by Goldy, 02/21/2005, 2:51 PM

In the wake of the Seattle P-I’s devastating deconstruction of King County’s so-called discrepancy as a “red herring, a flap over a postelection file-maintenance chore that has no bearing on the accuracy of the election returns,” Rossi supporters have started to respond by questioning whether King County actually followed the law, and reconciled election returns at all. Indeed, the always magnanimous Snark downright dismisses us “prolific fabulists from the lunatic-fringe blogs,” accusing us of delirium.

Gregoire’s delirious fans read this as conclusive exculpatory evidence. Those of us who inhabit the world of facts see this as the doughnut hole that it is: If this year’s ballot/vote credit discrepancy of 1800+ is incommensurate with the 2000 reconciliation discrepancy of 20, then what is the 2004 reconciliation discrepancy that is commensurate with the 2000 number? The article doesn’t say. As far as I can tell, King County has never released this number nor has it released any documents with precinct-by-precinct ballot reconcilation.

Gee, I dunno Stefan, if you really wanted to know if King County has made documents available on their precinct-by-precinct reconciliation, perhaps you might take a break from peeling that thick, orange skin off your “apple”, and… um… ask them? That’s what I did; I emailed KC Elections Director Dean Logan, and while I still have more questions to follow up, I think his answer sheds quite a bit of light on the subject:

Regarding the precinct/poll site reconciliation process, this is one of the upfront processes I have spoken about. We employ a canvassing crew that goes through the reconciliation worksheets in the poll books and compares the data to the precinct/poll site vote totals after Election Day. The 20+ canvassing crew members compare the totals generated from the vote tabulation system to the data provided by the poll workers. Where there is a discrepancy noted in this process, we “zero out” the vote totals for that location, retrieve the ballots (from sealed containers secured by the poll workers at the closing of the polls) and re-run those precincts. The crews worked 10-hour days, seven days a week in this effort.

Additionally, a notebook is maintained that tracks the count of signatures in the poll books, number of provisional ballots cast/submitted, number of absentee ballots returned at the polls, etc.

According to KC Elections Communications Specialist Bobbie Egan, in addition to the poll books, there is a “big binder” down at the office that contains all the reconciliation data Logan cited above, for all 2616 precincts. Unfortunately, there is no compilation of the data, but this is somewhat understandable considering the complicated and subjective nature of the reconciliation process itself.

“Subjective?” Well before my righty readers indignantly accuse me of a whitewash, let me explain.

King County has 2616 precincts, an unusually high number even considering our population, and most polling places serve multiple precincts. According to Egan, one of the most common polling place errors is for a voter to sign into Precinct A, only to have the little old lady hand him a ballot from Precinct B. (Yes… each precinct has its own distinct ballot.)

During the reconciliation process, this shows up as an extra voter in Precinct A, and an extra ballot in Precinct B.

Of course there could be a more nefarious explanation for such a discrepancy… for example, corrupt election workers might have stuffed an extra Gregoire ballot in Precinct B, and destroyed a Rossi one from Precinct A. Thus, in the snarky world of the right-wing blogs, this single error might be “evidence” of two fraudulent acts in favor of Gregoire.

Fortunately, there are additional controls in place. A ballot number is recorded in the poll book, and from this, the precinct number can be determined. (The number is detached to retain ballot secrecy.) To reconcile Precinct A, canvassers must go through the poll book, check all the ballot numbers, and find the voter(s) who received the wrong ballots. Then they must go to the other effected precincts and attach an explanation. But the end result is that there is still a discrepancy… an explained discrepancy, but a discrepancy nonetheless.

The Rossi camp would have you believe that this is all quite simple: just added up the numbers and see if they match. But that’s the easy part. There are many different reasons why discrepancies might creep into the reconciliation worksheets, and the part of the process that took two weeks of ten-hour shifts to complete, was figuring out exactly what these reasons were.

When a discrepancy could not be resolved or explained by the reconciliation worksheet or the ballot count or the poll books, the canvassers actually interviewed the poll workers to try to discern what happened. Logs and notes are kept of the entire reconciliation process, and stuffed inside that big fat binder. So yes, KC election workers put an incredible amount of work into precinct-by-precinct reconciliation, as required by law, prior to the initial certification date. But whether an individual discrepancy was sufficiently explained, so as to be considered more or less reconciled… well, that can indeed be somewhat subjective.

In talking with elections officials I had hoped that they might have a firm variance number, but they don’t. A county-wide number simply was not compiled, and to do so would require laboriously pouring through the binder and related data and documentation. And even then, what would the variance number represent, when a discrepancy sufficiently explained to my satisfaction might not satisfy the Snark?

Still, this binder and the poll books are sitting down there at KC Elections for anybody to inspect. And so I asked Egan if anybody — Rossi’s attorneys, the BIAW, know-it-all right-wing bloggers — had actually asked to see this binder, and she answered yes… a single Seattle reporter.

Which raises an important question. If Rossi supporters are so suspicious about whether King County actually reconciled the results of this election, why aren’t they interested in examining the actual reconciliation records? Why instead do they insist on focusing on voter creditation, a process that has absolutely nothing to do with precinct-by-precinct reconciliation?

The answers you get depend on the questions you ask. Apparently, the Rossi folk are only interested in getting the answers they want to hear.

100 Responses to “KC Elections reconciled results. (So there)”

1. torridjoe spews:

Nice work, Goldy. Stay out in front. I might add that Huennekens told me a couple weeks ago that some SP people had indeed been reviewing some of the pollbooks, but we didn’t talk about the binder.

It must not occur to Sharkansky that the reason we only have “I seem to recall” answers about 2000, and not a firm number written down in County records, is the same reason there’s no written number for 2004–what’s the specific point of aggregating, if the work’s already been done at the precinct level? And notice how shamelessly he went from arguing that 20 was the VOTER CREDIT number, to recognizing finally that it’s the reconciliation number.

2. RonK, Seattle spews:

Seems like it wouldn’t be too hard to weed out the zero-discrepancy precincts, conduct an individual review of any high-discrepancy precincts, and then reviewing a random sample of the remaining “ordinary” discrepant precincts to derive a decent estimate — and confidence interval — for total non-resolved discrep’s.

If any of those results raised the index of suspicion, you could dig deeper. If not … well, that would be a sad day for some bloggers, but not for others.

3. torridjoe spews:

Quality, speed, price–pick two. Anything is possible, but doing it in budget crunch times under the gun of an election going to recount…that’s another matter.

4. swatter spews:

That explanation reminds me of another saying of one of our recent County Executives (Democrat) who reminds voters to “vote early and vote often and don’t forget the dead relatives and the unborn children”.

There you have it.

Sorry torrid, this one is real and the qoute is unnamed to protect the executive from the large county.

5. marks spews:

So there

Thanks for finding that info, Goldy. Now, all I need to do is get my plane ticket and spend 2 weeks vacation at my brother’s house while I collate that data…

What I don’t understand was the statement by Bruce when he said the number was “under 20″ here …How did he know that for 2000, yet Logan has no clue for 2004?

6. Mr. Cynical spews:

So Goldy….you really believe you have solved the mystery??
That somehow this means KingCo has reconciled the # of Ballots with voters 100%?
Goldy, this does not mean for a second that there aren’t unaccounted for ballots and missing ballots. I never said they didn’t do this type of reconciliation. It’s absolutely required. But to not compile them for the entire County and disclose this countywide reconciliation in light of the closeness of this race is irresponsible. Logan has known the public desire for this information for months.

ATTEMPTING to reconcile and RECONCILING are 2 different things. Why would Logan say reconciliation is impossible?
Why would Logan and Reed both say it’s unlikely we would really ever know who won this contest?
Why would Logan speculate about Sharkansky’s discrepancy…if the answer was in Logan’s reconciliation “binder”.
Why would Logan speculate that voters voted without signing the pollbook, or put provisional ballots in directly etc. etc.

Goldy, I’m glad you and Logan have such a chummy relationship. Maybe it’s because you both want the same outcome?

7. Jpgee spews:

I imagine the main outcome they both want is for ‘trolls’ like cynicalIDIOT to troll in other blogospheres.

8. Goldy spews:

Marks @5,

I think the point your missing is that “under 20″ was Bruce’s recollection. There apparently is no record of a compiled variance from 2000 or other elections (though that is something I will try to confirm when I talk to Egan next.)

9. Goldy spews:

Cynical @6,

I was at the KC County meeting, and Logan answered the questions he was asked. Most of the questions focused on felons and the voter creditation “discrepancy.” Nobody asked a single question about the real reconciliation process.

I know that places like (u)SP have inflated Logan into some kind of a partisan, criminal mastermind. But talk to him for a few moments, and you will see that he is a managerial bureaucrat, just trying to do his job. He’s really not all that good at creating message or staying on it. He answers the questions asked him as best as he can, and sometimes that’s not all that good.

At the council meeting, I wanted to jump up a couple times and clarify Logans explanations for him…. he simply is not a great communicator.

10. marks spews:

Goldy -

Sorry, but if Bruce has such a recollection, then that must have been something he took the time to check?

I am not on the Logan crucifixion bandwagon (a light flogging, perhaps). Simms, on the other hand…:)

And I am not sure having the senior elections official actually be elected as advocated by some is a good idea, either. We would wind up worse off than now. Appointment of officials is usually based on credentials (and nepotism, but if the credentials are good, I’m okay with that).

11. Mr. Cynical spews:

Goldy @ 9–

It’s kind of ironic that you say Logan is not a very good communicator because when I talk to some of the other County Auditors and Election Officials, they say he is their best spokesman. It could be he is very uncomfortable in the public limelight and much more comfortable in the company of fellow election bureaucrats (especially the semi-clueless ones).
It will be very interesting to see how he does when deposed.
I’ve heard from others who know him that he is a decent guy…but likes to be the “expert” and is a bit of an awkward climber-type in the Democratic Party. Wants to be liked and respected…nothing wrong with that other than respect is earned. You must admit Goldy, Logan didn’t need to be asked questions about reconciliations in order to have informed the public about the steps they took, what they found and what he tried to do to research & deal with discrepancies in pollbooks and comparing ballots with voters credited. Logan has handled this all quite poorly….perhaps creating outrage where none is due in some cases. Logan needed to be more forthcoming with information and explanations. That would have better served the public. And Logan’s comment, along with Reed’s, that we will never really know who won this election didn’t help. That is Logan’s conclusion….and what the R’s are basically saying.

12. Angry Voter spews:

Hey Goldy,

“Unfortunately, there is no compilation of the data, but this is somewhat understandable considering the complicated and subjective nature of the reconciliation process itself.”

How subjective is mathmatics? That is what we are talking about here, control measures and basic accounting. The liberal mantra of no absoloutes, this is complicated and it is subjective does not cut it here. It is a very, very simple process. Votes come in, they are accounted for, attributed to a VOTER and then counted. KC elections simply cannot explain it away as saying it is subjective and complicated.

Ponder this you liberal appologists; A 19 year old marine corp private with no college at all can account for thousands of weapons and literally MILLIONS of rounds of ammunition at any given moment, but people with MBA’s and law degrees cannot account for a simple piece of paper. You truly are the jackass party. Revel in your thievery. Your day will come.

13. Micajah spews:

Goldy,

I guess this is the answer to my question about Logan and his failure to bring forth the pre-certification reconciliation:

“In talking with elections officials I had hoped that they might have a firm variance number, but they don’t. A county-wide number simply was not compiled….”

Apparently, Logan hasn’t produced those records to squelch the accusation that King County had a few thousand “voterless ballots” and “ballotless voters” because he never put them into a usable format.

That apparently means that neither Logan nor the other members of the canvassing board knew the extent of the discrepancies before they certified their election returns as true and accurate counts of legitimate votes.

That’s too bad. I had hoped that King County would have put those records into a usable form and provided that information to the canvassing board, as required by law:

http://www1.leg.wa.gov/documents/wsr/2004/18/04-18-028.htm

WAC 434-253-204 Precinct or poll site ballot reconciliation — Precinct count optical scan and direct recording devices. Poll site ballots shall be reconciled in the following manner:
(6) All steps to reconcile each precinct shall be documented, including any discrepancies that cannot be resolved. Reconciliation of all precincts shall be completed and presented to the county canvassing board before the election may be certified.

14. Don spews:

The “discrepancy” was never anything more than a manufactured talking point concocted by partisan zealots to discredit an election they badly want to find an excuse to throw out.

15. Chuck spews:

Great point angry!

16. torridjoe spews:

I agree that Logan’s played it a little straight. He’s gotten roped into answering a lot of meaningless charges like the voter credit shortfall, instead of advocating for the strength of the reconciliation process.

But I’d rather someone who was dull but essentially honest, than a charismatic liar.

17. torridjoe spews:

Micajah @ 13

“That apparently means that neither Logan nor the other members of the canvassing board knew the extent of the discrepancies before they certified their election returns as true and accurate counts of legitimate votes.”

It does? How so? If each precinct was reconciled with discrepancies investigated and explained if not accounted for, and they were all returned to the canvassing board and held together in a single binder, why would they not know the extent? What does aggregating do except put a larger, total number on it?

Nothing in the RCW suggests that a county-level number is required. As long as the precinct figures were produced and submitted to the county, I don’t see the problem.

btw, part 2 of the transcripts is going up in a bit, and you’re mentioned.

angry @ 12

Are you KIDDING me? You got some balls comparing KC to the US military when it comes to accountability. $8.8 billion?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0502180198feb18,1,4132022.story
Ponder that.

18. Mr. Cynical spews:

torridjoe–
Do you believe the KingCo Canvassing Board was made fully aware of the magnitude of precindt reconciliation discrepancies???
Aren’t the Canvassing Board meetings taped???
Aren’t there minutes of the Canvassing Board meetings?

The KingCo Canvassing Board KNEW the numbers they were “certifying” were good enough to get Gregoire into office before they “certified”. What do you think the Canvassing Board (lead by Phillips & Logan) would have done had those numbers not been sufficient???? Why is Logan a canvassing board member anyway?? He is not an ELECTED official. In other County’s, the COunty Auditor’s (ELECTED) are on the canvassing board usually with a County Commissioner and a Prosecuting Attorney.

19. scottd spews:

Micajah: Just out of curiosity — which part of the WAC do you think has been violated? Why do you think so?

Notebooks and a binder full of reconciliation forms sound like documentation to me. I’m just guessing, but I’ll assume discrepancies were noted — in any case, I don’t see any reason to assume it wasn’t except for rank speculation. Any reason to believe this data wasn’t made available to the canvassing board?

Is there any part of the WAC that requires a county-wide aggregation of the data?

20. torridjoe spews:

cynical @ 18

yes
I have no idea
I presume so

How did the KC canvassing board know the numbers they were certifying were good enough to get Gregoire into office, when Rossi was declared the leader right after they certified? ??

So I guess that means that I can answer the last question, too: certify the election as they normally would have?

21. Goldy spews:

Angry @12

Well, I guess you’re free to ignore the very clear explanation in my post. Simple math shows you a failure to reconcile. Reconciliation often explains the discrepancy, but does not actually fix it. The ballot from the wrong precinct is a great example… two precincts can now never truly reconcile, although we know nothing nefarious happened. Should that be totaled and presented as a 2 vote discrepancy? I don’t think so. The math is simple, the explanation is not.

Micajah @13,

Poll site reconciliation was indeed performed as per the WAC, and the results are presented in this binder. There’s nothing in the WAC about compiling the totals county-wide. And I’m not really sure what the purpose of such a compilation would be, other than refuting baseless charges coming from the Rossi camp.

Cynical @18

Do you believe the KingCo Canvassing Board was made fully aware of the magnitude of precindt reconciliation discrepancies???

Did you get a BS in BS to learn rhetoric like that? When you say “magnitude of precinct reconciliation discrepancies” what exactly are you talking about? The small magnitude of discrepancies? Have you actually examined the binder? Do you have some inside info that nobody else has?

Gimmee a break.

22. Chuck spews:

They appearantly did a hand recount to verify the Iraq elections results today.

23. Chuck spews:

Gregoir gained another 324 votes on the count.

24. torridjoe spews:

Did they canvass the hundred thousand-plus Christians and Turkmen who were not allowed to vote in the northern provinces?

25. chew2 spews:

Goldy,

Thanks for all your efforts in following up on this.

2 further questions:

1) From prior discussions I gather there are two required reconciliations. The first, required by statute, is a *poll site* matching of the number of ballots cast against the signatures in the poll books. The results are reported on “ballot accountability” forms. Its unclear where provisional ballots fit into this. The second is a more detailed precinct level reconciliation including provisional ballots that was required by an emergency regulation. Which of these was Egan speaking about.

2) More significantly it bugs me that neither Logan or Egan is apparently willing to characterize in general the results of these reconciliations. Even if there is no total tabulation of the errors, they must have some impression about how great they were. Why can’t the simply say, there were no large discrepancies reported in any poll site or precinct. I would assume that if any big problems surfaced he would have and should have been advised about them. Or he could tell us what the largest discrepancy he was aware of. As it is we know what they tried to do, but we have no idea what the results were.

I do recall Logan stating in response to some off the wall questioning by one of the female King Council members that there was no evidence of vote fraud, and in particular no evidence of organized fraud. This suggests that be believes there were no large discrepancies at any particular poll site or pecinct. Why can’t you get them to say so?

26. Goldy spews:

chew2 @25,

Unfortunately, my conversation with Egan got cut short on Friday, just as I was addressing this issue. What she said (and I didn’t have the opportunity to follow-up) is that those precincts that had election night discrepancies were generally off by 1 or 2 votes. I will ask for estimates of how many precincts had discrepancies, but I’m guessing she’d be reluctant to estimate.

I suppose this would back up Logan’s assertion that there was no evidence of organized fraud.

I will follow up.

27. Jeff B. spews:

Goldy,

Why is the reconciliation off by 1800? Why is this number larger than in most elections?

Wouldn’t you agree that if the number is off by 1800 and the process is as you say “subjective,” that given the margin of victory there is enough in question to leave the average Washingtonion wondering just what the heck happened and believing that we don’t know the clear winner?

And on another note, when I read the story about the “Big Binder” down at KC Elections, I was simply blown away. The integrity of the entire election is maintained in one binder????? What if there was a fire? Is there no concern at all for the data backup and disaster recovery procedures that most private companies operate under? When one hears “Don’t you worry, everything is in the Big Binder” it does not inspire confidence.

I also find it questionable that this binder has never been mentioned before regardless of who was asking questions. Why wouldn’t Dean Logan have simply come out and told us about the Big Binder earlier and cleared this all up and put a lid on raging blogs and talk radio? Surely after all that has happened, they’ve learned something about PR containment? No?

All of this is why regardless of the fact that the written law says that we stop after three counts and declare a winner that most Washingtonions are for another election. Given all of the explanations or lack thereof from KC Elections, felons, dead voters, etc. it’s simply beyond a reasonable result in which everyone can have confidence. To feign surprise that anyone would be suspicious given all of the oddities of this election would be very disingenuous, is this not something that you can fathom?

I really don’t understand what’s hard to grasp about the distrust in this election? What are all of you and Gregoire afraid of? A new election is a chance to set the record straight and govern with the full support of Washington.

28. Goldy spews:

Jeff B @27

Oy…. why do I even bother?

There is no 1800 vote discrepancy, and you know it. That’s the number from the voter creditation process, and it has nothing to do reconciliation.

As to the binder… do you think KC elections wants to do it this way? But nobody’s going to appropriate the money to automate this polling place reconcilation process, when everybody assumes we’re just going to move to an all mail-in election anyway.

As to public confidence in this election… Rossi may have done a heck of a better job in the post-election PR war, but he lost the actual election. That’s why Gregoire is governor.

29. Chee spews:

If this was a perfect world made up of perfect people we them might expect the ultimate perfection. The backseat drivers would have to be perfect also in order to know what perfection is. Is it possible that Rossi wants yesterday’s apple pie served up to him on a silver platter and his attorneys don’t want to dig too deep for case food fearing what they have loudly hollered and wallowed over is not what they will find to be true. Rossi’s rancor speaks loudly of who he is and his political career is slowly going down the tube because of it. Rossi has the burden of proof. He knows (BY NOW) there is no proof in his puddin! The rest is history. So is Rossi

30. Mr. Cynical spews:

Goldy–
Remember….Logan and his buddy Larry Phillips controlled th canvassing board (2 out of 3 members).
My question is still:
Did Phillips, Logan and the other canvassing board member actually review the “BIG BINDER”? If so, what did they conclude?
Did they ask any questions about the “BIG BINDER” data? If so, what? Did the canvassing board ever even ask if there were more votes than voters?

The tape of the canvassing board meetings would be very important. I believe other County’s TAPE these meetings. Who attended these canvassing board meetings?

Isn’t it the job of the canvassing board to question all discrepancies??
Isn’t it a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness problem for Logan to vote to certify this election without bringing up the various discrepancies at each of the 3 counts???

Seems like Logan may find himself in quite a pickle here.

31. Mr. Cynical spews:

I’m sure some folks are a bit put-off by what seems to be nit-picking….however, with only a 129 vote discrepancy it is certainly fair to literally “PICK EVERY NIT”. Since Logan and Reed both said we are unlikely to know who actually won…..THAT”S THE POINT!!
After you pick every nit…we just don’t know who won.

Goldy, I think you will be quite concerned once the deposition start. Some staff folks are certain to raise serious issues about what they were asked to do and what they observed. Plus, Logan & Huennekens will choke. Write it down dude.

32. Chee spews:

Remember. Along the lines of fraternizing, why did Rossi pick Chelan Co. to try his case? Easy read. Chelan Co. is Republican turf and home of Republican Dale Foreman. I surmise Rossi hoped to use Dale’s juice; expected he would have Judge Chip Small hear the case. I suspect replacement, Judge Bridges, saw through that one and it appears he will not be as sympathetic to the brotherhood as Rossi’s chosen hoped. Fact it, Rossi was Judge shopping.

33. Aaron spews:

Jerk @ 31: “129 vote discrepancy”

It’s not a “discrepancy”, it’s a 129 vote margin of victory.

Rossi lost. Get over it.

34. Jeff B. spews:

Goldy,

There’s obviously more to this than you are willing to admit. If it were so simple, Logan would have produced the information. Fortunately, we have the election contest as part of law as well, so Logan will have to bring out the Big Binder and show that everything reconciles as he claims.

And, I don’t think the 1800 number is explained completely by voter crediting either.

As for poor old KC Elections, look, it’s not that hard. A copy of Linux and MySQL are both free. A cheap Dell running these would be more than enough to maintain a database of a million or so voters, etc. It’s certainly not responsible to simply keep everything in a Big Binder. KC Elections has been shoddy with their operation from how they’ve handled ballots, to maintaining records, and even with how they have addressed the public. I think we deserve more from our public servants and I think we deserve more from our liberal bloggers than the wimpy defense of we’ere trying as hard as we can, sniffle, sniffle.

As for Gregoire, it’s not over yet. And even if the election contest fails, all of this KC mess and Gregoire’s own handling of the issues have only served to further marginalize the Democrats.

The good news is that you are all actively shooting yourselves in the feet as much as possible.

35. torridjoe spews:

Jeff @ 34

Why would Logan produce this information for public consumption? He’s not bound by law to do so, it exists as public record for anyone to come and examine, and no one has provided funding for him do to anything else with it. The SoS should have the individual ballot accountability forms–why not ask them for it?

The 1800 number IS explained by voter crediting, because that’s what the number IS. It’s the difference between counted ballots, and the number of voters credited in the registration file.

Why is it not responsible to keep ‘everything’ in a big binder? What’s the problem with that? And it’s not “everything;” as far as I can tell it’s a compilation of precinct information, information which also exists individually for each precinct. Your comments about Dell and Linux are interesting, but the county has just implemented a brand new computing system for 2004. New technology solves nothing immediately, and usually causes more problems than previous when it is first implemented.

“further marginalize the Democrats?” Washington is to my knowledge the first state in US history to be led by a female governor and two female Senators–all three of which are Democrats. The state voted for the Democratic candidate for president, 53-46. This represents a marginalization of Democrats in what way, compared to 2000′s results of 50-45? All but one of the major statewide offices are held by Democrats. Republicans lost seats in both houses of the Legislature. Where exactly are you seeing Democrats being marginalized??

36. Goldy spews:

Jeff B @34,

Fortunately, we have the election contest as part of law as well, so Logan will have to bring out the Big Binder and show that everything reconciles as he claims.

No, Rossi will have to bring out the Big Binder and show how everything doesn’t reconcile. As Judge Bridges noted in his ruling:

Our Supreme Court has observed that election officers are presumed to have complied with the duties required of them in an honest and careful manner … the returns of any election official are entitled to the presumption of regularity.

You, as usual, are confusing the court of public opinion with a court of law. No amount of meanspirited, lying PR is going to change the burden of proof in this case.

37. Daniel K spews:

Jeff B. at 34 wrote, There’s obviously more to this than you are willing to admit. If it were so simple, Logan would have produced the information.

Whatever you say Jeff. And Saddam Hussein would have produced his WMDs simply because Bush and Co. said he had them.

The Republicans have been fabricating one allegation after another that Logan has had to defend himself against. The onus should be on Rossi’s team to provide real proof, not suspicion and unfounded accusation, but they have no proof so they have taken to fighting a PR war of disinformation – something they do so well.

And, I don’t think the 1800 number is explained completely by voter crediting either.

Oh, then, because you don’t think so I guess it must be fraud. What else could it be?

38. Josef the Dinocrat in Marummy Country spews:

“Of course there could be a more nefarious explanation for such a discrepancy… for example, corrupt election workers might have stuffed an extra Gregoire ballot in Precinct B, and destroyed a Rossi one from Precinct A. Thus, in the snarky world of the right-wing blogs, this single error might be “evidence” of two fraudulent acts in favor of Gregoire.”

Sorry, but I need a smoking gun first.

Oh and one other thing – NO excuse the #s don’t add up w/o explanation. Hey, if somebody lost 2 bucks out of every $10,000 you invested – there would be problems, eh?

Goldy, nice try but no passe. Doesn’t pass the smell test, just like the idea of organized fraud. That one doesn’t pass the smell test either.

My theory: Unsecured blank ballots AND fraudulent voters AND lax procedures contributed to the difference. Ballots should = dollars, friend.

39. torridjoe spews:

contributed to WHAT difference, Josef? What number are you referring to?

40. angry voter spews:

torridjoe @17,

Hey torrid, you finally got something correct, I do have balls!

41. torridjoe spews:

angry @ 40

I could tell–they appear to be draining the blood from other vital organs.

42. Don spews:

I hope all the righties here have long memories, so if we Democrats ever contest a close election in the future and nit-pick it to death as the Pubes are doing to this one, they will understand our motives (having walked in those moccasins themselves).

43. Josef the Dinocrat in Marummy Country spews:

Torridjoe @ 39

Votes to voters…

44. Vince Callaway spews:

I have yet to see an election count done by the rules in this state. Pierce County has a long history of crooks and imcompetents and King County has had its’ problems as well. I did two interviews with people that have watched elections and see the problems first hand. One was Sherry Bockwinkel and the other was Ruth Bennet. Neither of which could be labeled a “righty”.

We have rules in place that state how ballots are to be handled and those rules don’t get followed. I don’t know if it is just lazyness or something else. The problem is that when these rules don’t get followed either side can easily call foul.

The part that really gets me is the Democrats crying foul in the states they lost in, but where they won everything is just fine. Both parties have benefited from bad elections. I for one want the problem fixed. The last couple of elections have brought these problems into a better light even though the problems have been there for quite some time.

Bloggers complaining about each others comments are not going to get anything done. It just makes everyone look bad.

45. angry voter spews:

Torrid,

You Libs seem to have one talent, misdirection. By golly, if Dean Logan says it all balances out, it must. But lets talk about angrys genitals, maybe that will convince them to ignore the facts. You truly are the party of the Jackass, stuborn and unwilling to let the facts stand in the way of your opinion.

46. torridjoe spews:

Angry @ 45
You’re the one who proudly announced his testicular ownership, not me. I was obviously being metaphoric in my reference.

You assume I am part of the Democratic Party. I am not.

As for facts, if you have one that you think I’ve gotten wrong, put it out there and we’ll discuss it. Not fallacious rhetoric, not unsourced supposition, facts.

47. torridjoe spews:

Josef @ 43

and how have you come by the difference between votes and voters? Those numbers have not been released.

48. Jason spews:

It’s funny, it really is. So Goldy means to say that all of the controversy surround the accuracy and legitimacy of this election could have been easily answer if only someone in the press had requested this Big Binder for review? Well if that’s the case, why wasn’t this Big Binder trotted out by Logan or anyone else in his office to refute the claims being made against them? And if that is in fact what is happening now, why is it only happening now? Why not two months ago?

Nevermind that Goldy hasn’t actually seen the Binder either, but seems perfectly willing to accept that it does exist, and that it’s contents are the silver bullet to explain away all the questions people have about this election.

Funny, and sad all at the same time. Well I guess that’s it then. KC Elections say they have a Big Binder so we might as well all go home. I can’t wait to see that thing brought in as evidence during the trial. Thanks Goldy, you may have helped put Rossi one more step closer to the Governor’s mansion.

49. Josef the Dinocrat in Marummy Country spews:

torridjoe @ 47: Try reading Dr. Howard Dean’s Mary Lane’s latest prescription – 1,108 illegal felon votes…and counting

50. Josef the Dinocrat in Marummy Country spews:

Let me try again:

torridjoe @ 47 – try http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/2005/02/marummy-speaks-1108-illegal-felon.html

51. torridjoe spews:

josef @ 49

can you be more explicit? What I read was a reference to felon, deceased and double-voters, none of which represent a difference between votes and voters. By definition, they have matched voters to ballots in that case.

If you’re referring to Lane’s claim of “2,000″ mystery votes–that’s exactly the point we’re making; Lane still doesn’t understand that they don’t represent “mystery votes” at all. They refer to voter credits, which are not at all related to reconciliation attempts. When she says King has been unable to reconcile votes from the 2004 election, I wonder: a) how does she know? and b) how does that differ from most counties?

52. angry voter spews:

Torrid @17 “Are you KIDDING me? You got some balls comparing KC to the US military”

You brought up the genitals. Torrid, you cant even keep your lies straight between posts on the same thread.

The simple facts are this: If one votes, it is credited to a balance sheet, if you cannot attribute every ballot to a voter, then there is a discrepency. Saying it is subjective is the very core problem with liberalism. In the world of fact and reason there are absoloutes, just as in mathmatics and accounting, this is an absolute, it either balances or it dosent. Taking the KC Elections word for it is like asking Ken Lay if Enron balances its books.

Not only are you a hypocritical fanatic without the capacity for reason, you sir, are on a fools errand for the machine of corruption.

53. torridjoe spews:

oh, and their “felon” list is suspect. Last we checked with Yakima, for instance, they only referenced 10 felon voters, despite being tagged for 15 by the Republicans.

Lane and Vance have repeatedly shown they don’t know their asses from their elbows when it comes to understanding the electoral process, so their press releases don’t exactly carry the weight of numerical precision to them.

54. torridjoe spews:

Angry @51

I choose my words carefully. How about you? This is what I said regarding ‘who said it first’:

You’re the one who proudly announced his testicular ownership, not me. I was obviously being metaphoric in my reference.

Do you actually WORK with mathematics or data? Because you talk as if you don’t. I do, and I can certainly vouch for the principle of allowed inaccuracy in data systems, especially those with significant human interaction or secrecy of identifying information–as elections have.

If I’m the fanatic, how come my handle doesn’t have “angry” in it?

55. George spews:

Goldy-
According to SP, the secretary of state’s office is saying it has not received the reconciliation data it requested from KC. They quote Steve Excell, assistant secretary of state. True, false, or spin? Do they have a copy of the binder?

56. torridjoe spews:

george @ 54

I don’t think it’s clear that they would be sent “the binder.” The SoS gets the ballot accountability forms.

I just talked to the SoS rep a minute ago–he is trying to decide whether or not he can answer questions I posed on this subject, without a formal disclosure request. Hopefully they’ll be forthcoming with some answers soon.

57. angry voter spews:

Torrid @ 52

Once again you spout the party line rhetoric straight from Paul Berendts email talking points. Did you fail to read the TNT this weekend? 73 voter registrations voided AARON CORVIN AND ADAM LYNN; The News Tribune http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/government/story/4611458p-4284826c.html

Apparenlty at least 73 voted in Pierce.

58. angry voter spews:

Torrid, You are a true Jackass, caught in your own lie, you still refuse to beleive it. I didnt bring up my genitals you did, it is in print you dipshit. And yes, I am angry at you thieving bastards who refuse to understand fact and reason. It will be a long fall when your bubble bursts.

59. George spews:

Torridjoe–

Thanks for your efforts. I reread SP and it does quote Excell, the assistant SOS in a number of critical statements about KC, including the one about requesting the reconciling data. Like many people I regard the SOS office as a comparatively reliable source of information, so it’s important to know if what they are saying is misquoted or misrepresented. Thanks again.

60. George spews:

One last thought about “the big binder”: if a piece of toast could bring $28,000 and a cane could bring $65,000 …

61. Barracuda spews:

The stench of illegitimacy will not be washed away with fine liberal platitudes or imaginative justifications. Gregoire has NO legitimacy.

62. gs spews:

Yup! So explain this:

In addition to the 1,108 illegal felon votes, King County has been unable to reconcile votes from the 2004 election, and cannot match more than 2,000 votes with voters. Also, the Rossi campaign found a total of 45 votes statewide cast on behalf of deceased persons, 10 votes cast by people who voted more than once in Washington, and five votes cast by people who voted in Washington and another state.

Here is a breakdown by county of the illegal felon votes:

884 from King County
38 from Thurston County
33 from Clark County
31 from Yakima County
30 from Pierce County
27 from Snohomish County
20 from Spokane County
17 from Benton County
13 from Whatcom County
7 from Lewis County
6 from Kitsap County
1 from Skagit County
1 from Walla Walla County

That is what will be required in court. We shall see! I see Hillary and Kerry want all felons to be able to vote, well isn’t that special and appropriate! I think all crooks should be able to vote for crooks! :) See ya at the court, looking forward to it actually!

63. torridjoe spews:

angry voter, you’ve got some hostility issues, and you’re apparently not able to read so well (since Pierce’s cancellations are registrations; they say nothing about who voted), so you can continue the profane outbursts if you like–but you’re no longer worth answering.

George @ 56

Excell isn’t clear (or at least Sharkansky isn’t) about what materials they are missing, how much of what they are supposed to have they have, and what specifically they’re referring to. Since Excell is directly contradicting Reed, yet according to Stefan is speaking on behalf of the Sos, something’s not right.

gs @ 61

When you say “this is what will be required in court,”–what does that mean? What will be required? The evidence of those votes having been cast, and who they were cast for? If so, I agree; that’s what the law declares. As for the accounting, so far the GOP hasn’t been very good at all in their claims on the numbers; I guess we’ll have to wait to see how many votes and who voted them are presented in discovery.

Why, in your own opinion, is it improper to allow felons to vote once they’re out?

64. Xiaoding spews:

People who are not good communicators are usually having this problem because they are having to make up lies as they go along.

I find it interesting, that every time the magic question is asked, the question that would solve all mysteries, and make the crooked ways straight, the “conversation is cut short” and we are left bereft of the infinite wisdom therin. This is the hallmark of the liar. Ask any cop.

The democrats have held power so long they believe their own lies. Mr Goldstien has convinced himself, but no one else. There is a sad desperation in his denial…an entire lifetime devoted to a legacy of corrution is tough to admit. Most of these folks still see themselves as some kind of civil rights crusaders of some kind, freeing the slaves (which, I recall, was a REPUBLICAN undertaking, FOUGHT against by the democrats) instead of weasly corrupt hacks grasping for power to the tune of “the times, they are a changin”. Very sad.

Xiaoding

65. Jpgee spews:

Great job again Goldy. Now we see there is a tremendous jump in trolls here. You must be getting on their nerves.. Good work TJ, Don, etc,….. we used to only have cynicalidiot, zip and chuck….now look at them flop over each other to try and change our minds……..

66. torridjoe spews:

xiaoding @ 63

You’re aware the “Democrats” who fought against empancipation became today’s “Republicans,” right? The solid south of the 40s and 50s, the most virulent of segregationists and racists, all defected to the Republicans in the late 60s and early 70s, which is where they reside now.

What’s the magic question?

67. angry voter spews:

Bob Bird was a Klan grand dragon, isnt he a prominent D US Senator?

68. marks spews:

“Democrats” who fought against empancipation became today’s “Republicans,” right?

What the puck is “empancipation”?

69. Jeff B. spews:

I think Goldy spoke too soon here. The jury is still out on the reconciliation numbers Goldy is hoping that it all can be dismissed in a simple HorsesAss post. We shall see.

And, how about the felon numbers? Looks to be an order of magnitude greater than the margin of victory. Goldy, tell us why that won’t matter to the judge.

But, I’m sure you are all fine with felons putting Gregoire in office. Every piece of paper that you want to call a vote, counts.

70. Daniel K spews:

Really, this is just like the justifications given for the Iraq war. The Republicans have made the claim that there was election fraud before they had any proof. Now they are looking for one justification after another for their baseless claims. “Discrepency”? Dead people? How about felons? Much like the whole WMD smokescreen.

What will it be tomorrow?

71. GS spews:

TorridJoe

You asked for clarification:

The votes in this state are supposedly secret, not tracable to a single individual in this state except as to if they voted or not. There is still a 1800+ discrepancy between if they voted voters and if they voted votes cast.

It is also ILLEGAL in this state…ILLEGAL, for Felons, Dead People, Double Voters, Fraudulant Voters, Etc Etc Etc. to vote!

So all I am saying is that the judge has already decided that there is plenty enough evidence to continue this case forward to trial (by his own declaration), from what he has already seen, and he will then ultimately decide how these ILLEGAL votes will be treated.

If you are advocating dragging these ILLEGAL voters through court individually and asking them under oath who they voted for, then I am sure the Democrats will ask for this. I would bet most of them would shy away from showing up for that kind of under oath hearing, wouldn’t ya think????????????????? Taking the 5th, Isn’t it self incrimination to say under oath that you voted ILLEGALLY. And you can’t force a person to self incriminate themselves. SOOOOOOOOO

It is in my opinon not improper for a felon to vote once they are out and once they have fulfilled all their time and duties. But it is improper to allow felons to vote until all these things described by the court have been satisfied.

72. zip spews:

Why, in your own opinion, is it improper to allow felons to vote once they’re out?

Comment by torridjoe— 2/22/05 @ 6:53 pm

They are allowed to vote, provided they pay their restitution and apply for reinstatement. Why do so many people consider that basic requirement to be cruel and unusual?

73. torridjoe spews:

zip @ 71

That’s the way it works in Washington. I’ve got no problem with that. Is that fundamentally different from what Hillary is proposing? I really don’t know. No, I think that’s reasonable.

GS @ 70

“There is still a 1800+ discrepancy between if they voted voters and if they voted votes cast.”

I’m sure sure I know what that means. There’s a gap of 1860 between ballots counted, and voters who are credited with voting. That’s an entirely academic point. If there’s any “gap” it’s in the total of 2600 precinct reports, a totalling no one has done because it is not required and is tedious, laborious and thus expensive. This gap is, publicly at least, unknown.

It’s certainly illegal to vote when you’re not supposed to. That is an individual criminal offense, not an official one. That someone commits a crime against the state, in no way equals a cause of negligence against the state for letting it happen.

The #1 problem in this election was felons who voted, even if the number is half what the WSRP says, IMO. And that’s the result of a totally fragmented, non-centralized notification system from the courts. I don’t think it’s sensible to blame it on elections officials, especially those confronting a million registrations. You do what the law provides. And if the law sucks, fix it.

Well what a a coincidence! There just happens to be a major rewrite of the RWC upcoming in order to comply with federal guidelines. One of the key features: a statewide felon database to go online for 2006.

How do you make a stand on irregularity with felon voters? How many felons voted in 2000? How often should felons be getting through under the system they have? It’s maddeningly difficult to establish abnormal electoral behavior without a standard of ‘normal.’ And with the remedy already set as new law…

You’re talking about testifying. I was talking about simply who cast the vote, name and address. That’s by law. They can’t be introduced as evidence otherwise. Who they voted FOR is an entirely different matter, but there’s a specific Supreme Court citing Bridges used that votes that can’t be identified must be presumed legitimate (Hill 1912).

74. Jeff B. spews:

Daniel K,

Your right, it is very much like Iraq. Democrats as they do with Iraq, refuse to acknowledge that there is a fanatical islamic component in the Middle East, a component that we’ve ignored for thirty years, that has brought itself to our doorstep to blow us up. And Democrats believe we have no reason to see dangerous regimes in the Middle East dismantled.

Republicans simply want acknowledgement and reform of an election system that has been broken for a long time, and we want partisan regimes that make vote counting a partisan activity, dismantled.

King County is ruled by a Saddam like Executive in Ron Sims, wow, the analogy just keeps going.

Thanks.

75. Mr. Cynical spews:

jpgee @ 64–
I can assure you I am not “trying to change your mind”.
In order to do so, that would mean you would have to have a mind…which obviously you do not.

76. Chris spews:

You libs are hilarious. You are blind to reality. I would never try to convince you to change your position / opinions, you are too valuable to us as you are. I can’t wait to come back to this website after the trial and the Rossi victory to see how you schmucks spin it into a victory for the Dems. You refuse to see the true strength of the R’s case and that will be your demise. PLEASE, keep the blinders on and stay in your cozy world of denial, it is quite entertaining.

77. Don spews:

gs @ 61

Amidst all the posturing over “1,108 illegal felon votes,” let’s not forget that’s not an official count, nor necessarily an accurate count. It was done by amateurs with a partisan axe to grind. Don’t be surprised if the actual number turns out to be a good deal less. At any rate, at the end of the day, Judge Bridges will either overturn the election or he won’t. If he doesn’t the GOP is going to look pretty damned foolish.

78. Jpgee spews:

Cyanideidiot @ 74
wow, what a cute comeback!!!! it must have took you hours to figure something ‘oh so hurtful’ to say. Get a life idiot…you desperately need one

79. Don spews:

Jeff B. @ 73

“Republicans simply want acknowledgement and reform of an election system that has been broken for a long time, and we want partisan regimes that make vote counting a partisan activity, dismantled.”

Reality check: Republicans don’t just want “reform” of the election system. They want all kinds of stuff, much of it over the top:

1. At first they wanted Democrats to forego a recount provided by law and accept a 42-vote difference as definitive. There was no talk of a “broken election system” or “illegal felon votes” back then. They would have happily accepted flaws and illegal votes if the result had gone their way.

2. They opposed counting 566 ballots wrongly disqualified by election workers even though those voters were entitled to vote, did vote, and did nothing wrong.

3. They want the election nullified without having to show that Rossi won.

4. If the judge doesn’t buy that, they want to be able to “count” the illegal votes for each candidate by speculating that felons voted for each candidate in the same proportion as the general population. (But what if 95% of the illegal felon voters are males, and analysis shows that male voters were more likely to vote for Rossi than Gregoire even in King County? If a mathematical formula is used in place of a nose count, isn’t gender a more accurate predicter of voting behavior than geography?)

5. When you listen to Republicans explain what “reforms” they want in the election laws it quickly becomes apparent that they want to put up as many hoops for legal voters as possible: Making EVERYONE re-register; doing away with absentee voting; turning away anyone who shows up at a poll without picture ID (someone please explain why a signature isn’t good enough?). Can you spell V-O-T-E S-U-P-P-R-E-S-S-I-0-N?

No, Republicans don’t just want “election reform.” They want Rossi to be governor. They want to erect obstacles to voting in the belief that more Democrats than Republicans will find voting too much trouble and stay home. Above all, they want to run everything, and they want to get their way. Their way or the highway! There is no middle ground with these folks.

80. Mr. Cynical spews:

Don @ 76–
Gee, I thought you, Goldy and the other jackasses have said repeatedly that the “Dems have nothing to prove at trial”??
So who and how exactly is the R’s list of 1,108 felons voting going to be refuted and “don’t be surprised if the number turns out to be a good deal less”.
Do you boneheads have yet another BIG BINDER to wow us with???

The other BIG BINDER may be as big as a 3-story house with firey eyes roaming the streets of Seattle….but that BIG BINDER also has a Pinocchio nose and Dumbo ears. Just pictue Goldy’s BIG BINDER stumbling down 5th Avenue scaring the wits out of the winos and hobo’s!

Gee Don..it sounds like the Dems may actually have something to prove at trial…challenging the R’s list. Who else is going to do it I ask??? You Lefty’s better stop blogging…and actually generate some hard evidence…quick!!

Goldy, 2 months ago I told you you better get off your ass and get busy but NOOOOOOOOOOOO!…you put all your faith in the BIG BINDER GOD! Tell me, do you actually worship the BIG BINDER???
The BIG BINDER sounds to me like a constipated Lefty!

81. Chuck spews:

Don@78
No, republicans simply want a verification election so there may be a true undisputed governor.

82. Daniel K spews:

Jeff B @ 73

Your right, it is very much like Iraq. Democrats as they do with Iraq, refuse to acknowledge that there is a fanatical islamic component in the Middle East, a component that we’ve ignored for thirty years, that has brought itself to our doorstep to blow us up. And Democrats believe we have no reason to see dangerous regimes in the Middle East dismantled.

Congratulations – you too were deluded by Bush into believing Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Your “fanatical islamic component” came from Saudi Arabia with assistance in Afghanistan. One rationale after another.

Chuck @ 80

No, republicans simply want a verification election so there may be a true undisputed governor.

Because Republicans believe an election is a Best Of Three scenario. Rossi believes he won the first election 2 times when in fact the only outcome that mattered was won by Gregoire. Now they hope for a re-vote, perhaps 2, with the hope that they can change the outcome, and win two out of three.

This long ago stopped having ANYTHING to do with election reform. Now all you guys do is show up at election reform hearings screaming hysterically for a re-vote.

83. chardonnay spews:

GS @ 61, I think you are on to something! Hillaryously introducing a bill to allow felons to vote. The dems just had an original idea, Ta Da, to bad it will go nowhere except Olympia, Hills best friend and biggest fan, Crissy, will have one of her plants in the house introduce it here, in honor of hillary.
All those trips to DC with the Clintons almost paid off for Crissy, who knew the election was going to be this close? At the last minute the dems had to scramble and “find” ballots. Good think crissy had those pending promotions out there for the “job well done” for any “creative” election worker.

Do you think she had people strategically positioned in specific management jobs (as does ronny sims) as to ensure the proper outcome?

84. chardonnay spews:

I take that back, Hills bill, will go somewhere, right on her record. LOL, Good for a prez nominee huh? No surprise, her voting record is pretty liberal, so her moderate “appearance” now is not believable. Still, allowing felons to vote would add the ever so declining base (3mil. I wonder if Olympia passed the bill here, real quick like, would that be applicable to the Chelan Contest Case?

85. chardonnay spews:

nice try Daniel, you can spin all you want, the evidence is clear. for the record, it was never about 2 out of 3. It was the appauling “magic show” of (9) different places, (9) different times, that woke everyone up. Everything else just fell into place, divinely.

86. Don spews:

Cynical @ 80

Given that you can’t even get the post # right, it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t get the burden of proof right either.

87. Don spews:

Cynical @ 80

It’s spelled “fiery” not “firey.”

(I suppose you could argue that picking on someone’s spelling is nit-picking, opportunistic, mean-spirited, etc. I agree it’s all of those things — but you make it soooo easy and it’s fun, too!)

88. Don spews:

chuck @ 81

Another one who can’t tell the difference between 79 and other numbers. Cynical’s a CPA, what’s your excuse. C’mon dude, I bracketed 78 by posting at 77 and 79, surely you could hit ONE of those? I’d hate to be in the same room with you guys and a dartboard.

89. Don spews:

chuck @ 81 (continued)

Point to a constitutional or RCW section that entitles you to that. Show me. I can’t find it.

90. Don spews:

chardonnay @ 84

You have nothing to worry about. The Democrats’ initial enthusiasm for restoring voting rights to felons will dissipate when they find out most felons vote for Republicans.

91. marks spews:

torridjoe @ 46

“whether or not to dismiss our case by”

Just read your Chelan court case analysis…“You assume I am part of the Democratic Party. I am not.”, yet irreconcilable with the above statement.

92. chardonnay spews:

tj at 666
some fun facts to prove you wrong-o
THOMAS JEFFERSON-first pres elected as Democratic-Republican Party 1801-1809
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS-last pres elected as Democratic-Republican Party 1825-1829
ANDREW JACKSON-1st elected as Democratic Party 1829-1837
then a few whigs
ABRAHAM LINCOLN-1st Republican Party 1861-1865
As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization. Further, he rallied most of the northern Democrats to the Union cause. On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.

got some more horeseass 1/2 truths?

93. Don spews:

char @ 92

Lincoln would be appalled by today’s Republican Party and the current Republican president.

94. chardonnay spews:

good come back, coming from such a scholar! What? No mention of which party was FOR keeping slaves? Your party, the Democrats? In which your party STILL does today thru Organized Labor, Welfare, Section 8, lifetime politicians (gregoire) etc etc etc. Get your peeps off the trough DON.

95. torridjoe spews:

chardonnay @ 92

where did you prove me wrong? You agree that Lincoln pulled northern Democrats, leaving the Southern Democrats, who were opposed to Emancipation…and were the southern party of resistance until the civil rights movement, when they mostly became REPUBLICANS, which is where they remain today.

96. torridjoe spews:

marks @ 91

“our” refers to the GOP suits who were burping contentedly on their pad thai. Thus the reference to “loosening their thai” and the obvious point that the case that would be dismissed would be the Rossi case. Democrats have not brought any contest complaints to any judges that I’m aware of. I was speaking in Republican voice.

Got anything else?

97. martin ringhofer spews:

MICAJAH has been all over soundpolitics.com, micajah’s own blog, recallreed.blogspot.com, this blog, and all over the net — citing his / her point of view on the election, on Logan, on Rossi, defending from a partisan point of view — far from an objective position.

Just WHO is MICAJAH? The words MICAJAH has written are now a matter of record.

MICAJAH obviously is “somebody” or may be a fictitious character who enjoys casting darts at anybody putting forth views MICAJAH opposes. Sure, this www lets MICAJAH and others post in anonymity but doing that is easy when posting without attaching a name, an address, a phone number, to go on record and be held accountable.

MICAJAH has attacked the Recall Reed sponsors, calling it a ridiculous effort, which has no basis in RCW’s, WAC’s, defending Sam Reed, praising Sam Reed.

Without coming out from behind the veil of secrecy, MICAJAH could well be SAM REED himself – trumping himself up as the hero who saved the day.

MICAJAH: come on out from hiding. Tell us who you are. Let us see who you are and what your hidden agenda is.

Martin Ringhofer
Recallreede.blogspot.com

98. martin ringhofer spews:

MICAJAH, et al:

As you have delighted in attacking the effort to Recall Sam Reed, here is the brief filed on Wednesday 02/23/05, asking Judge Wickham to reconsider his dismissal of our Petition to hold Sam Reed accountable. Look it over and have a go at it with your thoughts on how the Judge will rule this time.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF IN RE:
THE RECALL OF SAM REED NO. 05-00222-8 MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Introduction

Petitioners charge that Judge Wickham’s February 14th, 2005 ‘Memorandum Opinion’ in the matter of the Recall of Sam Reed, contains manifest errors. Petitioners also have new facts and case law.

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” (LCR 59 Motions For Reconsideration, (a)(3) Standards)

Manifest Error

Manifest error is “an error that is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record” from Black’s Law Dictionary 563 (7th ed. 1999).

II. Assignment of Errors

A. Wickhams Ruling Disregards Credible Evidence In The Record

1. Charge 1-6

Judge Wickham completely disregarded the credible evidence in the record when he found charges 1-6 factually insufficient.

The attorney general defined the test for determining “factual sufficiency” in his Petition To Determine Sufficiency Of Recall Charges And To Approve Ballot Synopsis. hereafter known as the Attorney General Petition.

“The ultimate questions are whether the voters are provided sufficient information to evaluate the charges and whether the proponent has a basis in knowledge of the charges.” (Pg. 7)

The attorney general also states that, “The Court may “look to supporting affidavits to determine whether a petition is factually sufficient.” (Pg. 7)

Judge Wickham ruled that Charges 1-6 in the Petition for Recall of Washington State Secretary of Stat Sam Reed to the Honorable Rob McKenna, Attorney General, hereafter known as the Recall Petition, were “factually insufficient” because, “there are no specific allegations as to facts showing wrongful conduct on the part of the Secretary of State.” (Memorandum Opinion In Re: The Recall of Sam Reed, pg. 4, L 13,14, hereafter known as the Wickham Memorandum)

This conclusion shows a complete disregard for the evidence in the record.

No reasonable person could read our Recall Petition, Charge 1-6, and conclude that we made no “specific allegations as to facts showing wrongful conduct on the part of the Secretary of State.” Judge Wickham in particular, having the benefit of reviewing supporting evidence and the Recall Petition, could not reasonably come to that conclusion.

In Charges 1-6 we made very specific allegations. After each Charge we state that Mr. Reed was aware of the “discrepancy”, “anomaly”, “violation”, and “serious inconsistency” detailed in the charges. We clearly establish in the Recall Petition that Mr. Reed, as Secretary of State, has a duty to “uphold” election laws and regulations, that he was well aware of the various election law violations prior to his certification of the election, that he had a legal responsibility to not certify an election wrought with election law violations and that he certified the November 2, 2004 election in violation of election laws and regulations.

2. Charge 7: Disregard of Credible Evidence

Judge Wickham concludes that Charge 7 is “factually and legally insufficient”. Charge 7 rests on the allegation that Secretary Reed failed to do his duty to uphold election law when he accepted the incomplete auditor abstracts from counties as follows:

a. Judge Wickham ruled that charge 7 was “factually insufficient” because “there is no specific allegation regarding the knowledge by Secretary of State of these irregularities.” This shows blatant disregard for the evidence in the record.

In the Recall Petition, Charge 7, we make a specific allegation as to Secretary Reed’s knowledge of irregularities, stating, “In violation of WAC 434-262-080, WAC 434-262-090 and WAC 434-262-100, Mr. Reed accepted as complete, the abstract of votes from 24 counties even though they did not provide all the material required by statute and regulations” and that he included them in his final certification. In fact, the Secretary’s attorney, Jeffrey Even, does not dispute that they were incomplete when Secretary of Reed certified on 12/30/2004. [Response of Sam Reed to Petition to determine sufficiency of Recall Charges and for approval of ballot synopsis]. Jeffrey Even’s refers to the Declaration of Pamela Floyd, in that Declaration Floyd does not dispute petitioner’s Charge 7 that the Secretary used incomplete auditor abstracts in the 12/30/2004 certification.

b. Judge Wickham found charge 7 “legally insufficient” because, “Similarly, there is no evidence that these irregularities are substantial enough to have made a difference in actions taken by the Secretary.” (Wickham Memorandum, pg. 5,
L 1-2)

Prima facie evidence that the “irregularities” were substantial is evident. Not only by all media accounts but by Reed’s own attorney, Jeffery Even, who characterized the November 2, 2004 election as a “raging public controversy.” [Response of Sam Reed to Petition to determine sufficiency of Recall Charges and for approval of ballot synopsis]. Raging public controversies don’t spring up from less than substantial irregularities.

In the Attorney General’s Petition the attorney general defines the test to determine legal sufficiency. Specifically, do the charges show, “that the acts are wrongful” (pg.8) and do the charges “clearly state conduct that, if true, would constitute misfeasance, malfeasance, or a violation of the officer’s oath of office.” (Pg. 9)

We establish in the Recall Petition that Secretary Reed has a duty to uphold election laws and regulations. Under Charge 7 we cite the specific laws he violated by accepting and using incomplete abstracts of votes from numerous counties before he certified the election on 12/30/2004. Reed’s attorney did not challenge the allegation that Sam Reed used incomplete abstracts in his 12/30/2004 certification.

No reasonable person including this Court can possibly overlook the fact that King County had at least 1,800 more votes than voters which they did not reconcile in the abstract they sent to Secretary Reed, nor that Secretary Reed included that abstract in his December 30, 2004 certification. For the Court to rule that this failure to follow the law is merely a matter of discretion is almost a borderline mockery of any understanding of what the word discretion and the phrase ‘discretionary act’ means either to a layman or in the law.

No reasonable person could conclude, after reading charge 7, that, if true, the alleged act would not “constitute misfeasance, malfeasance, or a violation of the officer’s oath of office.” Wickham’s conclusion patently disregards the evidence in record.

3. Charge 8: Disregard of Credible Evidence

Judge Wickham concluded that Charge 8 was “factually sufficient”, (Wickham Memorandum pg. 5, L 11-12)

Wickham goes on to say that, “There are no allegations that he [Reed] committed an act of misfeasance or malfeasance.” (Wickham Memorandum pg. 5, L 13)

This shows a blatant disregard for the evidence in the record.

Specifically we state in the Recall Petition that:

“The above acts [Charge 1-9] of malfeasance, misfeasance, and/or violation of the Secretary of State’s Oath of Office, as defined in RCW29A.56110(1), (a), (b), (2), occurred between November 3, 2003 and January 5,2005, and constituted a failure to perform the Secretary of State’s duties as detailed in RCW29A.o4.610 and in violation of RCW 42.20.040, RCW 42.20.050 and RCW9A.80.010. In spite of his personal knowledge of election law violations, violations of election statutes and regulations and his failure to employ said laws and regulations, Sam Reed certified the third and final manual recount of the November 2, 2004 Washington State General election. A duty to uphold and employ election laws and regulations is enjoined upon the Secretary of State, his willful neglect to perform this duty and his certification of an election that he knew was wrought with election law violations, was an act of malfeasance, misfeasance and/or violation of the Secretary of State’s Oath of Office, and violated the public trust.” (Recall Petition Pg. 2-3)

No reasonable person could read the Recall Petition and conclude that in Charge 8, “There are no allegations that he [Reed] committed an act of misfeasance or malfeasance.” (Wickham Memorandum pg. 5, L 13)

Wickham acknowledges that, in Charge 8, we allege Secretary Reed violated his oath of office. (Wickham Memorandum pg.5, L 13,14) but goes on to say that “voters would have to be able to conclude that he [Reed] had neglected to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law. The use of the term “neglect” implies a reasonable standard. There are no sufficient allegations to show that he unreasonably carried out his duties in such a way as to constitute a violation of his oath of office.”

In Charge 8 (Recall Petition pg. 2) we specifically allege that Secretary Reed “violated RCW 29A.04.610 by failing to perform many of the duties detailed therein, including;”

A) Failure to examine and test voting systems for certification;
B) Failure to employ standards and procedures to ensure the accurate tabulation and canvassing of ballots;
C) Failure to ensure consistency among the counties of the state in the preparation of ballots, the operation of vote tallying systems, and the canvassing of primaries and elections;
D) Failure to ensure procedures to receive and distribute voter registration applications by mail;
E) Failure to engage in the testing, approval and certification of voting systems: F) Failure to enforce standards and procedures to prevent fraud and to facilitate the accurate processing and canvassing of absentee ballots and mail ballots;
G) Failure to enforce uniformity among the counties of the state in the conduct of absentee voting and mail ballot elections;
H) Failure to implement standards and procedures to accommodate out-of-state voters, overseas voters, and service voters;
I) Failure to enforce procedures for conducting a statutory recount.

In the Recall Petition we allege that Secretary Reed violated his oath of office by failing to “uphold and employ election laws and regulations” as detailed in Charges 1-9. (Recall Petition pg. 2)

Judge Wickham found the allegations in Charge 8 “factually sufficient” and assumes, as the law requires, they are true. No reasonable person who reads Charge 8 could conclude that, “There are no sufficient allegations to show that he [Reed] unreasonably carried out his duties in such a way as to constitute a violation of his oath of office” unless one could assign, to a reasonable person that failing or refusing to uphold election laws and regulations is a reasonable act for a Chief Election Official.

Here the judge is coming to conclusions that are reserved for the voters. He is not to judge the truth of the charge and yet he is concluding that voters could not determine if it was unreasonable for Secretary Reed to violate the laws cited in Charge 8.

III. Manifest Error: Disregard Of The Controlling Law

1. Wickham disregards controlling law in his ruling on Charge 9 and 7

First he assigns to the Secretary in Charge 9 a power of discretion that controlling law clearly does not give him, and second, he fails to assign duties to the Secretary in Charge 7 that controlling law clearly does give him.

A. To the first point: Charge 9, Wickham assigns power to the Secretary that the law does not give him

Wickham wonders if, “The Secretary’s duty to certify the results from the various counties is either ministerial” or “ if discretion is involved.”

The certification of a general election is an act compelled upon the Secretary by law. The controlling law governing the duty of the Secretary of State to certify a general election comes, in part, from; The Washington State Constitution (Article 3 sec 4 and 17) RCW 43.07.030, WAC 434-262-120 and WAC 434-262-100. (See attachment ‘Constitution, RCW’s, WAC’s Cited: Request for Reconsideration)

The repeated use of the term “shall”, along with the deadlines imposed in these laws and codes, make it clear that certification of an election is an act the Secretary is compelled by law to do. Nowhere can any law or code be found that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the act of certification by the Secretary of State is in any way “discretional.”

Wickham continues to wonder that if the Secretary has discretion concerning certification of an election that it would “presumably be to determine the significance of any inadequacy or irregularity, the ability for the defect to be cured, and the resulting disenfranchisement of proper voters should he fail to certify the results for a
Particular County.” (Wickham Memorandum pg. 6, L 5-8)

And Wickham concludes that Charge 9 was “legally insufficient” because “No facts have been alleged to show that the Secretary’s exercise of discretion involved fraud or was arbitrary.”

Again, there is no controlling law that allows the Secretary discretion on whether or not to certify an election once he has accepted county canvass abstracts as “certified and complete” and there certainly is no law that would allow the Secretary to NOT certify an election, after he has accepted county abstracts as complete, because he thinks it would “disenfranchise proper voters.”

The only discretion we find, after the Secretary has accepted county vote abstracts as “certified and complete” and before his final certification, is that the Secretary can include a narrative along with his certification if he wants to detail discrepancies found during his canvass of county election returns.

B. To the second point: Charge 7, Wickham fails to assign duties to the Secretary that controlling law clearly does give him

We write in our Recall Petition, “CHARGE 7 In violation of WAC 434-262-080, WAC 434-262-090 and WAC 434-262-100, Mr. Reed accepted, as complete, the abstract of votes from 24 counties even though they did not provide all the material required by statute and regulations.” (Pg. 2)

The foundation of this charge is that the Secretary failed to follow laws which dictate that before accepting a certified copy of the county auditor’s abstract of votes, “the secretary of state shall ensure that all material required to be submitted pursuant to state law and these regulations has been included in the certified copy of the auditor’s abstract of votes transmitted to his or her office. In the event the secretary of state determines that the certified copy of the auditor’s abstract of votes is incomplete, he or she shall notify the county auditor of that fact and shall request that the missing part of the abstract be forwarded immediately. No county’s certified copy of the abstract of votes shall be considered as complete for acceptance by the secretary of state until all of the material required by statute and regulation has been received by the secretary of state. In the event the certified copy of the official abstract is illegible or in improper form, the secretary of state shall return that abstract and require an immediate resubmission of the abstract in proper or legible form. (WAC 434-262-090) Other WAC’s cited under Charge 7, which buttresses the one above, WAC 434-262-080 and WAC 434-262-100.

The Judge has to assume the truth of the alleged facts, that incomplete abstracts were submitted to and accepted by the Secretary in his final certification of the election on 12/30/2004. Indeed, Secretary Reed’s attorney provided no rebuttal to this allegation. (Response of Sam Reed to Petition to determine sufficiency of Recall Charges and approval of ballot synopsis, Declaration of Pamela Floyd)

In spite of this legal foundation, Wickham rules that Charge 7 is “legally insufficient” because “…there is no evidence that these [alleged election] irregularities are substantial enough to have made a difference in actions taken by the Secretary.” (Wickham Memorandum pg. 5, L 1-2)

While the language is confusing, it is clear that no reasonable person would conclude that the charge is legally insufficient without completely disregarding the controlling law cited in Charge 7.

2. Conclusions Contrary to RCW 29.82.023

The conclusions in the Wickham Memorandum conflict with the legal directive not to evaluate the truth of the charges, only their sufficiency and to construe the recall statutes in favor of the voters. (RCW 29.82.023)

3. Failure to Dispose of ‘Petitioner’s Affidavit Requesting Court Order a Correction of Error’

This affidavit was filed February 7, 2005 and was included in Judge Wickham’s February 14, 2005 Order as a part of the record. (In The Matter Of The Recall Of Sam Reed, No. 05-2-00222-8 Order 2/14/05)

Judge Wickham never addressed the affidavit, did not discuss, affirm, or deny it.

4. Refused To Allow Documents Presented on February 14, 2005 to be Submitted Into The Record

Because a Recall Petition is on an accelerated schedule, Judge Wickham, at a February 7, 2005 hearing, gave us only one week (until February 14, 2005) to prepare. Plaintiffs are pro se and made every effort to compile our brief, affidavits, exhibit list, exhibits, and orders prior to the 14th but barely finished around 1:00AM February 14, 2005.

At approximately 8:00AM on the morning of February 14th, Petitioners filed our brief, affidavits; exhibit list, exhibits, and orders with the Thurston County Superior Court Clerk in preparation for our 9:00AM hearing in Judge Wickham’s courtroom. After objection by Secretary Reed’s attorney, Judge Wickham ruled that he would not allow the documents to be admitted because they were not filed by noon two days prior to February 14th in violation of court rules.

We believe Judge Wickham erred when he made this ruling by incorrectly applying court rules to the Recall Process, which is an accelerated process.

IV. New Case Law

Plaintiffs cite new case law that, even though we were diligent, did not come to our attention until after Judge Wickhams February 14, 2005 ruling.

1. Judge Wickham ruled several times that there were no “specific allegations” in our Recall Petition Charges. The adequacy of the specificity of Charges made in our Recall Petition are bolstered by the fact that the attorney general was able to write a coherent synopsis for the court to consider (‘Ballot Synopsis For Recall Of Sam Reed As Secretary Of State Of Washington’)

New case law: Supreme Court of the State of Washington, ‘In re the matter of Recall Charges Attorney General’s against City of V Disjoins Mayor Donald Wasson et al’ (00-2-26376-3, September 25, 2002) “Pine’s failure to satisfy the specificity requirements was also observed by the prosecutor tasked with developing the ballot synopsis. The prosecutor initially rejected the petition because it did not contain a concise statement of the charges.” (Pg 3)

2. If one Charge in the Recall Petition is found to be sufficient the recall can go forward

A. “Any one sufficient charge requires the holding of a recall election.” State ex re Citizens Attorney General’s against Mandatory Bussing v Brooks (1972) 80 W2d 121, 492 P2d 536

B. “Where any one of charges sufficient, recall proceedings may be instituted. Morton v McDonald (1953) 41 W2d 889,252 P2d 577

3. Recall Charges not held to same standard as criminal

“Recall charges prepared pursuant to this section need not contain language as definite as that of a criminal information, but need only contain a statement of the acts complained of, with sufficient definiteness that the one charged may be able to meet them before the tribunal of the people. Danielson v Raymondville (1967) 72 W2d 854, 435 P2d 963

V. New Facts

1. King County Knew About No Signature On File ballots

King County knew about the No Signature On File (NSOF) ballots and had already tried to obtain valid signatures for all of these voters before and immediately after the General Election.

Memo from Travis Elsom Wednesday November 3, 2004, calling the ballots a newly discovered “mistake” was not true. Reed based his testimony in court, to allow these ballots in, on erroneous evidence. (Exhibit 1 – Rossi for Governor Press Release 2/15/05)

2. The number of illegal votes and the number of votes King County has yet to reconcile continue to grow

A. “1,108 illegal felon voters. and counting

Bellevue, WA – So far the Dino Rossi campaign has found 1,108 felons it believes voted illegally in the 2004 election. In documents that will be made available to state Democratic
Party attorneys as part of the fact-finding discovery process, the Rossi campaign will provide documentation on the illegal felon votes it has found so far. In addition to the 1,108 illegal felon votes, King County has been unable to reconcile votes from the 2004 election, and cannot match more than 2,000 votes with voters. Also, the Rossi campaign found a total of 45 votes statewide cast on behalf of deceased persons, 10 votes cast by people who voted more than once in Washington, and five votes cast by people who voted in Washington and another state.” (Exhibit 2 – Rossi Press Release February 22, 2005)

B. “We are continuing to monitor the discrepancies in King County. Secretary Reed has dedicated staff to investigate the problems there.” (Exhibit 3 – January 5, 2005 email from Mary Gould, Secretary of State’s Office to: Ralph Reneson)

3. Secretary Reed acknowledges he has power to ensure elections are administered according to law

“If the court decides to vacate the [governors] office, and a new election occurs, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the election is fairly administered under Washington State law and election rules.” (Exhibit 4 – Sam Reed email to Susan Benson, February 20 2005)

4. Secretary Reed places importance on canvassing to catch and correct errors but accepted incomplete abstracts from counties, specifically abstracts that were missing the narrative that would document errors and how they were reconciled

Jack, Tenino: As I understand it, anyone can walk into a polling place and request a provisional ballot. What prevents someone from going to several different polling places and voting?

Reed: Nothing prevents that, but they all end up back at the Courthouse, and when the staff is checking provisional ballots, they check the person’s record that a vote has been submitted. So you couldn’t come in multiple times. When I was Thurston County Auditor I turned in several names to the prosecutor’s office of people that tried multiple voting. That’s a crime and we would catch them.

(Exhibit 5 – The Olympian February 15, 2005 Transcript: Chat with Secretary of State Sam Reed)

5. Secretary Reed states most election errors about illegal votes did not surface until After December 30, 2004. This is patently false and is a matter of public record

Bill, Issaquah: Why did you certify a gubernatorial election that was so obviously and significantly flawed? And why, in the wake of Florida 2000, did you not implement statewide election reforms that would have minimized, if not prevented, the problems seen there and that surfaced, in significant numbers, in Washington
in 2004?

Reed: First place, most of the issues about illegal votes, came out after the certification in December, but our Washington State Constitution was written by populists who trusted their local officials and distrusted central authority, so the Constitution says the elections will be certified at the local level and that the Secretary of State shall — not may, shall — do the same to the Legislature. In the process, the Secretary of State is not in a position to make a decision on the certification. (Exhibit 5 – The Olympian February 15, 2005 Transcript)

6. Secretary Reed says his office always requires counties to balance number of ballots cast with number of ballots counted and rejected but accepted King County’s abstract with at least 1,800 more votes than voters

Vicky, Federal Way: Do you believe that we should have a law requiring precincts, counties and the entire state to reconcile the number of ballot so that the number of participating voters matches the number of cast ballots?

Reed: Yes. The Secretary of State’s office always does require they balance the number of ballots cast with the number counted and rejected. That’s very important for the integrity of the election, to avoid ballot box stuffing or ditching ballots. When we conduct audits, we look for that and have cited counties for that.

We are still looking at King County about that. We are looking at how serious the problems could be. Because the confusion in King County is the fact that they can’t match these ballots with their voter registration list and those they’ve credited with voting, and that’s a separate issue from the last question asked. That’s what we require.” . (Exhibit 5 – The Olympian February 15, 2005 Transcript)

VI. Conclusion

For these reasons the court should grant our request for reconsideration. This brief is supported by the Motion and the Declaration of Petitioners in Re: the Reconsideration of the Recall of Sam Reed.

99. Micajah spews:

Goldy,

I await your take on the “big binder,” now that its contents are being disclosed.

It appears that there was no bona fide reconciliation. (Gosh, I hope that link works. Why don’t you have a “preview” button so I can check for screw-ups?)

Instead, King County took any plausible explanation for the presence of “voterless ballots” and “adjusted” their “variance” to subtract that number from the total. (ETs dropping them into the AccuVote machine from hovering UFOs wouldn’t be plausible, but almost anything else apparently would do — except, of course, ballot box stuffing by the election officers or with their acquiescence by unidentified people.)

So, there could be a zillion more ballots than voters who signed the poll books, but so long as there appeared to have been a zillion provisional ballots issued to some unknown persons that appeared to have been improperly inserted into the AccuVote machines by those unknown people, then there was no “variance” between the number of voters and the number of ballots cast and counted.

To add insult to injury, King County only admitted to the improper insertion of 348 provisional ballots, because not all the ballots which went into the machines were improperly inserted at polling places where the officers said “Gee, I think that did happen.” So, instead of saying it happened and including all those ballots in their statements to the public, King County surmised that it happened and made up a cryptic term for the situation to put into their “big binder”: “No label” — meaning there was no provisional ballot envelope with a label stuck on it to identify the person who was issued the ballot, but that ballot must have been issued and it must have been inserted into the AccuVote machine — because how else could there have been so many “voterless ballots”?

Monday might be an interesting day. Do you think Logan will show up on time? Will he be wearing pajamas and complaining of terrible back pain? Or will he “brass it out,” as in that wonderful scene from “The Man Who Would Be King”?

100. lisinopril spews:

audiological ablaze illness budging untouchable,Frenchizes