I’m trying to wean this blog from “all election contest all the time”, so that I can cover some issues that are actually important. But I couldn’t help notice a curious thing about the trickle of new information coming from Dino Rossi’s legal team: the more errors they uncover, the less it may help their case.
Much of the manufactured outrage has focused on Democratic stronghold, King County. The county has especially been taken to task for the 348 provisional ballots that apparently were improperly fed into scanning machines at the polling place. To hear some on the right-wing blogs tell it, this is a “smoking gun” that proves gross negligence, if not outright fraud.
Hmmm. But a number of similarly mishandled provisional ballots have now turned up in a few other counties, with more likely to come: there were 6 in Jefferson, 77 in Pierce, and 12 in Stevens. And when we calculate these numbers out as a percentage of total ballots cast in each county, we find that King’s performance was rather middling:
Stevens: .058% King: .038% Jefferson: .033% Pierce: .024%
In fact, if Stevens performance was extrapolated out using Kings 900,000 ballots, it would have had over 520 improperly canvassed provisional ballots.
As I’ve said before, the only thing extraordinary about this election was its closeness. But now I’ll add a corollary: the only think extraordinary about King County is its size.
Errors occurred throughout the state, as they do in every election. It wasn’t due to fraud or negligence… just honest mistakes. Indeed, considering how much effort has been put into uncovering illegal votes — and how little the Rossi/BIAW/GOP folks have to show for it — this is turning out to have been a remarkably clean and well run election.
Can we do better at running our elections? Absolutely. Can we achieve perfection? Not in this world.
If this election were to be set aside based on the evidence made public thus far, then every close election will find itself in court. And that’s a precedent the court simply doesn’t want to set.
The courts should dismiss this case so we can all move on. The close election’s over. Time to go forward with the business of the state of Washington.
Indeed, considering how much effort has been put into uncovering illegal votes – and how little the Rossi/BIAW/GOP folks have to show for it
Yep. Apparently all the BIAW/Republicans have now is allegedly:
37 felons who have not had the right to vote restored voted in the election.
Nine dead people were credited with voting.
20 people in Washington who also voted in another state.
10 people voted twice.
With nearly three million voters in the state, their findings are much less than I had thought. Especially with the number of percentage of absentee ballots passing through the mail.
Secretary of State Update
The SOS has posted a FAQ section concerning the election contest. Reed cites the legal standard he believes applies with this case which is very high.
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/off.....ntests.pdf
“Indeed the voiding of a state elections is a ‘drastic if not staggering’ remedy.” (9th circuit).
A number of other cases are cites as well which places the bar very high. Reed believes it is a “heavy burden.” Look for Reed to further dismay republicans while upholding our election laws.
Great post Erik.
Great post Erik
Thanks.
Felons voting: would be great stage show type stuff to see felons testifying in trial they voted due to lack of information on vote restoration rights or having been ill advised by experts like parole folks…..and they telling the court that the majority backed Rossi.
Wonder how Vance will spin that one?
Erik, Goldy et al – Remember the R case is thin on numbers. Their case concept substitutes alledged pervasive mistakes for fraud and deliberate bad acts.
So even some mistakes in the red rural counties help in their theory the election was massivly flawed by mistakes on every hand.
Judge has no incentive to let anybody out at this junction.
Except the heavenly ballots, voters, and counters.
These are just preliminary statements that they’ve filed in order to show the judge that they have reasonable cause to believe evidence will turn up once the various counties’ information is made public and/or analyzed.
Also, while I’m sure these numbers will be part of the argument, you can’t forget the 50,000+ altered ballots and the 2,000+ unreconciled votes & voters. And before someone goes off on the tired “them nummers ain’t ‘sposed tuh add up,” I would ask that they read WAC 434-253-203 and WAC 434-253-204 before responding. See the Washington State Register for the exact text.
…..and they telling the court that the majority backed Rossi.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Uh Bob, the very term felon gives the probability that you could recieve untruthful testimony….
Errors occurred throughout the state, as they do in every election. It wasn’t due to fraud or negligence… just honest mistakes.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wrong again Goldy, there were several things King County was told to change by Sam Reeds office to prevent an election being thrown out and they changed none of them. Planting your head in the sand like an ostritch doesnt make it go away, much as you and your comrads would like, gross negligence certainly exists!
37 felons who have not had the right to vote restored voted in the election.
Nine dead people were credited with voting.
20 people in Washington who also voted in another state.
10 people voted twice. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hate to tell you this Erik but that is fraud…
Errors occurred throughout the state, as they do in every election. It wasn’t due to fraud or negligence>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I get stone drunk, and get into a car and kill someone, they will say I am negligent, in that case grossly negligent, but if I say no, drunks kill people all the time so it isnt negligence, I guess that will make it OK?
I’ve been harping on this point for weeks, but the scream machine is so much more effective … as a percentage of population, King County’s changes/corrections from the 2nd to the 3rd recounts ranks 13th out of 39 counties. Such counties as Okanogan and Yakima have more error per capita than King. But it is all King all the time on screech radio. Folks, the self-serving hyperbole is right there in plain sight; all you’ve got to do is look at the facts and the law …
Such counties as Okanogan and Yakima have more error per capita than King. But it is all King all the time on screech radio. Folks, the self-serving hyperbole is right there in plain sight; all you’ve got to do is look at the facts and the law …>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did those counties ignore recommendations fron Sam Reeds office like King County did?
It will be interesting to see how the judge rules on the discovery portion of this trial. So far it looks like your typical trial, with the “prosecutors” side arguing for broad and wide powers of discovery, and the “defendants” arguing that proof needs to be shown and statutes met before the case even proceeds.
My opinion (and IANAL) is that Goldy is right – none of the people involved in elections are going to support a precedent that says in order to throw out a close election you merely need to dig around a bit and find a bunch of errors. Despite what Republicans claim, everyone knows there’s no way (currently) to get eliminate all error from elections. Which is why the WA state statutes (as Sam Reed puts it) narrowly define what can be used to set aside an election.
For example – keeping an accurate list of felons who aren’t allowed to vote is an extremely difficult task – one that no state has been able to do properly yet. Depending on what name the person was convicted under, what state, whether the court properly recorded their pardon, etc. Keeping an accurate felon list certainly isn’t going to happen by the time of any “re-vote”. And, keep in mind, there’s no such thing as a re-vote. It’s a new election, which should rightly happen, on schedule, in 2008.
The same thing is true with the processing of paper ballots (whether punch card or optical scan) – we’re not going to magically solve the problems involved in the processing of those just because we have a re-vote. Or the breakdown of level machines – are those all going to be replaced before a special election? Or the various signature standards in different counties – how will we decide in a couple of months to standardize those? Which ones are right? Even the standard for military votes is complex, on purpose, to handle the multitude of situations our soldiers find themselves in.
While I support election reform through gradual improvements, a hastily arranged special election at the behest of sore-loser Republicans is guaranteed to solve nothing. It will merely result in another close election, create ill-will among the 50% of the people that voted for Gregoire (or anyone who believes Bush/GOP ignored similar election problems in FL of 2000 and OH 2004) and will set a bad legal precedent for all close elections in the future.
It will merely result in another close election>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I doubt it would be as close as you think it may be…
Chuck~
I think you’re right. The election won’t be close. Gregoire will win by close to Kerry’s margin.
I see that Chuck offers about as much evidence in this blog as the republicans do in court — diddly-squat!
Does anyone know if the hearings tomorrow will be televised (on NWCN or one of the government access channels)?
I see that Chuck offers about as much evidence in this blog as the republicans do in court>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
The evidence is on the King County homepage…
If this election were to be set aside based on the evidence made public thus far, then every close election will find itself in court. And that’s a precedent the court simply doesn’t want to set.
Comment by Goldy>>>>>>>
You guys just don’t get it. EVERY close election should end up in court, if there is reason to question the result. That is what the law provides! Regardless of the court decsion it will always be proper for close elections to be contested, especially in cases like this. You want to ignore the problems and say they always happen, Well 99% of the time the problems don’t have the potential to effect the result of the election. when the problems do have that possibility, you go to court and contest the result. Think about it people. You only “ignore” the problems, when the problems clearly would not inpact the result….a significant lead. 1500 votes by law is enough of a margin that the state does not require any re-counting because it is assumed that although errors may have occured they would not impact the reuslt / be enough to overturn 1500 votes.. Anything less then that (espaecially 129 votes) and we must investigate the problems. The margin is to small and that is why the law is the way it si. Yes you except some degree of uncertainty (1500 votes or more) and presume the winner is the winner (it may only be really by 1100 votes if all errors were identyfied and corrected but the law presumes the winner would still be the winner). 129 votes in NOT Acceptable Uncertainty! And you all know it.
Sam Reed said yesterday on John Carlson’s show that he believed the election is right where it should be, considering the neglect of King County….IN COURT!
He warned them two years ago, they (KC) ignored him. He agrees that the errors and problems are grounds for this election to be contested, ask him.
To think the courts don’t want to or wont set precedent (already been set by the way) and rule for a new election is naive.
Hi Chris (did you find a job?) –
We do get it. 129 votes is a razor thin margin that seems as if it is less than the margin of error. The court procedure will determine whether the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory. As to illegal votes, it appears that is isn’t, which is a surprise to me, and a vindication of the process. This is good news for everyone. Sam Reed is right: court is where this should be.
The reason for the court challenge is to investigate illegal voting and irregularities. I haven’t seen a single Democratic poster here suggest that the court challenge should not go forward. The process will be helpful. If the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory, then the court will rule for Rossi.
Democrats have a problem not with the court challenge but with the dishonest, hysterical, and destructive public relations campaign from the Rossi supporters. They’ve run ads about disenfranchisement of military votes – and the facts have shown that there was no disenfranchisement. They keep pounding the silly point about the number of voters not matching the number of votes – and THEY know it is a silly, dishonest, spin point. They claim the election is a mess, talk of widespread fraud, rigging the election, etc etc when they know the evidence does not support any of these claims.
We have an orderly procedure, which is being followed by both sides: machine recount, hand recount, election contest. The system is working, and I have every confidence it will work for Rossi and the people of Washington as it was intended. Why the hell won’t the Republicans behave with some dignity and respect for process and the rule of law? We aren’t hiding our heads in the sand or denying anyone’s right to investigate and vindicate their legal rights – we just insist on acting as responsible citizens.
That is what YOUR side doesn’t understand. Civility. Decency. Law. Honesty.
Here is a perfect example of dishonest rhetoric:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....sky19.html
Shark, who becomes more slimy day by day, writes:
“It is not the American way for a tainted victory of 129 votes, marred by thousands of illegitimate votes, including double voters, felon voters, cemetery voters and unidentified voters, to take the place of a legitimate decision of the electorate.”
In fact, there are fewer than seventy felon voters, cemetery voters, double voters – and Shark knows this better than anyone. He adds “unidentified voters” as a reference to the discrepancy between the number of votes and voters, so he can use the word “thousands.” He also knows as well as anyone that these numbers never square, and provide no evidence of fraud or irregularity. He isn’t a dumb guy; he is a liar and manipulator.
The American way is to have the election contest play out, as the law provides. His knowingly deceptive rhetoric is a disservice to democracy. We should insist on better.
The bottom line: the R’s fanatics’s (like Shark and Cynical) and PR people (Mary Lane/Erin Shannon) spin the facts – and the faithful believe every word (too numerous to mention).
They keep pounding the silly point about the number of voters not matching the number of votes – and THEY know it is a silly, dishonest, spin point.
Comment by Christine G— 1/19/05 @ 10:16 am
Frist off, what is silly about being concerned that there are more votes then voters? Doesn’t that concern you, no of course not, it always happens (Not True) and besides Gregoire has the lead so who cares that there are thousands more (1800 in KC alone) votes then voters.
Second, are you telling me there is not a constant rant of “Gregoire won, fair and square, “Get over it” on this site and others? Sore Losers the R’s are called. All this “Rule of Law” stuff being thrown around trying to add credibility to Gregoires “Win”. implying the R”s are not applying the rule of law or living with the results of the rule of law. You call his (Shark) rhetoric deceptive and a disservice to democracy, isn’t that because it does not go along with your point of view? Do you feel the same about the liberal rhetoric spewed here for example? I forgot that’s not rhetoric, that’s facts. To suggest nopaoters ahve suggested the court case not go forward is ridiculous. I have seen that numerous times on this site. Not to mention all the “Legal Experts” that claim this case is without merit. Any reasonable person knows this case has no shortage of merit. Does it mean the R’s will win, not necassarily (I beleive they will) but this case is very legitimate. Look yourself in the mirror and answer this question; if Gregoire was trailing by 129 votes and there were thousands more votes then voters, over 400 provisional ballots were counted and mixed in with valid ballots before verification, (not to mention the potential 55,000 illegally enhanced ballots) would you not feel a new election was in order?
To suggest nopaoters ahve suggested the court case not go forward is ridiculous
Should read: to suggest “no posters have”
Comment by Christine G:
If the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory, then the court will rule for Rossi.
You think so? I don’t, I think the question before the court is not some abstract margin of error, but rather the question of fraud. When Bush was given the presidency in 2000 by the Supreme Court, it wasn’t because they thought we already had the most accurate account possible. I think Goldy’s point about random chance being used in the event of an actual tie is telling. Elections are recognized as messy business, and certainly they should be improved, but the rules are in place to determine a winner, not give a whiner as second chance.
It is telling that the Rs seem much more worried about cheaters being counted, than about voters being disenfrancised. I happen to think actual cheating and fraud is pretty rare, certainly rarer than people being incorrectly turned away from the polls.
Hi Chris (sorry you haven’t found a job):
You’re right – I can’t vouch for all the posters on this site.
Let’s just compare Goldy and Shark. Has Goldy misrepresented any facts?
Have the Democrats run deceptive radio ads regarding the election?
I don’t agree with any dismissive attitude expressed by Democrats.
Remember, Gregoire was trailing. Gore lost in 2000. I can say, with absolute assurance, that I would want a lawsuit to go forward to expose irregularities if she were trailing. I would also avoid irresponsible allegations of fraud, and evaluate her chances on their merits, not lies. Although I might feel a new election was in order (perhaps it is), I would insist that everyone simply follow the law, as was done in Florida 2000, despite the problems with the system and my disagreement with the result. And I would not find the reconcilation of votes with voters to be an issue, when it has been explained a dozen times.
Can you show me where a major Democrat has lied regarding this election?
Hi Aaron:
My understanding of the law is that, with regard to illegal votes, Rossi needs to find them and show they flipped the result. To me, this is a test of the margin of error. You may see it differently. Rossi can also show gross incompetence, which would presumably taint the result. It seems like a fair standard. I’m actually surprised that Rossi can’t come up with at least 300 solid illegal votes.
These are just preliminary statements that they’ve filed in order to show the judge that they have reasonable cause to believe evidence will turn up once the various counties’ information is made public and/or analyzed.
Yes. Yes. This is the definition of a fishing expedition, initiating a lawsuit in the hopes that “something will come up.”
Erik – I think that’s exactly what the discovery portion of the trial will hinge on. Just like getting a warrant, the Republicans are trying to show they have probable cause as support for more evidence gathering. They think the evidence they’ve drudged up so far makes their request a “slam dunk” – or even that they’ve already got enough.
Unfortunately, a lot of their “evidence”, like the military voter issue and the voter/vote discrepancy doesn’t establish grounds for conducting a contest under the relevant provisions. At least that’s my reading of it. Basically the mere presence of errors is not enough for the judge to allow the Republicans to conduct an “unlimited fishing expidition”. At least that’s the Democrat’s legal argument.
It will be interesting to see what the judge says. It’s not a slam dunk (the discovery issue) for either side.
1 – I would insist that everyone simply follow the law,
2 – And I would not find the reconcilation of votes with voters to be an issue, when it has been explained a dozen times.
Comment by Christine G— 1/19/05 @ 12:03 pm
1 – The law is being followed in thjis case.
2 – The only explanation I hav eheard, is they never reconcile and aren’t meant to. That is not an explanation nor is it acceptable. Of course they are supposed to reconcile, whether they normally do or not does not matter, the fact is they should. They do in may counties. Please show me the RCW that says it is o.k. to have more votes then voters.
BTW – I think we covered this a week or so ago. But thanks again for the concern over my employment situation but I am not unemployed and have never been. The “Unemployed Busboy” reference is play off of Goldy’s “Unemployed Real Estate Salesman” title for Rossi.
Hi Chris:
I hope Dino finds a job soon, too. I’m sure you did more credit to busboys than Dino did to real estate professionals.
The most common reasons persons who voted may not appear on the list of registered voters occur because: they cast a federal write-in ballot in accordance with provisions of the Federal Voting Assistance Program (non-registered service personnel and overseas voters); they are participants in the state’s Address Confidentiality Program (victims of domestic violence and stalking whose information is secured from public record); they were voters on inactive status who cast valid ballots, which will restore their registrations to active status (previous official government mail had been returned as undeliverable and updated address information was required to restore them to active status); they signed the poll book but voted a provisional ballot.
Is this implausible to you? It isn’t to me.
Here’s how I see it. If we have illegal votes, they need to be thrown out. The question is how many illegal votes. He needs at least 129. Whether they should be divided proportionally is a matter of opinion once he gets to that number.
If the number of votes have never equaled the number of voters in any county, and the explanation is as above – privacy, provisions of federal law, etc – I’m not sure what conclusion a reasonable person can draw. First, one can claim that these provisions of law, or the failure to reconcile, just lends uncertainty which does not preclude fraud ocurring in this very close election. Second, one can argue that it is clear evidence of fraud.
The second explanation is absurd, I think. If you want to allege fraud, you need to show at least some speculation as to who perpetrated the fraud, how it was perpetrated, etc. When this shows up in virtually every county, Republican or Democrat, it is clearly a feature of the system, not manipulation. The implication would seem to be that someone stuffed the ballot boxes in every county, and does so in every election.
As to the second, I still don’t understand the argument. Clearly some discrepancy is caused because of the provisions of law mentioned. So, if the gap was 131 votes, there would be no way to argue it was a big deal, right? If the number is in line with past figures, there can’t be any inference of fraud, it seems. You would just have to decide that someone, somewhere during the recount, took an opportunity to stuff the box with a number of bogus ballots during the hand recount. While the gap makes it less of a flight of fancy that such a thing might happen, that is far from proof of fraud. And, just as important, what is going to be done about this if we have a special election? There will still be a gap, just because of federal election law and privacy law.
Just as you say “the explanation is not acceptable,” I say “show me how these figure make it more likely the election was swayed by fraud.” I don’t see it.
Hi Erik –
I do think it’s unfair to call the Republicans’ current efforts a fishing expedition. They had a deadline to file the challenge, and a lot of data to examine. I think it is legitimate for them to continue to analyze and compile data.
This is the definition of a fishing expedition, initiating a lawsuit in the hopes that “something will come up.” – Erik
No, this is a legal thing called discovery where a judge tells King County and the other counties to stop dragging their heels and release the information upon which they are basing their public statements of a clean-and-shiny-as-chrome election. It forces them to lay their cards (or ballots, as the case may be) on the table so that both sides can properly argue what is there and what it means. Just remember that King County (as the one county we’re picking on for purposes of example), has not been the one running to the papers saying, “hey, hey our numbers don’t add up.” It has consistently been outside parties (Shark et. al.) who have raised issues that King County has had to subsequently defend.
It is like getting change at the grocery store. As you walk away from the counter, you count the money in your palm and find that it is 50 cents short. You go back to the clerk and ask why you’re short. He tells you that change almost never comes out exactly right and that his till is short every day, but that it was only 50 cents, so it isn’t a big deal. You talk to the manager and he tells you that store policy is to count change out to the customer, but that Dean (the clerk) has had a really busy day and that sometimes he takes shortcuts. But he’s willing to try and remedy the situation. As you’re talking to the manager, other customers overhear and chime in that their change has been short, too. So… now pay attention here… based on the fact that your change is short and the statements of the other customers, the store owner goes over to the register and pulls the regsiter tape to find the transactions. That is called “discovery.” The intent is to put the relevant information out there so that the facts of the case can be determined.
Hi Mark –
King County has answered all questions put to it, and even gave the Seattle Times its voter database in searchable form.
They haven’t been dragging their heels. The Republicans are certainly entitled to more time to review documents and build their case by discovery, but that isn’t because the counties have been deceptive.
But your grocery store example is really, really, really stupid. It wouldn’t even fly very well on talk radio.
Christine,
One, I agree that the grocery example isn’t stellar, but my point was to illustrate that discovery in light of a demonstrated error (or malfeasance or fraud) is not a “fishing expedition.”
Two… if I read the papers correctly, not all information has been provided, nor has it always been provided in a timely manner. If all information had been released, today’s PI wouldn’t say, “Democrats argue that Bridges should not force… counties to comply with costly records requests…”
That means that all of the requested information has NOT been released.
And I have to give you credit for your comment #34.
CG, Erik et. al…
Why no reply re: the WSR link in #7?
WAC 434-253-204(2) seems pretty clear. I honestly would like to know how one can follow the law and not reconcile at the end. The “books” should have balanced at the precinct level.
My reading of your reference is that it deals with reconciliation at the precinct level, and not the overall aggregate at the county level that may include all the types of ballots that have already been noted in other postings. It also doesn’t in any way suggest that an election be voided and a special election be conducted when through human error something like provisional ballots are mixed in with regular ballots.
In any case, I’m no lawyer, and I suspect that the resolution of the concerns you raise will be well addressed in court. I also assume that the language is not so that some whiner who presumes fraud without evidence of such gets a second chance at the rules.
My reading of your reference is that it deals with reconciliation at the precinct level, and not the overall aggregate at the county level that may include all the types of ballots that have already been noted in other postings. It also doesn’t in any way suggest that an election be voided and a special election be conducted when through human error something happens like provisional ballots being mixed in with regular ballots.
In any case, I’m no lawyer, and I suspect that the resolution of the concerns you raise will be well addressed in court. I also assume that the language is not so that some whiner who presumes fraud without evidence of such gets a second chance at the rules.
BTW, I wouldn’t have been happy if Gregiore had lost by 129 votes in the final hand count, but I do assert that I would have accepted the results, even in the face of all the blather than the Rs and the BIAW have paraded around in the media. Gregoire said before the count was in, when surely past experience would have made all of these supposed issues predicable, that she’d abide by the final hand count. No such assertion from the whiner.
Sorry about that echo. Artifact of careless cut and paste to spell check…
Hi Mark –
I’ve read WAC 434-253-203 and 204. I’m not sure I understand it, frankly. There are two reconciliations. One is contained in section 4 of each part:
—-(4) The number of ballots issued should equal the number of ballots counted plus any ballots not counted. Ballots not counted may include, but not be limited to: Provisional ballots, ballots referred to the canvassing board, ballots to be enhanced or duplicated, ballots with write-in votes, any out-sorted ballots, spoiled ballots.
Has this reconciliation been done?
The second is in subsection 2 of each part:
—-(2) The total of votes cast from each counter shall be reconciled with the number of signatures in the poll book(s) prior to transporting to the counting center. The total number of ballots reported on the results printout should equal the number of signatures in the poll book(s). Discrepancies shall be reported and explained by the Inspector.
Note: section 2 states discrepancies shall be explained by the Inspector; section 4 does not. Section 4 discusses accounting for all ballots, and requires that the ballots issued equal the number of ballots counted plus ballots not counted. It appears to me that if the reconciliation of section 4 is not done,the additional steps in subsection 5 need to be followed. However, if the reconciliation of section 2 is explained by the inspector, the steps of subsection 5 do not need to be followed. The reconciliation is to include all discrepancies, including those that cannot be resolved per subsection 6. The books don’t have to reconcile; the attempt must be made.
I don’t know what process was followed at the precinct level, and it would be interesting to know. If, however, an inspector noted that some people didn’t sign the poll book, and the ballots issued were all accounted for, that would be sufficient under the law. If there were a gap between the ballots issued and the ballots accounted for, and the precinct stated it followed all the steps in subsection 5, but couldn’t find the source of the discrepancy, the election still would be properly certified.
Aaron,
Yes, I agree that it doesn’t talk about the aggregate. However, if EVERY precinct reconciled, then the overall should reconcile, too. Right?
As I understand it, one problem is that the precincts don’t even reconcile.
I’m not saying it, by itself, is grounds for throwing out the election. But here is Websters’ say on the matter:
malfeasance: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official
wrongdoing: mismanagement especially of governmental or military responsibilities
With what I’ve seen and read so far, the precincts did not follow the explicit instructions in the law. Not sure if that is “illegal” without intent (which may or may not be proved), but wouldn’t you agree that not following the law is “mismanagment?”
CG: “The books don’t have to reconcile; the attempt must be made. I don’t know what process was followed at the precinct level, and it would be interesting to know.”
I think that is one of the things they want in discovery. I would also imagine they would have to make some sort of an “adjusting entry” on the reonciliation form in order for them to “balance.”
CG: “If, however, an inspector noted that some people didn’t sign the poll book, and the ballots issued were all accounted for, that would be sufficient under the law.”
Are you stating that as a legal opinion? It would seem to be too easy to just say, “oh, uhhhh… I saw some people not sign the book.” Also, how is it that ANYONE got to vote without signing the book??
Mark – you’re right that the Republicans requests aren’t, automatically, bogus. However, in any case the person requesting more info isn’t automatically entitled to it. The Republicans are arguing the evidence they’ve uncovered entitles them to get more documents or search through private files or compel the counties to do x or y. The Democrats are arguing that a significant portion of the Republicans evidence is inadmissable or irrelevant in proving violation of the election laws – and thus not basis for the court granting additional discovery. I don’t know which way the judge will rule.
Just like if in a criminal case the prosection argues that someone saw the defendant near a crime. The Defense will argue that doesn’t automatically give them the right to get a warrant to search the defendant’s person or property hoping to find the stolen goods. The prosecution has to prove probable cause.
So, despite what everyone on Republican talk radio or SP believes, it’s not a slam dunk that the Republicans get to go through every election record or compel the counties to produce lists of felons. It’s not about “it’s the right thing to do”, it’s about their ability to convince the judge that their evidence is probable cause (basically).
Hi Mark:
First, I don’t know the answer. However, I don’t think that the intent of the reg was to deny certification of the entire election because one precinct lost ten ballots, which is the conclusion that the Republicans are arguing. I think the reg requires the precinct to double check and explain any gaps, not that the reconciliation needs to be correct.
What happens when someone isn’t in the poll book, because of error or the voter is in the wrong precinct? Isn’t she given a provisional ballot and not required to sign the book? If they’ve been issued an absentee ballot and show up?
If they don’t sign the poll book, then that needs to be explained to the Inspector. Isn’t that the procedure?
Comment by Christine G— 1/19/05 @ 1:46 pm
You are clearly to caught up on Fraud being the only reason that justifies a new election. Errors with the best intentions can do so as well.
This is the definition of a fishing expedition, initiating a lawsuit in the hopes that “something will come up.”
Comment by Erik— 1/19/05 @ 12:21 pm
Most civil lawsuits are by definition fishing expeditions. Why should this one be held to a higher standard? Of course the discovery process is the key. There is nothing unsavory about Rossi requesting to go through discovery just like every other plaintiff has and will in innumerable lawsuits across this state.
Most civil lawsuits are by definition fishing expeditions. Why should this one be held to a higher standard?
Perfect question. The answer is RCW 29.68A et seq. which regulates discovery in election contests.
I agree that there is nothing unsavery in trying to get discovery from the auditors, lets see what the court thinks.
Hi Chris –
No, I’m not caught up with fraud – I simply don’t see the argument being made that the gap between voter rolls and votes could be a basis for setting aside an election.
BTW, 434-253-204 doesn’t require a match between registered voter and numbers of votes, which I thought was where the gap arose.
Bob from Boeing,
Yes, you can believe everything a felon tells you, like who they voted for. Isnt a ballot secret?
Washington:
Cascadia Scorecard
Evergreen Politics (D)
Washington:
Cascadia Scorecard
Evergreen Politics (D)