Posted on 12/14/2004 5:38:37 PM PST by JosefK
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Count votes that count
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
The Washington Supreme Court Tuesday reached a unanimous and sound decision in rejecting the Democratic Party's request to effectively alter state election law by judicial fiat.
It is, of course, impossible to know which gubernatorial candidate would have profited had the court ordered all 39 counties to include in the hand recount ballots that had been previously rejected. Democrats presumably believed the change would have benefited their candidate, Christine Gregoire. But it doesn't matter who would have benefited (this newspaper endorsed Democrat Gregoire). The justices' reading of the law seems unquestionable in this case.
A "recount" is just that.
The ruling did not question, however, county elections boards' option of "recanvassing," or re-examining and counting ballots that may have been erroneously rejected before they could be counted.
King County's canvassing board is expected to do just that with 561 ballots presented to it today.
According to King County Elections Director Dean Logan, his office failed to follow through on the verification of absentee ballots with signatures that initially were rejected because the voters' signatures on them didn't match signatures on file in the electronic database. The 561 ballots need to be re-examined to determine if they are legitimate and, if so, counted.
Nonetheless, allegations of fraud and "stolen" elections are unjustified. The outcome will not be settled by taking "to the streets" as one partisan suggested. This is not Ukraine. The high court has done well by adhering to the law of the land. King County is doing well to tally the ballots of those who obviously may have been disenfranchised. The process is working, albeit slowly.
The "kind" of vote you are talking about is highly suspect. They have had months to find these votes and now, suddenly, when it looks like the Dem will lose, they find 561 ballots that were rejected because of signatures or so they say. The offical that claims he found his ballot among the others that were refected just happens to be, wait for it, a Democrat!!! Wow, isn't that strange. These votes should be thrown out under the ruling the court made today because they are votes that were not previously counted and were initially rejected. There are rules and laws for bringing suit after the count to try to legitimize these ballots. They should not be counted and if the election board that is to decide whether they be counted or not was impartial they would not be. Hopefully the courts will do something about this also.
HOW THE HELL DID THIS HAPPEN?
ARE OUR OBSERVERS EATING BROWNIES AND SCRATCHING THEMSELVES? OR ARE THEY DOING ALL THEY CAN?
AND WHEN, NOT IF, WILL MARUMMY FILE A LAWSUIT TO THE US SUPREME COURT TO STOP THIS?
OH, I'M FIT TO BE TIED...
By the election board IN KING COUNTY.
I'm somehow disposed to treat this 'mistake' regarding the election official's ballot as p.r. showing that it was a 'mistake' for all 561.
The fix is in.
How do you know these votes were valid? They were rejected by both Dems and Gops, without anyone knowing which candidate (if either) was selected on the ballot.
The votes weren't valid according to BoE standards, and the only reason to try to change the decision is because some people don't like the result. That's the real perversion of our electoral system.
Mind you..., I didn't say that all of them were valid. I was pointing out the "really obvious" discrepancy -- which should never be allowed no matter which candidate one is voting for.
So, the one kind that I was talking about was where the one "official" found his own vote rejected when he was a valid voter. Now, wouldn't that get you pissed off??!! It sure would me! And that's the problem. How on earth did that happen? That's the kind of thing which should never happen in any circumstance.
What was the reason for rejecting the ballot? Well, from what I understand from the news report that I saw -- was, very simply, the election board (or whoever it was checking the ballots), didn't have the original "signature" (on hand, right there) to verify the signature. Therefore since they didn't have it, they rejected it. HOWEVER, the signature was there (again, according to the official whose vote was rejected). So, all that happened, which "rejected" this vote was that somehow the local election board "lost" (or "misplaced") a signature that they werre required to have on hand in order to verify that "said signature"!
Again, mind you..., the signature "was there" -- but just not "right at hand" at the point of "validation".
What's the problem with that?
Well, that kind of thing is so, so full of "fraud" (written all over it), in which an election board can make a "mistake" by simply "deleting" a signature which was there in the first place (and still in their records, "originally").
Can you see the problem, here? "Oh well, we lost the signature you used when you signed originally -- so we're going to 'invalidate' your vote!" Just think of it in terms of your vote, you see...
Again, no one is to mistake these statements for getting dead people to vote, or voting in multiple precincts, or "manufacturing" votes. This has nothing to do with that.
You also said -- "The votes weren't valid according to BoE standards, and the only reason to try to change the decision is because some people don't like the result. That's the real perversion of our electoral system."
Therefore, you're saying that according to the standards, all I've got to do if I want to legitimately invalidate your vote is simply "lose" your original signature, and there's nothing you can do about it. Your vote will never count and it's just fine?
I'm sorry, I don't go along with that kind of "invalidation". It's not legitimate in any case, no matter which candidate you're for. That is not "solving" problems -- that is simply creating more fraud in the long run.
I would favor firing the entire staff for "losing" the signatures -- rather than saying "Those are the standards that we're abiding by."
Regards,
Star Traveler
And, you know..., I might agree with you, that it would be "P.R." for that side, in order to try and get in more "illegitimate votes."
BUT, the thing that one has to keep in mind here -- is that we cannot allow this type (as exempified in this news piece) to ever happen, or you open the door -- wide open -- to all sorts of fraud. That door should be slammed shut and people should be fired over it.
No matter how many other votes are illegitimate, don't let those illegitimate votes in. But, if someone is really registered and it's a mistake by the election board that they are disqualified (by the board's own admission, by the way), then you have to allow that particular vote.
Again, note here..., I'm talking about a kind of "vote" that can very well be used against any party, depending on who is in control of the mechanism. And I think people should be fired or kicked out of office for allowing that to happen at all.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Basically, under current rules, Rossi won twice. Therefore, the democrats need to change the rules, any rule, or else they lose again.
Of course, I'm not tring to defend the "idiots" who may be working overtime to try and get the losing side elected (in spite of the vote).
I just think that if one closes up all the loopholes that can be manipulated (and we need to really, really do that before the next major elections) -- then one can prevent one particular side (who is prone to this kind of manipulation) from achieving victory from fraud. That's the main idea here.
But, I think you knew that anyway...
I think Republicans should be at the forefront of creating an airtight system which allows everyone to vote (who really wants to vote), and not allowing dead people to vote -- or -- multiple voters -- or -- creating voters out of thin air.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Hey, did you hear, officials found 22 uncounted ballots in King county? They were "discovered" in the bottom of a ballot box(s). Isn't that a shocker? Well, we better get those 22 votes into the third and final count.. but not until the signatures are verified by a crack team of Gregoire supporters.
Yeah, well - we need to draw a line. We need to make an offer to Gregoire that either a) Runoff election as per 872 or b) US Supremes, constitutionality of a hand recount.
Enough's enough.
See post #1
You don't know why that ballot was rejected. In my district, I rejected the ballot of a well known politically active woman who filled out the ballot with checks instead of filling in the oval, and didn't sign it. My Dem partner agreed that it was invalid. The Board of Election worker just laughed and said that she never filled it out correctly. I suspect that the BoE found some way to count it, but they shouldn't have.
Any pol should at least know how to fill out a ballot. We wouldn't get our votes counted under the same circumstances.
BoE's don't lose signatures often. It's more common that people change their names (as in women who marry or divorce) and don't tell the BoE (they don't get that information unless you tell them explicitly), or anyone who decides to change their signature to first initial and middle name or some such. Would you just assume that a voter registered as Myron Smith is the same person who voted as M. Jack Smith? No M. Jack Smith is registered - you might have not only Myron, but Michael, Mark, and Matthew Smiths registered. Which one cast this vote? Or was it someone else entirely?
Well, first of all, we're talking about that specific one, as an example of what can happen and what did happen. Then secondly, it was on the news with both the voter and the agency handling the votes saying what happened (watched them say it myself). And therefore, then -- thirdly, the agency admits guilt and says it was their mistake and that they didn't have the signature handy (at the point and place of inspecting the ballot) -- all of that says -- I do know (as much as I know the sun rises in the morning) what the problem was.
You have "both sides" agreeing on what happened. That's called an "open and shut case." So, on this particular count, I have to differ with you.
As a last note, the ballot was not opened, but completely sealed. The issue had only to do with the agency lacking a signature (on their own behalf, and at the point of inspection), to verify the signed ballot (or rather, the sealed envelope which contained the ballot).
Regards,
Star Traveler
Do you think there is enough misconduct to disqualify the second recount being done by King County?
Well, I guess one could say that. Simply saying it, however, doesn't give it any credibility, as a working theory.
What does give it credibility -- is -- the fact that the agency who handles the ballots admitted their mistake. So, on the one hand, you have the "aggrieved voter" whose ballot was rejected for no good reason, and then on the "opposing hand" (i.e., the "other side" who handles the ballots), saying basically, "Sorry, we were wrong on this."
Thus, when one finds the aggrieved party and the perpetrating party -- both agreeing to the so-called (and obvious) wrong and what happened -- that pretty much settles it in a court of law (if they were to testify).
Now, if you were to come into that "court of law" (for example), once the aggrieved party and the perpetrating party both agreed to the wrong committed -- and then said -- "But wait, there is a conspiracy going on here... [and so on] -- you would have to have some pretty heavy-duty evidence to back it up, or it would go nowhere and your statement would get thrown out as nothing but hearsay or idle chatter.
So, that's where it stands right now on your statement -- in regards to that one particular event.
As far as what all -- else -- is happening in the election, that's another story for another thread. I'm not commenting on all else that is going on. I can just see that a lot of things need tightening up, and this one example is a good one for tightening those things up.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.