Dog taken off voter rolls -- after three elections (Washington State. Of Course)

The Times of India ^ | July 12, 2007

[Stoat]

Dog taken off voter rolls -- after three elections
12 Jul 2007, 0539 hrs IST,AP

SEATTLE: A dog has been taken off voter rolls after receiving absentee ballots for three elections, said officials in King County, Washington.

Elections Director Sherril Huff said she cancelled voter registration Tuesday for Duncan M McDonald, the Australian shepherd-terrier mix owned by Jane K Balogh.

Balogh, 66, registered her pet to protest a change in the law that she said made it too easy for non-citizens to cast ballots.

Balogh put her telephone in the dog's name, then used that as identification when she mailed in the registration form in April 2006. In November she wrote "VOID" across Duncan's ballot and returned it with an image of a paw print on the signature line.

An election official called and she admitted what she had done, but the dog still was sent absentee ballots for school bond elections in February and May.

"Quite frankly, the process did take too long, and it should have been addressed after the November election," said Bobbie Egan, an elections office spokeswoman.

County election procedures are being reviewed to provide speedier action "whenever fraudulent activity is apparent," Egan said.

The removal came three weeks after Balogh was charged in King County Superior Court with making a false or misleading statement to a public servant, a misdemeanor. A sheriff's investigator wrote that she admitted registering the dog under false pretenses "to make a point that anyone could vote, even an animal."

[Stoat]

I posted this version from The Times of India to illustrate the international interest in this story and also because most local press sources would have required extensive, heavy editing in order to be post-able at Free Republic.

Some other sources:

FOXNews.com - Dog Removed from Washington State Voter Rolls After 3 Elections - Politics Republican Party Democratic Party Political Spectrum

The removal came three weeks after Balogh was charged in King County Superior Court with making a false or misleading statement to a public servant, a misdemeanor. She pleaded not guilty to the charge in June.

A sheriff's investigator wrote that she admitted registering the dog under false pretenses "to make a point that anyone could vote, even an animal."

A preliminary court hearing was pending.

Local News Dog taken off voter rolls Seattle Times Newspaper

Balogh has pleaded not guilty to a gross misdemeanor charge of making a false statement to a public official by signing a declaration in Duncan's name saying he was over 18 and a U.S. citizen.

Her attorney, Kristen Anderson, said Balogh deserves a better deal than that offered to people who fraudulently cast more than one vote in an election.

Canine removed from voter rolls

[Stoat]

Readers might also be interested in this story from 2005

5-Year-Old Summoned to Jury Duty (THREE times in 2 years..you guessed it..WASHINGTON STATE!)

[elli1]

My dog has better sense that most of folks who vote down in Madison.

[Fresh Wind]

The dog must have been registered as a democrat, otherwise he would have been removed immediately.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Actually, he was registered as a Republican.

The owner pleaded guilty to making a false statement.

A news article about her trial was posted on FR a few weeks ago and I was dumbfounded by the number of FReepers who thouht what she did was OK.

[agere_contra]

I was dumbfounded by the number of FReepers who thouht what she did was OK.

What she did was completely moral. It showed up a systemic problem with American vote registration. Moreover it was hilarious. So of course the humorless American state machine tried to crush her like a bug. And, I'm sorry to say, you appear to be ok with that.

[LukeL]

Today when I got blood work done I was required to tell them my name and date of birth inorder to make sure they didn't mix up the lab results.

Doing this at the polls would be a great way to end much of the voter fraud. But if you make up a name and info it pretty much renders the point moot.

[HEY4QDEMS]

So you are OK with Democrats, dogs, cats, goldfish, illegal aliens, etc filing fraudulent voter registrations so long as they’re only trying to prove a point.

After all, you just indicated that such an act is moral.

[NurdlyPeon]

Actually, he was registered as a Republican. The owner pleaded guilty to making a false statement.

Why, was the dog actually a Democrat?

[HEY4QDEMS]

So of course the humorless American state machine tried to crush her like a bug.

Voter fraud is a felony which could result in several years in prison, her charge was reduced to misdemeanor making a false statement for which she was fined and given a short probation.

Hardly what I would call crushing someone like a bug.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Why, was the dog actually a Democrat?

Hell no!, dogs are too smart to be Rats.

[Captain Rhino]

You may also recall that the election of present governor of Washington State (a Democrat) was very close and turned on late arriving absentee ballots cast primarily in King County (the location of very liberal Seattle). IIRC, a post-election investigation revealed a lot of phony registrations for absentee ballots. Using absentee ballots to perpetuate this type of fraud is much easier as no one has to ever show up anywhere in the process from registration to voting.

Whenever confronted with situations like this, election officials (inevitably Democrat) usually justify their reluctance in removing someone from the rolls to not wanting to deprive anyone of their right to vote. Personally, I think it would be kind of handy for a political party to have several thousand “guaranteed” votes in its pocket. Of course, you wouldn’t use such a tool unless a critical race or ballot initiative turned out to be particularly tight. And it helps if you control the election management process as well. Sure, you EVENTUALLY will purge the rolls of the dogs, children, illegal immigrants, felons, and imaginary people. That way, you can say you are doing due diligence in performing your duties. But not before you get a couple of elections worth of use out of them. And if some OUTSIDER, like this woman, comes along and embarrasses you, you just charge her with making a false statement to a public official and have your co-conspriator...err, the King County prosecutor ... take her to court.

I wonder what did happened in the King county case? Seems it just ... went away. How odd. Not!!

[Captain Rhino]

Not quite.

The county prosecutor's office offered to charge Balogh only with a misdemeanor and to agree to a sentencing recommendation of a one-year deferred sentence, a year of probation, 10 hours of community service and a $250 fine if she pleads guilty. If she doesn't, the prosecutor's office will charge her with a felony.

Guess we will find out today what happened in court yesterday. I got the impression from the articles that she and her attorney were going to plead not guilty.

[Captain Rhino]

Sorry. Forgot the source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/323167_dog11.html

[Moonman62]

Actually, he was registered as a Republican. The owner pleaded guilty to making a false statement.

That makes sense. The owner was doing a protest. All the dogs that are registered Democrats are still voting.

[HEY4QDEMS]

I got the impression from the articles that she and her attorney were going to plead not guilty.

The article that I read quoted her as saying that she knows she broke the law and intended to plead guilty.

[HEY4QDEMS]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PU3GL80&show_article=1

[Uncle Chip]

Voter fraud is a felony which could result in several years in prison, her charge was reduced to misdemeanor making a false statement for which she was fined and given a short probation.

The point is that the dog just registered but didn't vote. No harm was done to the political process in making her point.

Contrast this with all the fraudulent votes that are cast every year in King County by people who are registered under three and four different names --- but they go after the dogs owner instead of the real criminals. Wooof !!!

[G Larry]

How do we get the dogs off of the Ballots?????

Let’s work the important issues!!!!!

[TheShadows]

the owner really takes Yellow Dog democrat seriously.

In the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century, yellow dog Democrats were voters in the U.S. Southern states who consistently voted for Democratic candidates because of lingering resentment against Republicans from the Civil War and Reconstruction periods. The term arose from the notion that a Southerner would vote for a yellow dog before voting for a Republican