The Secretary of State’s office sent out a memo yesterday trumpeting a record high voter registration mark of 3.6 million, up almost 100,000 above the previous record set in 2004. But if you look closely at the numbers, it’s likely the number of new, active voters is actually considerably higher.
Since the state launched a computerized database in January of 2006, about 482,000 registrations have been cancelled or made inactive, including about 160,000 duplicate, deceased or felon voters. As of mid-October, about 713,000 new or re-activated registrations were posted during the same time period.
It remains unclear how many valid registered voters were thrown off the rolls in this massive purge—no doubt there were some—and the issue of whether Washington’s harshest in the nation felon disenfranchisement laws comprise good public policy continues to be aggressively denied the public debate it deserves. On these and other issues we’ve seen zero leadership and less than optimal transparency from Secretary of State Sam Reed. But there is also no doubt that before the implementation of the federally mandated statewide voter registration database, the various county rolls were littered with erroneous, dead and duplicate registrations.
To be clear, actual polling place or mail-in voter fraud has remained virtually non-existent, with only a handful of cases prosecuted even after 2004’s intensely scrutinized and litigated gubernatorial election contest. But our voter registration numbers have long been overinflated with non-voters and bad data, so the number of new, likely voters on the rolls is most certainly several times higher than the Secretary of State’s 100,000 figure would imply.
Everybody expects voter turnout to be higher this year, but with the credit largely given to increased interest in the presidential race, there’s been a lot of speculation about whether this would translate to higher participation in down-ballot races. But I’m guessing that with the turnout calculations based on these cleaner rolls, turnout rates will be higher across the board.
We’ll see.
Sam Reed’s (mis?)management of the voter rolls and the true nature of the purge he’s conducted seems to me to be a highly under-reported story. Please somebody point to some good links if they exist. I haven’t been able to find good information at the WA SecState’s website.
As far as I’m concerned, Reed can’t be trusted. He tried to implement the “no match, no vote” scam that was tried and canned in Florida which in practice keeps at least 10 percent of new registrants from ever being allowed to exercise their precious right to vote. He stayed out of the fray during the election contest in 2004 but then tried to atone with this scam pushed by the extreme right. Unforgivable in my book.
Vote for Osgood.
They’ll do their best but the Republicans have their work cut out for them this year in their vote suppression efforts. Here’s a list of states where they’ll make a strong effort.
http://www.salon.com/news/feat.....ion_guide/
This is good. America’s hockey mom has a new $150,000 wardrobe courtesy of the RNC:
Remember the hay the Repugs made of Edwards’ haircuts?
Neiman Marcus! Myself, I went to Ross Dress For Less last week and got three pairs of Levis @ $13.99 each, and five Dockers shirts @ $9.99 each, some underwear and socks and after spending around $150 I’m good for winter. Well almost-I need a good coat but will wait until after Christmas for a good sale.
I heard the best prices will be a week after New years. After Xmas, the stores keep their prices higher to profit off all those gift cards.
Washington does not have the harshest felon disenfranchisement laws in the nation, nor does it have the most lenient. In Washington, a felon can register to vote again after completing the prison/jail sentence, completing post release supervision (usually 1 to 3 years, depending on the sentence), and by paying all fines, court costs, restitution and other financial obligations.
There are a couple states that don’t take away felon voter rights, even when they are in prison. Other states only take away felon voter rights when they are actually incarcerated. At the other extreme, some states take away felon voter rights FOREVER, unless the person has the conviction overturned or receives a pardon.
3. Meeester Marvin Cynical spews:
I’ll bet you are a real slave to fashion KLOWN.
Are you doing “I Got It At Ross!” commercials.
How come you don’t shop at small, locally owned stores instead of BIG UGLY CORPORATE CHAINSTORES like ROSS??
You are part of the problem KLOWN.
You should be supporting small, locally owned businesses to support Community Sustainability!
Isn’t that the Progressive thing to do??
High turnout is not Dino Rossi’s friend.
The trend is not McCain’s friend. It’ll take a miracle, or at least a tremendous Republican voter suppression effort, for McCain to pull this out.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/.....ge-mvo.php
At my weekly Bible study/prayer group, we have a number of guys attending who are on Dept. of Corrections supervision. They are certainly welcome, and the “regulars” do our best to give them whatever advice/guidance we can.
One of them mentioned that he received a ballot in the mail. He’s been on probation for the better part of two years for a felony, so he’s suprised that Snohomish County still has him registered. He wondered if that meant he was okay to vote. We advised him not to, as he was still under Corrections Dept. supervision, but that once he had been released from supervision and paid all his fines & restitution, he should make sure his voting rights are restored.
By the way, he’s a die-hard Republican who thinks Gregoire uses her hair style to disguise her demonic horns, and Rossi is the crusading avenger of all that is good and holy (no, that’s not an exaggeration).
So despite the various purges of registrations, there are still quite a few people in the system who can’t legally vote. Yet at the same time, quite a few people who CAN legally vote are being purged from the roles without an opportunity to defend their registrations. Makes you wonder if the purging process is entirely random.
@1 The only safe vote in any of this year’s contests is the candidate with the (D) next to his/her name. The GOP is too far gone to trust any of its candidates no matter how moderate they pretend to be.
If there’s a significant number of invalid and/or stale registrations in the voter database (e.g., people who have died, moved away, etc.) then the turnout in recent elections has been higher than the official figure (e.g., 83% in 2004).
This also calls into question the accuracy of 1970s and 1980s media reports of low turnout (in the 40% to 50% range for presidential elections). Back then, elections offices weren’t computerized and there probably was a much higher percentage of bad registrations on file, so the turnout of actual voters conceivably could have been as high as it is now, and quite possibly actual turnout rates haven’t changed much over the years.
One thing that seems likely to happen this year is a higher turnout of young voters who likely feel their futures are on the line in this election. In the past, this has been a group that registered in high numbers but voted in low numbers, skewing polls and making Democrats look stronger in pre-election plling than they actually were at the ballot box. That may change this time because young voters have plenty to worry about — all they see going forward is dark clouds on the horizon.
@8 Stealing elections by suppressing votes only works in close elections, preferably one decided by a single state. To make it 3 in a row, the Repugs will have to mount an effort that dwarfs their caging operations of 2000 and 2004, and this time they don’t control Ohio’s election machinery. I don’t think it’s doable.
9 – Everything you said kind of points to the opposite conclusion – that it’s not random, that Sam Reed has in some way made sure that the “Gregoire has horns, Rossi is the second coming” kind of felon gets his ballot in the mail.
Roger Rabbit @ 11
Those low turnout figures for national elections are not based on registered voters, but on comparing the number of people voting to the total number of residents 18 years of age and older (voting age population).
A lot of the voting age population is not registered, or even eligible to register. Many of them are not even citizens, and some of them not even able to legally live in this country to begin with. Others are ineligible felons under applicable state laws. And some are mentally incompetent for various reasons (either legally incompetent, or not competent as a practical matter).
Turnout as a percentage of registered voters will almost always be substantially higher, than turnout measured as a percentage of the population 18 and over.
My father in law is a hard core Republican. He is disgusted with his party and is not going to vote this election. First time since WWII.
Hey wingnutz, you’re loosing your base.
Total registered voters for the primary was lower than the number of voters registered for the 2004 general election. That’s in spite of a 6.8% increase in WA population between 2004 and 2008.
I have a spreadsheet somewhere that compares those counts, by county. In general, the July 2008 count was about 97-98% of what it was in October 2004. King County was in that same ballpark.
Given Reed’s efforts to “clean” the rolls, 2004 was somewhat overinflated. I suspect that the count for the primary was overzealously low. All in all, however, Goldy’s suggestion of a surge in new registrations — overwhelmingly Democratic — is probably very well justified.
Another success of the 50-state strategy!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Berg: Due to Procedure, Obama and DNC Admit all Allegations
According to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.
On September 15, as part of his federal lawsuit contending that the Illinois senator is ineligible, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, to serve as president of the United States, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg served Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee with just such a request. Soon thereafter, on October 6, Barack Obama and the DNC acknowledged service in their motion for protective order, filed in an attempt to persuade the court to stay discovery. The Federal Rules require that a response to a request for admissions be served within the 30-day time limit, and Barack Obama and the DNC have not done so.
Therefore, this morning, amidst news reports that Barack Obama will be suspending his campaign for a few days so he can fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother, who has suddenly fallen ill, Philip Berg will file two motions in district court in Philadelphia:
A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and
A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.
Berg contends that the failure to respond and serve the response within the time limit is “damning,” and made two appearances overnight on Rollye James’ talk radio program, the second one coming shortly after midnight, during which he disclosed the meat of today’s filings and the legal and political ramifications of the defendants’ failure to respond.
“They did not file answers or objections or anything else to the request for admissions we served upon them on September 15,” Berg said to me shortly before midnight, noting that Obama and the DNC did in fact acknowledge service of the admission in their motion for protective order. “They knew the admissions were due. They knew they must object or answer specifically in 30 days. Here, they did nothing.”
Typically, requests can be used to ascertain three types of information: (1) the veracity of facts, (2) the authenticity of documents, or (3) the “application of law to fact.” Pretty much anything not privileged is fair game, and while the idea behind such a request is to obtain information, requests for admissions of facts and of the genuine nature of documents are generally not designed as a part of discovery, per se, but rather more of a mechanism used to whittle down proof later in the proceedings.
Unless permitted by the court or allowed pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, the party served with the request must serve a response within 30 days. How serious is a failure to respond? This, from PreTrial, by Thomas A. Mauet:
The automatic provision of Rule 36 makes it a formidable weapon because inertia or inattentiveness can have an automatic, and usually devastating, consequence. Hence, there is one cardinal rule for practice under this provision: Make sure you respond and serve the response within the 30-day period.
Given the “usually devastating” consequence of failure to respond in time to a request for admissions such as those served upon Obama and the DNC on September 15, just what were some of the admissions that Berg asserts Barack Obama and the DNC have, at least procedurally, admitted to?
Admit you were born in Kenya.
Admit you are a Kenya “natural born” citizen.
Admit your foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
Admit your father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., admitted Paternity of you.
Admit your mother gave birth to you in Mombosa, Kenya.
Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.
Admit the COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
Admit you were adopted by a Foreign Citizen.
Admit you were adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
Admit you were not born in Hawaii.
Admit you are a citizen of Indonesia.
Admit you never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain your U.S. Citizenship status.
Admit you are not a “natural born” United States citizen.
Admit your senior campaign staff is aware you are not a “natural born” United States Citizen.
Admit the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
Admit you are ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
This is, however, by no means a slam dunk for Philip Berg, as there are several options for Barack Obama and the DNC at this point. The first, and most obvious, is the seemingly watertight argument that pursuant to Rule 26(f), a request for admission may only be served after the conference for the purpose of planning discovery detailed under that rule, and therefore the 30-day time limit on Berg’s request has not yet begun. Here, though, Berg could feasibly argue either that the request for admissions is not a true discovery mechanism and is actually meant to streamline the future need for discovery, or that the defendants’ acknowledged service of the request in their October 6 motion for protective order and failed, at that time, to specifically object or answer. The second option for the defense, somewhat related to the first, is that the motion for protective order rendered the requests null and void, but Berg may argue that the protective order effectively staying discovery was never issued by the court. Yet another option, still easily foreseen, is that Obama and the DNC could file a motion to withdraw admissions which have been deemed admitted. In order to file a motion to withdraw admissions deemed admitted by default, a party must show (1) “good cause” regarding why there was no response and (2) that such a motion to withdraw would not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff. Here, Berg could contend that Obama and the DNC failed to meet those standards, that they cannot show “good cause” for failing to answer or object, and that withdrawing the admissions would cause undue prejudice.
Still, for Berg, the issue is clear. He simply wanted answers or objections, he said, and instead received nothing. Rule 36, according to Berg, is fairly cut-and-dry.