold vote
Any person who in any way, directly or indirectly, by menace or unlawful means, attempts to influence any person in refusing to give his or her vote in any primary or special or general election is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable to the same extent as a gross misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
Bell @ 25
Perhaps I shouldn’t have tarred with such a wide brush. My apologies to you (though not Patty, for reasons I won’t go into here).
Just like the NeoCons & the GOP, the Far Lefties (who I do believe hate the US military) are just a part of the Democratic Party. The point was more to show Da Dum Bunny that the Left has plenty of kneejerk reactionaries who ARE un-American and will try and whose first thought isn’t the good of the country, but their own political agenda.
@6
“Let’s make voter fraud a capital offense. Roger, I’m sure you will agree with this!!! [hehe]”
Why do you want to kill Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, Ken Blackwell, Chris Vance, and Linda Sotelo? Even for you guys, that seems unduly vicious.
I’d be satisfied with 15-year prison terms for these election thieves.
Reply to 8
“How would you allow only non-felon citizens to vote once?”
By putting someone with more sense than you have in charge of elections.
JDB @ 29
Remember that KING COUNTY sent out the letters, not the GOP. If KING COUNTY failed to notice that the challenge forms were incomplete and/or improper, THEY were the ones that failed. And if the did know, KING COUNTY would be GUILTY of the gross misdemeanor you cite because they sent the letters.
Again, thanks to you Lefties for helping to put the nails in Logan’s coffin.
Comment on 12
“Chuck @5 You obviously have no knowledge of the Roman Republic or the Empire so why don’t you leave them out of this equation. As if a military state supported almost entirely by a slave-based economy should be our model anyway.”
Nindid, the wingfucks DO understand the Roman model. That’s why they like it so much, and want 21st century America to emulate it. The problem for our troll friends is they were born 200 years too late. The society of the 1830’s would have been perfect for them — racism wasn’t stigmatized, and owning slaves was perfectly legal.
@14
“Or what about a Washington state resident who goes off to college in another state but has their mail forwarded from a PO Box because they want to keep Washington state residency.”
Another factor for the college-student population is that many states put up barriers to students registering to vote where they attend school. If you have ever lived in a college town, you know there is great hostility among the locals against the students voting locally, as they are usually outnumbered by the students and do not want the students running their town. They want the students to vote in their home states.
And, if a student’s parents have relocated to another state in which the student has never lived, how is the student supposed to use the parents’ address as a voting address? That state won’t register the student to vote, either. If the student uses the parents’ former address, the student will, in effect, be voting at a former address because the student obviously will never live at that address again — the house is now occupied by strangers.
Of course, the Republican answer to this is: Students shouldn’t be allowed to vote. If you’re old enough to die in a war, you’re too young to drink beer or vote! They’re all a bunch of left-thinking pot smokers anyway, and if we allow them to vote, they might (gasp) vote for Hillary! Or Gregoire! Or Ron Sims!
mark@33 am I hearing you right?
Are you saying that King County is the main institution at fault for failing to catch the KCGOP’s Forged documents?
thats like saying “I cleaned out the register, but the clerk didn’t notice. Therefore its the cleark’s fault a theft occurred!”
If the above is true, they did screw up. But lets not try to shift hte blame.
Except if they’re nice clean-cut church-attending Young Republicans, we have to make sure they’re not disenfranchised, because that would be an offense against God.
Mark @ 33:
You missed the point. I understand that it is easy to get confused, given all the voter intimidation the GOP is trying to get away with. Isn’t it strange that in the last two elections, the only proven voter fraud and intimidation is all GOP?
However, what I was talking about was the minnow preventing a person from voting provisionally by threatening him. Clear violation of RCW 29A.84.630. Since the minnow is so gung-ho to prosecute anyone who violated election law, even without evidence, you would think he would be gung-ho to see himself prosecuted, especially when he has been nice enough to publish his own statements which make it clear that he violated the law.
@33
So Mark, it appears you agree the GOP’s challenges should have been summarily denied by KCE staff because the GOP didn’t use the right form.
@18
“Has anyone ever been invited over to someones mail box for some BBQ ribs and a few brews?”
Are you saying only people who eat ribs and drink beer should be allowed to vote?
Reply to 19
“I couldn’t help notice the two examples given for non-traditional residences were parks and shelters (places where people could actually live or reside.)”
These examples are for illustration purposes only, and are non-exclusive, so don’t worry Mountain Man, your tent on National Forest land counts, too.
@22
“Ironically, the repulsivecrats aren’t challenging military voters, who all have APO, FPO, or other military POST OFFICE BOXES for addresses. But then again, the repulsivecrats in Washington dissed the business community on 912, so maybe they’ll diss all the military voters as well?”
Not to worry, military voters, “non-traditional address” includes your foxhole in Iraq, too.
I think it is time for a Bible burnign at State R’s hq.
Did anyone catch the attempt tp take money our of the budget by the R’s for Asian flu at the very time Gush is stumping about how we must do something.
Who are these people. Is this really happening?
Sure kick the Katrina victims out to the stree right before Christmas. What happened to the 60 billion – all the blather about help.
Oh, forgot, more mony for war.
@23
” … there ARE people who have improperly registered and that is a recipe for shenanigans.”
Fine, Mark, but the question is what should KCE do about it?
GOP Solution: Disenfranchise improperly registered voters
Reasonable Solution: Correct registration errors before next election
@24
Are you talking to me, dipshit? I’m not “bamajenk” and I didn’t post #22. Write your complaint here [ ] and send it here ___.
@26
“I am hopeful that it will be resolved in a consistent and legal manner.”
Let’s be hopeful that Sotelo’s perjury and forgery will be resolved in a legal manner, too.
Roger @ 40
If it wasn’t the legal form and a substitute is not acceptable, then YES.
JDB @ 39
I see. I thought you were talking about the challenge issue. As for Stefan, if you read the oath he had to take, there is a fine line between doing his duty and intimidation. As they say, that is for a judge to decide.
Windie @ 37
I misunderstood JDB’s “intimidation” comments to be about the challenges and not Stefan’s as a pollworker.
Reply to 30
“who I do believe hate the US military”
Who gives a flying fuck what YOU believe? Do you also believe Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered? Do you believe liberal holdovers in the CIA and NSA are flying black helicopters over your house at night? in UFOs? Sasquatches? Hot stock tips?
“The point was more to show Da Dum Bunny that the Left has plenty of kneejerk reactionaries who ARE un-American and will try and whose first thought isn’t the good of the country, but their own political agenda.”
First of all, I was smart enough to graduate from law school, which is more than you can say.
Secondly, you’ve got your parties mixed up. All the kneejerk reactionaries are in the Republican party.
Third, all of the people who don’t care about the good of the country and are only interested in their own political agenda also are in the Republican party.
Fourth, since you’re a Republican, it follows that you are a kneejerk reactionary who doesn’t care about the good of the country but only your own political agenda.
Roger @ 46
I was addressing you and your previous pseudo-flag-waving and using bamajerk’s post as an example. Later in the post, I was addressing bamajerk.
@ 30
Fair enough!
BunnyBoy @ 51: “I was smart enough to graduate from law school”
And GWB has a Harvard MBA… Your point is??
Besides, a mail order JD is nothing to squawk about.
@45
“What happened to the 60 billion – all the blather about help.”
It’s a standard GOP trick, Bob. They promise the moon but all you get is an empty pail. Bush promised $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa but only a token amount (that was already appropriated) was ever delivered. Bush proposed a manned trip to Mars costing $150 billion but merely moved a couple hundred million dollars around in NASA’s budget that was already appropriated. In the wake of the administration’s bungling of the Katrina disaster, Bush and the GOPers promised $60 billion of aid to Katrina victims, but they’ll never see very much of that money, and most of what does get spend will go to cronies under no-bid contracts. There won’t be any money for bird flu, either. Bush and the GOP are all hat, no cattle.
@48
“If it wasn’t the legal form and a substitute is not acceptable, then YES.”
Sure you want STAFF making these decisions? The same staff you don’t trust to register voters correctly or count ballots accurately? Instead of the canvassing board? The question here is WHO should make the decision.
@49
“there is a fine line between doing his duty and intimidation”
I’m a pollworker too, and it’s not this hard, Mark. You go to training. You follow the instructions you’re given. If the instructions are wrong, the people who run the show should answer for it. As an employee, you do what you’re told, and you don’t make up your own rules or put your own interpretations on the rules.
Wabbit
Couldn’t help noticing your silence re #26.
Rabbit @ 45: “the question is what should KCE do about it?
Reasonable Solution: Correct registration errors before next election”
Yes. Absolutely. In fact, it should be done statewide. Now… a question comes to mind… Why, oh why, was this not done in the YEAR between the two elections — especially considering the controversy? It ain’t rocket science and it is not expensive to flag non-residential addresses for review.
Or, maybe the better solution is simply to wipe the statewide rolls clean and have everyone re-register with biometric scan.
@54
“And GWB has a Harvard MBA… Your point is??”
Unlike Bush, I didn’t get in under the Alumni Relations Program. And unlike Bush, I learned something.
Roger @ 57: “You follow the instructions you’re given. If the instructions are wrong, the people who run the show should answer for it.”
I believe that is called the Nuremberg Defense.
Do you owe more to the oath of office that you take or the instructions of supervisors?
mark@various
yeah, I see that silly misunderstandings :p
@61 — the trick is, the oath isn’t “I solemnly swear to harass and try to intimidate people who I think shouldn’t vote”
I mean, really, Mark — don’t you think it’s easier to get into Harvard Business School if your daddy is an alumni, a congressman, and a rich businessman with powerful political and business connections? Do you really think the Harvard Admissions Office is a level playing field? Sure, there’s lots of people who get into Harvard by dint of hard work and brains — and George W. Bush wasn’t one of them. By his own admission, he was a party boy who coasted in school, and wasn’t a contender for class valedictorian. Following he graduation from B-school, he failed in business, fleeced his investors, and violated securities law (but you don’t go to jail for that when your daddy is POTUS and the head of the SEC was appointed by your daddy).
Well, I didn’t go to Harvard. I did apply to Harvard Law School, but accepted the admissions offer I received from a public university because I couldn’t afford to go to Harvard even if they accepted me. You see, I was a poor kid with no family wealth or connections, and my only resource was a $130 monthly V.A. benefit. You can’t go to Harvard Law on $130 a month! I went to law school (and successfully graduated and passed the bar exam on my first try), worked to support myself, and started a business all at the same time. I got to go to law school because — and only because — I (a) studied hard and made good grades, (b) worked my ass off, and (c) earned a V.A. educational benefit the hard way by fighting and risking my life in the Vietnam War. I’m proud of what I accomplished. My family has been in this country for 150 years, and I was the first member of my family who ever graduated from any kind of professional school.
Let me tell you about my first undergraduate school. It didn’t have a football team, a basketball team, or even a softball team. It was a big-city school with 10,000 students, only 200 of whom lived on campus. Most of the students were older, married, and worked graveyard shifts. I did the same thing — I rode a bus 15 miles each way to classes, every day, worked swing shift, and slept on weekends (unless there were tests coming up). Throughout my college career and Army stint, I was lucky to get 4 hours of sleep a day. I know what “hard work” is, asshole. I didn’t belong to a fraternity. I didn’t have time for beer parties, or dating, or going to football games. I had to WORK MY ASS OFF for everything I achieved, and it was extremely hard, and entailed sacrifices you can’t even imagine, you got that asshole?
Now go fuck yourself, and when you’re done fucking yourself, your armadillo needs servicing too.
Roger @ 60: “[U]nlike Bush, I learned something.”
Yet, just like Bush, you have yet to show you’ve learned a thing.
And please tell me why lawyers seem to think that a JD is the end-all-be-all? Do you think you’re better than someone with an MD, MBA or PhD?
@61
Mark — the law says everyone is entitled to vote a provisional ballot. No exceptions. That’s a federal requirement for federal elections, and it’s also state law. The KCE pollworker training and instructions are consistent with the law. There’s a process to follow, and it consists of accepting the provisional ballot, then professional staff tries to match it against voter registration records and if there’s a question about the voter’s right to vote, the canvassing board is the duly authorized body for determining whether it is counted. You follow the process, not bypass it or short circuit it, dummy! Otherwise, you may deprive someone of their constitutional rights — and the pollworker oath most definitely doesn’t authorize you to do that. The law and instructions are clear: EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO CAST A PROVISIONAL BALLOT. Stefan is a meddler who brought his partisan bias to the polling place with him and chose to disregard the law, training, and instructions to superimpose his personal beliefs on top of someone else’s rights. That’s not the rule of law, that’s mob rule, and we don’t need it. There’s no place for Stefan in administering the election process, because he lacks the integrity and/or intellectual capacity to perform the (rather simple) duties of a pollworker properly.
I mean, how many people fail at the job of pollworker? Even people with sixth-grade educations do it successfully. It takes work to get fuck up as a pollworker. You have to intend to fuck up. Stefan was grandstanding. He intended all along to fuck with some voter and get himself thrown out of the job, solely for the purpose of peddling his partisan agenda. He’s a scuzz.
@64
“Do you think you’re better than someone with an MD, MBA or PhD?”
No. Nor do I think I’m better than a school janitor, car mechanic, or plumber. I just have a different job, that’s all. I have more respect for a good plumber than I do for a lousy doctor.
@59
“Why, oh why, was this not done in the YEAR between the two elections – especially considering the controversy?”
Two explanations that come to mind are lack of resources and learning curve.
No one ever anticipated a governor’s election involving over 2.8 million votes would be decided by 133 votes. (Actually, after the manual recount but before the King County canvassing board decided several hundred disputed ballots, the difference between the candidates was only 8 votes.)
The close election exposed weaknesses in the system, and now we’re fixing them. One of Governor Gregoire’s first official acts was to convene an Election Reform Task Force, and she put a Republican in charge of it. The 2005 Legislature passed a number of laws to correct the problems exposed by the 2004 election, including a statewide voter database and tightened polling place and ballot accounting procedures.
As you know, the 2004 governor’s election was contested in court, with the two political parties represented by our state’s two largest corporate law firms. Vast resources were poured into airing the election’s problems in court, with over $4 million spent on this litigation, and while the contest lawsuit exposed a number of systemic weaknesses and errors, and a few cases of voting fraud by individuals acting of their own volition, it totally failed to validate GOP allegations of fraud by Gregoire or her campaign staff, the Democratic Party, or election officials. Those allegations were bullshit.
58
I don’t have time for you this morning, MM. I’m busy. The silence only means I’m ignoring you because you’re an unimportant little pipsqueak.
Roger @ 63
I commend you on your efforts to dig out of what you seem to view as a hellhole of a childhood. You still seem to harbor a lot of resentment and anger. Your other posts show that uncontrolled rage, too. I honestly think you should talk to someone about it. I’m not kidding or trying to put you down.
@14 Say someone sells their house and is still a Washington state resident but decides to take a cruise around the world. They have their mail come to a PO box in Washington state and have it periodically forwarded to where they can collect it at a certain date. The Republicans would have this person lose their vote because they are on a trip. Or what about a Washington state resident who goes off to college in another state but has their mail forwarded from a PO Box because they want to keep Washington state residency.
In either of these cases your residence would be the place where you used to live, which establishes which precinct your vote goes to. If you are on the high seas, that is not a precinct. If you are in college, you don’t belong to the precinct of your college. If you are from Deleware but stationed at Ft. Lewis, you are not entitled to vote in a Ft. Lewis precinct (unless you take certain steps to change your home of record, like buy a house, register your car with Washington license plates, etc, pretty much the same things you would do to establish residency for in-state tuition).
@35 If the law is a barrier, then yes, there is a barrier. Going to a college does not establish legal residency.
@40 There is no official form. There is a sample provided in the law, but there is no requirement to follow the sample.
@43 Are there a lot of foxholes in Iraq? I think most of the soldiers there have a semi-permanent location that they call home.
@59
“Or, maybe the better solution is simply to wipe the statewide rolls clean and have everyone re-register with biometric scan.”
How is that “better?” How much sense does it make to blanket disenfranchise everyone, and inconvenience 3.4 voters by requiring them to re-register, to clean up a few hundred or a few thousand errors that can be correct by other means?
This pathetic screed proves your real agenda is to suppress Democratic voters by erecting unnecessary hurdles and barriers to voting. W
Roger @ 65
Excuses, excuses.
Flagging non-residential addresses in the database would take ONE DAY and minimal cost and effort. The US Post Office maintains a database of every address and they know if it is a PMB, a box, a single-family residence, a multi-family residence or a business. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Mass-mailing advertisers do this kind of filtering every day. There is no reason that King County only did a simple “find” for the terms “PMB” and “PO Box” in a matter as important as this.
errata
should read “3.4 million voters”
Reply to 63
Am I angry? Yes, I’m angered by the yellow hypocrites who send other people’s children to die in wars they start but won’t fight themselves or send their own children to fight! I’m angered by the corruption of this Republican administration! I’m angered by the crass pandering to the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and working class by the Republican party and its sycophants. I’m angered by the ethical lapses rampant among the GOP’s top leadership, and the utter hypocrisy of the Republican congressmen who called for an ethics investigation of Rep. Murtha, who has more patriotism and integrity in his little finger than the Republican congressional delegation put together! I’m anagered by the Republican culture of death that glorifies war and condones the torture and murder of innocent people by our own government! I’m angered by the incursions on our freedoms by the totalitarians of the Far Right! I’m angered by their thug politics and election stealing! But above all, I’m angered by the scurrilous smears and name-calling by the immoral scumbags of the Extreme Right!
Since you’re obviously not angered by these things, you’re the one who obviously needs to seek help. Not only mental therapy, but ethical therapy as well.
Mark @ 64
“And please tell me why lawyers seem to think that a JD is the end-all-be-all? Do you think you’re better than someone with an MD, MBA or PhD?”
What an idiotic question. Lawyers think a JD is the end-all-be-all because that’s what you need to practice law!
I mean, just imagine….
An MD practicing law: Your Honor, I would like to treat the witness as hostile. With the court’s approval, I’ll perform a lobotomy.
An MBA practicing law. Your Honor, while we cannot show that the defendant committed first degree murder, instead we intend to show that he improperly rounded amounts on his federal tax forms for 1988, 1994, and 2002.
A PhD practicing law. Ladies and gentleman of the Jury, it is true that all of the evidence we have presented against the defendant is hearsay. But, as I showed earlier (Smith et al. 2002), hearsay evidence can be an effective form of evidence under some circumstances. I might add that the very definition of hearsay has changed from it original definition from medieval English common law (Smith et al. 1989; Smith and Barnes 1994; reviewed in Davies and Smith, 1999) to the early U.S. Colonies (Smith 2001; Jacobs and Smith 2002, 2004). Furthermore, as I have shown in Smith and Smith (2003) and further supported in Smith and Coale (in press) the definition has broadened in the last 100 years. Currently, the definition of hearsay can be shown (Smith, under review) to include….
Goldy-
You are half-assed parser. How can you buy such horseshit as “residency is a stae of mind?” Residency is a state of where you reside (live), and you cannot live in a PO Box, period.
Michael @68
“like buy a house, register your car with Washington license plates”
Bullshit! You don’t have to buy a house, register a car, or even own a car to vote.
These are the requirements, and the ONLY requirements, for voting in Washington state:
“eighteen years or over … citizens of the United States … lived in the state, county, and precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election … except those disqualified by Article VI, Section 3” — Washington Constitution, Article VI, Section 1
This means if you are over 18, a U.S. citizen, have not been deprived of your civil rights, and got off a freight train 31 days before the election and have slept on a bench in Denny Park ever since, you are entitled to register and vote.
@70
“Flagging non-residential addresses in the database would take ONE DAY and minimal cost and effort.”
If it’s so easy, why didn’t you volunteer your time to King County Records and Elections BEFORE the election, instead of bitching afterwards without having lifted your own finger? I’m sure Dean Logan could have used your help.
Comment on 74
Residency is not a state of mind or a subjective test. I can imagine myself snorkeling in the Caribbean, but that doesn’t make me a resident of Bermuda. Residency for voting purposes, however, is a legal term of art whose meaning is determined by statutes and court decisions. Where many lay people go wrong is assigning vernacular meanings to legal terms of art, and assuming that because they know what a legal term means because they know what the vernacular term means. When people do this, they are almost always wrong. For example, under the Endangered Species Act, a “taking” of an endangered species doesn’t just mean hunting, capturing, or otherwise directly harming the endangered animal, bird, fish, or other wildlife. You can also be prosecuted for damaging the creature’s habitat by cutting down trees or filling in wetlands, and for a number of other acts that indirectly may contribute to a decline in the species’ population.
Roger wierdo-
You are, as usual, WRONG.
Still no word from Dems on legal voting…
OK, you guys are good at hair splitting, pointing to law when convenient
I asked how you’d protect my vote, while letting others vote. Right now even using the 3rd world purple ink stain would be an improvement…
Again, it should be any Citizen who Resides here, and isn’t a felon (w/ voting rights not restored), gets to vote 1x.
Or are you guys sticking to your guns to let the double votes and sloppy counting continue. Thinking I guess asking for some documentation will scare off the less well off?
righton @ 78
“Or are you guys sticking to your guns to let the double votes and sloppy counting continue.”
Get some help righton…you have a problem with reality. I’ve never seen any Democrats promoting double voting or sloppy counting. Are you stupid (I mean, do you REALLY believe Democrats encourage these things?) or are you just being disingenuous?
“Thinking I guess asking for some documentation will scare off the less well off?”
Sorry…that did not parse.
Danno @ 77
“Roger wierdo-
You are, as usual, WRONG.”
No, Danno. You are a fucking idiot!
dj;
first, last part; you guys playing game that by even asking for ID’s , republicans’ are instituting a virtual poll tax, literacy test. Now the new “literacy test” you all want to abolish is either the citizenship or residency or any documentation test. You guys are willing to take any live body or person using the mail.
You are disingenous is saying you all want clean elections. We all know KC had mismatched tallies of votes to voters….’splain that one to me ricky.
And why not “card” everyone showing up. I get carded at the liquor store, why not card someone going to vote?
You must get your opinions from Danny, Nicole, and Goldy
Roger Rabbit mouth spewings: 30
Out of 80 total as of 1:06 PM, Mon. Nov. 21st.
That is 37.5%.
=still a loser, sitting around on his fat-ass in a bathrobe, hammering away his delusional views all day and all night; waiting for yet another Gov’t cheese check to arrive in the mail. I’ll betcha Roger Rodent dosen’t get laid much. How fitting of a garden pest.
Mark1, if you don’t change your name to something else, I am gonna kick your ass!
Righton @ 81
first, last part; you guys playing game that by even asking for ID’s , republicans’ are instituting a virtual poll tax, literacy test. Now the new “literacy test” you all want to abolish is either the citizenship or residency or any documentation test.
It depends on what you mean by documentation. Judges Frank M. Hull (Clinton), Stanley F. Birch Jr. (Bush Sr.) and Joel F. Dubina (Bush SR.) of the 11th Circuit Court upheld the decision by Judge Harold L. Murphy overturning the Georgia Voter ID law :
The ruling allows thousands of Georgians who do not have government-issued identification, such as driver’s licenses and passports, to vote in the Nov. 8 municipal elections without obtaining a special digital identification card, which costs $20 for five years. In prior elections, Georgians could use any one of 17 types of identification that show the person’s name and address, including a driver’s license, utility bill, bank statement or a paycheck, to gain access to a voting booth.
…Judge Murphy likened the law to a Jim Crow-era poll tax that required residents, most of them black, to pay back taxes before voting. He said the law appeared to violate the Constitution for that reason.
@83:
Hey pal, I’ve been posting on here way longer than you, so the answer is no. And I don’t take threats from anyone, so quit hiding behind your computer screen next time there tough guy.
@72
You have a lot of anger. Hopefully Easter will come early for you and you can release all of that anger in a positive way. Otherwise I fear you may cause danger to someone.
I am angry that drug companies make the American people pay for all of their research by charging Americans 80 bucks for the same drug that they sell to Canadiens for 30 bucks, or Mexicans for 5 bucks. I’m angry that DOT is spending almost 1/2 a billion dollars on wasteful things like landscaped lids on 520, cable guard rails that don’t stop accidents, sound walls on I-5, taxes to the state, bike lanes that I have NEVER seen a bike in. There are thousands of homeless people in Washington state and we are spending almost 7 million dollars of tax money on a Seattle Art Museum Sculpture Park? And most of all I am angry that I can’t smoke a cigarette in a bar or restaurant anymore.
righton @ 81
“you guys playing game that by even asking for ID’s , republicans’ are instituting a virtual poll tax, literacy test.”
I think that that sentiment (which is not docterine in any political party, but represents the feelings and frustrations of some individuals, usually in the form of a satirical exaggeration) is based on a lot of the efforts proposed or attempted by the WA GOP. Things like: photo ID requirement (disenfranchises poor and elderly, unless IDs are no cost and not burdensome to obtain), rebuilding registration database from scratch (again, disenfranchises a chunk of society that tends to be poorer), and error-strewn voter challenges that, in fact, disenfranchise some people entitled to vote.
“Now the new “literacy test” you all want to abolish is either the citizenship or residency or any documentation test.”
Again, this is complete hogwash.
“You guys are willing to take any live body or person using the mail.”
I think the idea that most of the liberals espouse is to take the definition of a legal voter from the State Constitution and ensure as many of those people who want to vote can. The “address of current residence” is not part of the constitutional definition of who is entitled to vote. That is a minor administrative issue that should be corrected, but should not be used to strip away rights granted in the constitution.
“You are disingenous is saying you all want clean elections.”
“Clean elections” means, not ONLY preventing people from voting when they are not entitled to do so, but it also means ensuring that EVERY voter who wants to vote can do so without an undue burden. When voters cannot vote because of administrative hurdles or expense, then the election cannot be considered “clean.”
“We all know KC had mismatched tallies of votes to voters….’splain that one to me ricky.”
No. They do not. They have ballots (i.e. real votes) that did not perfectly match the paperwork (signatures in the pollbooks, and computer records for absentee ballots) in 2004.
There was no evidence whatsoever that the “mismatches” were anything more than clerical errors and other valid reasons for mismatches (federal ballots, voters with protected identies).
What we are all very concerned about is that the ballots are tallied properly. That is the prime directive, isn’t it?
“And why not “card” everyone showing up. I get carded at the liquor store, why not card someone going to vote?”
Everyone who shows up IS carded.
I think you mean that you want people to show a photo ID. As you probably know, the Georgia photo ID law has been struck down by the US courts, so this doesn’t even look like an option right now. The courts have deemed a photo ID requirement as posing an undue hardship on some voters.
Eventually, however, photo IDs will become ubiquitous, and then a photo id requirement will be adopted (if there is any poll-place voting by then, that is). Right now there are just too many people who do not have a photo ID to make this practical (give it 5-10 years, though).
As an aside, don’t you find the fuss about photo ID just a little overblown? I mean, in the 2004 election there were only 6 people shown to have voted twice, and it is not clear that any of them would have been caught by a photo-id requirement. Furthermore, there were no reports of people showing up at the polls and voting under another person’s name. What is the evidence that a photo id requirement will eliminate even ONE case of illegal voting?
“You must get your opinions from Danny, Nicole, and Goldy”
I am not sure who Danny and Nicole refer to, but Goldy does sometimes help me form opinions (and not all in agreement with Goldy). But, then again, Goldy helps you form opinions, too.
In sum, your claim that “you guys sticking to your guns to let the double votes and sloppy counting continue.” is incorrect. There will always be tradeoffs between allowing legal voters to vote and ensuring illegal voters do not vote. Liberals and conservatives weight these tradeoffs differently—slightly differently. One of the areas of agreement, however, is that (1) only legal voters should be able to vote, (2) nobody should vote twice, and (3) votes should be counted accurately.
dj;
More hogwash; nobody today lacks a photo ID; come on, my elderly relatives have them, gardiner has one, teens have them
even relaxing the photo part, you guys oppose
POOR RABBIT
HAD HOLES IN YOUR SHOES WHEN YOU WERE YOUNG.THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WITH THAT STORY GET OVER IT.YOU HAVE GROWN UP TO BE AN EDUCATED FOOL.GO GET A LIFE.
To enhance what Roger said @ 67:
The minnow insists that he was justified in intimidating a voter because of his oath as a poll worker. Unfortunately, that doesn’t hold water.
The minnow was working at the provisional table. The whole purpose of provisional votes is to allow people where it is not clear if they should vote or not, and where, a chance to vote, and then you have the canvasing board review these ballots and decide if they are proper or not.
The minnow short circuit this process, and violated the law, by threatening a voter instead of letting him vote provisionally as allowed by law. The minnow decided he knew better than anyone else, and that without doing any investigation, he could be judge, jury and executioner.
Since the minnow is pressing for everyone to be prosecuted, you would think he would have the strength and honesty to admit that he clearly broke the law.
And, I repeat, isn’t it strange that so far, the only proven voter fraud in the last two years has all been from the GOP?
Roger @ 80: “why didn’t you volunteer your time to King County Records [& Dean Logan]”
Because that is called “enabling.” Besides, they made all kinds of grandiose promises of data hygiene that they didn’t keep.
Actually the Republicans contend that the voters were never registered in the first place, so they may not have to prove where the magical mysterious voters actually do reside. The homeless are legally allowed to vote and they should vote. But they should vote in the district where they do live, whether it’s a park, a shelter, or a parked RV or car, so be it.
sgmmac @ 96
“Actually the Republicans contend that the voters were never registered in the first place, so they may not have to prove where the magical mysterious voters actually do reside.”
Of course, in that case they don’t have to challenge the non-registered non-voters who don’t reside anywhere. Problem Solved! You are a fucking genius!
“The homeless are legally allowed to vote and they should vote. But they should vote in the district where they do live, whether it’s a park, a shelter, or a parked RV or car, so be it.”
The law doesn’t quite see it that way–they get registered to a public building. There may be no suitable public building near the park(s) that they live in. Also some people may not stay in any one place. What to do? Pick a building–hopefully one that is convienent for the person.
That does beg the question: if the person gets a public building as a “residence for purposes of voter registration,” why not allow them to use the post office where they keep a PO Boxes?
dj,
There are hundreds of homeless legally registered at shelters in Seattle. King County Elections registers them at their county building. They can get their mail anywhere they choose to. There are two or is it three address lines on the voter registration form. The Republicans are arguing about the line that says “Home address,” they didn’t challenge anyone who has home address and then gets their mail at their “mailing address.”
@79 “like buy a house, register your car with Washington license plates”
Bullshit! You don’t have to buy a house, register a car, or even own a car to vote.
Learn to read. Those are some of the things they expect you to do in order to establish residence for in-state tuition. You can say it is unfair all you want, I had to go through this process, and it is a pain.
@86 you guys playing game that by even asking for ID’s , republicans’ are instituting a virtual poll tax
How do you cash your welfare check without ID?
@98 The law doesn’t quite see it that way–they get registered to a public building. There may be no suitable public building near the park(s) that they live in.
You can register in a park. You can register in a public building. But you can’t register in a mailbox. There is a reason why you must put a mailing address and a residence, if different.
Michael @ 100
“Learn to read. Those are some of the things they expect you to do in order to establish residence for in-state tuition. You can say it is unfair all you want, I had to go through this process, and it is a pain.”
You are wrong. “Residency” for tuition purposes is NOT equivallent to “residency” for voting. To vote, a new resident must live in the state for 30 days prior to the election.
“How do you cash your welfare check without ID?”
You mean a photo ID?
As I recall someone around here pointed out that there are some 40,000 state residents who have no photo ID. I don’t know how they cash checks, but apparently they do quite well without a photo ID.
“You can register in a park. You can register in a public building. But you can’t register in a mailbox. There is a reason why you must put a mailing address and a residence, if different.”
But, but, but, but Michael…isn’t a US Post Office a public building? Why not just let them register there. The law does not require you to live at the public building at which you register.
dj–
Many of them cash their welfare checks at the Usurous Check-cashing service places where they are ripped off because they are too dumb to get an ID and bank account!!
dj; why solve for 40,000?
Ok, 40,000 out of pop of what, 7 or 8 million? I’ll bet we have more disabled or blind or dev disabled than we do “ID-less voters”
Ultimate win for Logan and Sims has been the phenom of the Vote w/out a voter and the voter without an ID. Great way to get extra votes :)
righton @ 103
‘Ok, 40,000 out of pop of what, 7 or 8 million? I’ll bet we have more disabled or blind or dev disabled than we do “ID-less voters”’
The population of WA is about 6,200,000 (2004 estimate) and about 74% are 18+ so a voter pool of about 4.6 million. So we are talking about 1% of Washingtonians.
BTW: The National Commission on Federal Election Reform estimated that between 6% and 10% of voting-age Americans do not have driver’s licenses or state-issued non-driver’s photo ID. So, the 40,000 for WA may be a low-ball estimate. In any case, these statistics are why the federal court threw out Georgia’s photo ID law.
What is the point of “more blind or disabled???”
These people have the constitutional right to vote. Are you serious about disenfranchising, perhaps, tens of thousands of people entitled to vote because you imagine that there might be people voting in the wrong name? How many illegal votes would have been prevented in the 2004 election by a photo ID requirement?
dj
I’m not worried about aliens voting as much as fact we just have no system. If we all had to prove we were somebody, and people got fined, penalized for not enforcing that, and also fined if you weren’t the voter on the ballot….then our stupid Wash system would be a quantum leap better.
Its entirely reasonable, btw, to require a ID from a voter. To plead poverty and poll tax, regardless of the Ga case is ridiculous. If true, then voting would be the ONLY thing in life that doesn’t require some proof.
righton @ 105
“I’m not worried about aliens voting as much as fact we just have no system. If we all had to prove we were somebody, and people got fined, penalized for not enforcing that, and also fined if you weren’t the voter on the ballot….”
There were 6 or 7 dual voters uncovered in the 2004 election. These are, argubally, the only illegal votes that would have been prevented in 2004 by a photo ID requirement.
All of them are being prosecuted.
As far as I know, there was no other reports of illegal voting that would have been stopped by a photo id requirement. Disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters to prevent six illegal votes seems unreasonable to me.
“then our stupid Wash system would be a quantum leap better.”
Ummmmm…but the Washington system is very similar to 49 other states, territories and DC.
“Its entirely reasonable, btw, to require a ID from a voter.”
I don’t disagree. But, requiring a government-issued photo ID is, currently, unreasonable. Before requiring that, the government needs to make photo ids ubiquitous and free.
“To plead poverty and poll tax, regardless of the Ga case is ridiculous.”
The federal courts disagree with you. They specifically cite that a photo ID is a hardship on some people who are entitled to vote.
“If true, then voting would be the ONLY thing in life that doesn’t require some proof.”
Nope. I can exercise many of my fundamental rights without a photo id.
Nindid@12
What do you call the current child support system conbined with the astronomical taxes paid…it is slavery. Try to quit your job as a non custodial FATHER and start a small and growing buisiness, the state will throw you in jail if you cannot pay your “full amount” of support. I see this happening before my eyes, as a custodial parent having raised two kids and bieng employed the state system upon my request for child support told me that it wasnt in their best in ierest….to help me get the support. Now I see license revocation, jail and garnishments of other guys, why? they are DADS, not women trying to free ride the state and ol Dad. This is slavery as plain as the nose on your face.
Does the so called Bush Ranch have any cattle? All I can see on TV is a run down chicken coop – which I suspect the network folks use deliberately as a backdrop for the head chicker rancher —- all sad parody.
Mad TV working with Sat Night Live could not do better, even with a ten fold budget. Poor, poor America. My tears stain the flag on some days.
New crimes from big time friend of Tom Delay – that flag waving paragon of patriotic America.
dj;
try carrying a handgun in seattle. can’t do that, despite explicitly in constitution.
nowhere is constitution as literal when it comes to ID-less voters.
and its a liberal joke/mantra to say requiring ID is too burdensome….that’s why country so screwed up.
108
Right on… The donks are not interested in every legal vote counts. Their position on ID at polls is indefensable. No one in their right mind should ever trust a donk when it comes to cleaning up elections.
righton @ 108
“try carrying a handgun in seattle. can’t do that, despite explicitly in constitution.”
You may recall that I can exercise many of my fundamental rights without a photo id. Your single counterexample is irrelevant.
“nowhere is constitution as literal when it comes to ID-less voters.”
So?
“and its a liberal joke/mantra to say requiring ID is too burdensome….that’s why country so screwed up. “
Ummmmm….no…it is just your illogical wish that a photo id requirement is unburdensome. But, people much smarter than you have decided that there is good empirical evidence that such a law would disenfranchise people.
Look…if you want to make progress on this issue, first push for universial Government ID for no cost (and not troublesome to obtain). If you wingnuts put your scraps of brains together you could probably institute this in about 3 years. Once every citizen has a photo ID, you could probaby reverse the court decision in no more than 5 years (just show that it isn’t a burden any more). I’d have no issues with the photo ID thing then. In the mean time, it really is a non-issue given the current court ruling.
So forcing someone to get a state ID for $5/5 years or whatever is a ripoff, but sending them and their welfare check to Check Into Cash who takes 20% off the top is a good solution?
i have no opinion on the registration challanges except to say this.
The votere registration form has a residence address on line 4, and a mailing address on line 5.
If you put a po box in both, it seems like it may not be valid.
The residence address is suppose to control your precint, the mailing address your ballot delivery.
Why is this so difficult?
Goldy I admire hte amount of research you have done, though it seems unnecessay. The form is clear enough to make most of that unnecessary.
Maybe if more people read the directions this would be less of an issue.
Goldstein, you love the “future progressive” tense don’t you.
Hey, while you’ve got Lawyer X on the line next time, you might want to ask him a question. If one of your extra agressive posters (or cut and pasters) on either the right or the left, decides to go ballistic and start shooting, would you have any liability for a providing, and even encouraging over the top discourse? I can see a civil jury awarding a big settlement to the families of the victims of such a crazy on the grounds that he or she was incited by all of the rage and hatred in the posts at Horses Ass.
Of course you could take some responsibility for the open forum that you provide.
As for the voter challenges, you just don’t seem to want to acknowledge that regardless of even a huge number of mistaken challenges by the GOP, there are also a huge number of voters that abuse the system. Apparently, you prefer to keep the possibility of individual fraud and abuse open, in the hopes that it might benefit your political preferences.
John McDonald @ 114
“you just don’t seem to want to acknowledge that regardless of even a huge number of mistaken challenges by the GOP, there are also a huge number of voters that abuse the system.”
Yeah…riiiiiight. So, I am very much an empiricist. What is the prevalence of abuse (defined as the fraction of “abuses” over all votes)?
And, is it worth disenfranchising thousands of entitled voters just to squeeze out a few illegal votes?
“Apparently, you prefer to keep the possibility of individual fraud and abuse open, in the hopes that it might benefit your political preferences.”
WTF???? But we know from the election contest trial that there were likely slightly more Republican felon votes than Democrat felon votes (using Handcock’s sex-adjusted proportional analysis). Where is the evidence that “fraud and abusive” votes systematically favor Democrats?
I think you have been listening to WAY too much talk radio.
dj
False presentation of debate; its not “disenfranchise thousands vs clean up a few”, rather its the integrity of our vote and our system that is at stake. We aren’t buying your attempt to spin and create false guilt that serves only to benefit your politics.
ps, i said i could live without photo id, but doggone it, it should be 1 legal voter gets 1 vote, and by requiring ID, we lessen odds that Logan can smile when he has piles of extra “provisional ballots” showing up..
righton @ 116
“False presentation of debate; its not “disenfranchise thousands vs clean up a few”
When it comes to a Photo ID requirement, mathematically it does boil down to disinfranchising thousands to save a handfull of illegal votes (MAYBE–it is not clear that the 6 or 7 dual votes in 2004 would have been prevented by a photo id requirement).
“…rather its the integrity of our vote and our system that is at stake. We aren’t buying your attempt to spin and create false guilt that serves only to benefit your politics.”
But, doesn’t integrity of the voting system mean that people who are entitled to vote can do so?
In an election with 3 million votes, every illegal vote disenfranchises everyone by 1/3 million-th of a vote. But, every time a person entitled to vote is prevented from voting, that also disenfranchises everyone by 1/3 million-th of a vote.
So, as I mentioned before, there are tradeoffs between accessibility to entitled voters and stringent procedures to avoid illegal votes. The ideal solution must eliminate illegal votes without disenfranchising entitled voters. For example, the statewide felon list is an excellent solution for ridding rolls of disenfranchised felon voters–and there is a low risk of disenfranchising entitled voters. I think everyone agrees that this solution is good.
“i said i could live without photo id, but doggone it, it should be 1 legal voter gets 1 vote, and by requiring ID, we lessen odds that Logan can smile when he has piles of extra “provisional ballots” showing up..”
Yes, I think everyone agrees that it should be 1 person 1 vote. We all hope the 7 people known to have voted twice should be fully prosecuted. I find it interesting that you are so obsessed with double voting, though, since numerically this just wasn’t a big problem.
Regarding your suggestions about Logan, I can only suggest that you seek professional help. You continue to believe what began as propoganda designed to charge-up the base during the recount and election contest. Its over now.
Logan is exceptionally qualified, competent, and well-respected by his peers; there has never been anything to suggest that Logan cheated for either party. The Citizens Oversight Committee has also given Logan a vote of confidence.
Really, righton, continuing to flogg Logan because Rossi lost a very close election borders on a mental health problem.
I think all black districts should be able to vote at 115% of registration. If you disagree you are racist!!! [hehe]
Ouch; DJ, that hurts…
I’m mentally ill cuz I think Logan did a poor job of the 04 election, and is in general undercapable of the job?
Gee, call Judge Bridges too….even the earring man complained…
Issue at hand, despite my need for Thorazine or Valium is your contention that thousands of rightfull voters get disenfranchised vs only 7 illegal voters..
I don’t buy it, and if you weren’t such a Dem, you would not buy it either.
I’m confidant that if we let every person show up and either in advance, or in person prove they are a Citizen, non-felon, that they can vote, and ink their thumb so they only vote once, that we’d dissuade only a handful, and surely also block more than the 7 you claim were illegal.
As i pointed out before, I’m less after the illegals, than I am after the fact Logan hides behind votes/voters not matching up. Have you ever run a bar or grocery? You sure want the inventory to match the cash, and while you never can, you try at very regular intervals.
Getting rid of excess provisionals is the cure to our sloppy voting ills….
Voter registration challenges will continue and you can expect that they will heat up before the next election in 2006. The Judge said in his ruling that the people must make the changes and make the system work.
Photo ID is really only relevant in King County. I live in one of those counties where they snatched our right to vote at the polls away. The HAVA’s federally mandated statewide voter database hopefully will take care of the doublevoters, the felons, the dead, and other issues. You now have to provide a Washington State Driver’s License or a Social Security number to register or show a valid ID when you vote the first time. The SOS’s office says that they will cross-check registrations with various databases.
by the way, dj
How many of your beloved “homeless” do the other half of their duty, that is, serve jury duty? I actually know a couple of folks that don’t vote precisely to duck out on jury duty (at least in other states by voting you are more likely to get called)
Or do the people w/ non-traditional addresses (what a crock that is), only do the voting.?
righton @ 119
“Ouch; DJ, that hurts…
Oh…gee whiz, righton…I didn’t realize what a sensitive guy you were. :-)
“I’m mentally ill cuz I think Logan did a poor job of the 04 election, and is in general undercapable of the job?”
You can think Logan did a poor job in 04. I don’t believe the numerical evidence supports your opinion. However, the obsession of claiming that Logan was involved in fraud is completely unsupported and suggests “issues” facing reality. The election is over, there was no evidence of fraud found in a very costly legal challenge. Obsessing over it is just not healthy for you!
“Gee, call Judge Bridges too….even the earring man complained…”
Yep…he criticized the culture of KC elections. This was a personal opinion, not a legal opinion. I disagree with Bridges opinion because, no matter what the culture in 2004, the numerical data (rate of errors) make KC look pretty good compared to other elections of similar size. Ultimately, the error rate is the measure that allows us compare elections.
“Issue at hand, despite my need for Thorazine or Valium is your contention that thousands of rightfull voters get disenfranchised vs only 7 illegal voters..
I don’t buy it, and if you weren’t such a Dem, you would not buy it either.”
Well…first, as I have mentioned many times, I am not a Democrat. I “came of age” in a state where registration was required to vote in primaries. I refused to do so and therefore never voted in a primary until I moved out of state.
righton, I am a scientist in my professional life, and scientific objectivity is something I value above political ideology. Your doubts come down to two figures: (1) how many votes would be prevented by a photo ID requirement and (2) how many voters would be disenfranchised by a photo ID requirement.
Answer 1. The figure of 7 dual voters is not my imagination (Bridges only accepted evidence for 6 dual voters, KC found an additional dual voter). The GOP and Dems combined could only find sufficient evidence for 6 (or 7) dual voters dispite considerable effort by both parties to find as many illegal votes as they could. That is the fact, and is entered into the court records.
The question of how many voters would be disenfranchised by a photo ID requirement is more speculative. I believe Washington has abut 40,000 photo ID-less voters currently (I don’t have a reference for this–it is a number I recall from a previous thread–but national statistics would suggest a figure 4 times higher).
Surely most of these people would get an ID if required for voting, but if only 1 out of 40 did not, then 1000 voters are disenfranchised. The Federal court that ruled on the Georgia case that there would be a significant fraction of people who would stop voting because of the cost and effort required to acquire a government-issued photo id.
“I’m confidant that if we let every person show up and either in advance, or in person prove they are a Citizen, non-felon, that they can vote, and ink their thumb so they only vote once, that we’d dissuade only a handful, and surely also block more than the 7 you claim were illegal.”
That is not my claim…6 is the sum total of dual voters found after both the GOP and Dems scoured the state for dual voters. (The GOP identified 10 dual in-state voters and 4 dual multistate voters, but only 6 claims were supported by sufficient evidence for the Court).
BTW: There is no way that most of us can prove we are not felons. Think about how you would do that.
How many non-citizen votes were there in 2004? There were 2 GOP claims of non-citizen voters in 2004. Neither was upheld in the final ruling.
So, at the most, there were a dozen or two illegal votes that might have been stopped by a photo id requirement and, likely, thousands of entitled voters who become disenfranchised.
“As i pointed out before, I’m less after the illegals, than I am after the fact Logan hides behind votes/voters not matching up. Have you ever run a bar or grocery? You sure want the inventory to match the cash, and while you never can, you try at very regular intervals.”
The number of votes (i.e. ballots) is open to public monitoring, but this is not the case for the voter crediting process. The whole mythology about unreconciled numbers stems from Sharkansky’s misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of voter crediting.
Voter crediting is a post-election process. For poll voters it involves hiring temporary workers to use bar-code scanners to scan bar codes next to each signature in the poll books. The process is not done in full public view, and it is a much more error prone process than tallying the ballots.
Judge Bridges ruled out using voter crediting in the trial because (1) its purpose is not to check the voting results, (2) it is a MUCH more error prone process than the actual ballot counting, and (3) it is not conducted publically.
It seems that Sharkansky did not originally understand the function of voter crediting, nor the relatively sloppy nature of voter crediting. The whole “reconciliation issue” was invented out of Sharkansky’s ignorance, and he sold it to a whole flock of wingnuts who lacked critical thinking skills. Judge Bridges didn’t buy it. So, are you going to believe Sharkansky on this or Bridges?
“Getting rid of excess provisionals is the cure to our sloppy voting ills….”
It sure helps. Although, what do you mean by sloppy? The error rate is STILL low compared to similar sized elections…. Really…the numbers are undeniable.
righton @ 122
“How many of your beloved “homeless” do the other half of their duty, that is, serve jury duty?”
I have no bloody idea. But, the people we are discussing have valid mailing addresses (the GOP challenges are about their residential addresses, not their mailing addresses). Furthermore, jury duty does provide a small income, so I have no reason to believe that homeless people would skip out on jury duty.
“I actually know a couple of folks that don’t vote precisely to duck out on jury duty (at least in other states by voting you are more likely to get called)”
The get what they deserve. As an aside, I served on a jury last year for the first time in my life, and it was an incredible experience. I would do it again in a heartbeat.
“Or do the people w/ non-traditional addresses (what a crock that is), only do the voting.?”
Only their home address is non-traditional, so I don’t really think this is a particular concern.
Two other things:
1. Thanks for the civil conversation, righton. It’s been fun.
2. My response to your post 119 is being held for now.
dj, likewisee, happy thanksgiving
righton @ 125
Thanks…happy thanksgiving to you, too.