Judge Sides With Democrats in Provisional Ballot Dispute in Washington's Biggest County

AP ^ | 11/12/2004 | Peggy Andersen

[TheConservator]

The rest of the story pertains to an unrelated Indiana race.

The judge's decision is, of course, outrageous. Washington State currently has a tight governor's race where the Republican, Rossi, is ahead of the DemocRat, Gregoire, by just a few thousand votes.

All ballots must be treated equally. But the judge has just given the DemocRats an "extra chance" to make certain (likely DemocRat) provisional ballots count--one that the judge did not extend to other provisional ballots from other counties that are more likely to favor Rossi than Gregoire.

I guess some votes are just more equal than others.

[weshess]

IT is pretty funny that the Judge doesn't know what a right is. There is no right to vote, the Constitution allows for the states to decide how they would apportion their electoral college votes.

[Cicero]

Democrats demanded that the county not discard hundreds of provisional ballots and give the party - and the voters - a chance to fix technical problems, such as not signing the ballot envelope.

A well chosen word, indeed.

[wyattearp]

And if the ballots were rejected because absentee voters ALSO tried to vote at the polls, do we get to prosecute?

[Northwesterner]

yah, yah ,yah... AND IT ALL COMES DOWN !!!

(taking a line from Fleetwood Mac's "Dreams")

I say, dream on, ITS OVER! liboRATS.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No right is more precious than the right to vote...

Huh, that's funny.

The Bill of Rights, maybe?

[sayfer bullets]

No right is more precious than the right to vote...

...ask any fetus.

[crabpott]

Who is watching the rars'? Did Lum make 'em stay in the other room or do they get to listen in on the conversation?

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Precisely!

[Northwesterner]

oops!

That was to be "Gypsy" not "Dreams"

anyhow, should go to the "Backroom" now. (lol)

[Diplomat]

The Bill of Rights, maybe?

The right to vote is in the constitution, just a bit later than your guess.

Amendment XIV
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Individual voting rights are also covered by Amendments 19: Women can vote in 1920, 23: Washinton DC, 24: No poll tax, and 26: Right to vote at 18+ years in 1971.

[inthemuddle]

Democrats demanded ...

If the story is right the judge seems to have winged it.

Look at his reasoning, (1) it wasn't much trouble for the election officials, (2) open government is a good principle.

As to (1). The law states how the election is to be conducted and who has the authority to evaluate if the voting was proper. And that law doesn't say judges or political parties do it. I sincerely doubt if it says election officials can be ordered to do whatever isn't too much trouble.

And (2) is correct but not relevant. The secret ballot is a legal exception to the open government laws. There are others.

Further, all election law says that eligibility and the rules for voting must be set prior to the election. And the ballot (in whatever condition) is the only guide to what the voter intended.

Lastly, there was no allegation that the election officials actually erred, violated the law, or were about to.

I suppose this judge will next give out the names of people who registered but did not vote. Then some of them can swear they did vote but their signature magically is missing from the roll. Jeez!

p.s. I can only comment on general election law and the story as written. But this looks like the kind of ruling that drives legal conservatives mad.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Don't expect any help from Washington courts. They're all elected by the same far-left radical RATS who elect practically everyone else in this state. We'll have to win in spite of them, for we have no chance for fairness in this state.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Sorry for the confusion.

I was merely attempting to prioritize what I view as our fundamental constitutional rights as citizens.

I realize that granting suffrage to previously disenfranchised groups was an important step, I just don't buy into the theory-peddled by seemingly every Marxist demagogue and Ivory Tower idiot-that it supersedes any and all other rights recognized by our Founding Fathers.

I tend to agree with Robert Bork on the issue of the due process clause of the Constitution, which I think has been grossly abused by the federal judiciary over the past fifty or so years.

[ethical]

The Republicans will have equal access to the provisional ballots won't they? I worked the polls two years ago and we had maybe two requests for provisional ballots. This year I was a poll watcher and there were over 100 requests at one site, over 40 at another. Talk about a red flag. I'm sure this provisional ballot thing is a Democratic trick but if Republicans have access to them also and they all turn out to be Democrats who requested provisional ballots they'll have a good case for voter fraud I think.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Ping.

[sevry]

Judge Dean S. Lum said it would burden the county little to release the names, and that state law favors openness in government. "No right is more precious than the right to vote," he said.

Dean Lum. What about the - right to life? Doesn't that trump the right to vote?

This guy has allowed the names and phone numbers to be released of those whose provisional ballots WERE DISQUALIFIED! So what happens now - somebody who wasn't registered in that precinct now suddenly is retroactively registered? Someone who voted absentee, or voted somewhere else, now gets to vote a second time? What could possibly be the point of releasing those names so that Dem activists could man phone banks to call them up? Who now watches over the validity of those voting or re-voting via provisional ballot?

Time to get rid of these things - period. I HATE provisional ballots!

[sevry]

the names of about 900 voters whose provisional ballots are in dispute

In dispute. Again - these were disqualified. Someone filled out one of these things. And the vote was denied for cause.

[vox_freedom]

A neighbor who lives across the street from me and worked at the polls Nov. 2nd related this story about one of these provisional ballot examples. She said a woman came in, said she was from California visiting her daughter and wanted to vote. She didn't "recall" her California address, nor did she have handy her daughter's address where she was staying. The person in charge of the polling place said to allow her to vote and it would be considered a provisional ballot.

This is what we are up against folks...

[Crawdad]

Don't go looking for something you're not going to be glad you found.