Posted on 04/14/2005 7:45:37 PM PDT by Publius
If English bookies were handicapping the Washington election contest, they would be revising the odds in Dino Rossi's favor. After last week, I'd take those odds. Secretary of State Sam Reed, who had been seen as defending King County during most of the five months since the election, is now calling for an investigation and suggesting there's been a cover-up. After discovering 94 uncounted ballots, King County admitted last week that the canvassing board certified the November election on the basis of documents that falsely showed that all ballots were properly accounted for.
And then there's what I might find later this week when I (hopefully) receive some more documents in response to a public records request. These documents could explain away various discrepancies as innocent and irrelevant errors, or, as I suspect, deliver a fatal blow to the validity of the November election.
I've been reporting since January that the number of absentee ballots counted in King County was hundreds more than the number of absentee voters who have been identified as having voted, even though these numbers are supposed to match.
On February 22, I sent Dean Logan, Director of Records, Elections, and Licensing Services Division in King County, a public disclosure request for, among other things, "all documents pertaining to the reconciliation of absentee ballots and absentee voters from the November 2004 election." The only document his office delivered in response to that specific request was a "Mail Ballot Report" they gave me on March 7, which appeared to prove that every absentee ballot that came in the door was either valid and properly counted or invalid and properly set aside. But I noticed that the numbers in the Mail Ballot Report didn't square with other numbers the county published and I immediately suspected it was falsified.
As I argued on my blog last Monday and in this column later in the week, the discovery of the now 94 uncounted ballots was convincing proof that the Mail Ballot Report had to have been falsified. This report, which supposedly accounted for all returned absentee ballots, but somehow omitted any mention of 94 missing ballots, could only be a fake. It turned out that I was right. On April 7, King County admitted the report was based on a fictional ballot accounting that was "so flawed it was virtually meaningless."
Seeing my suspicions confirmed about the 94 ballots leads me to believe that when the rest of my public records request comes through (they're taking their time with it), it will become clear that King County's mistakes will make it impossible for Christine Gregoire to continue claiming she won the election fair and square. Reed even hinted that I'm looking in the right places. He told me he's "dismayed" that King County hasn't given a proper accounting for its ballots. He's also disappointed that every time King County has found a mistake, instead of admitting it, they have "essentially covered it up."
They can't cover it up much longer. State election rules require counties to keep a detailed audit trail with the date that every absentee ballot was returned and whether it was counted as valid or the reason why it was rejected. A spreadsheet with this information would settle this lingering controversy within hours, assuming of course that it proves that all ballots returned and counted really were accounted for.
Indeed, King County seems to be covering up the documentation showing whether or not the absentee ballots were properly accounted for. These documents are of vital public importance to help settle questions about the election one way or another. I'm prepared to go to court to obtain them. I hope that won't be necessary.
Maybe gay folks are learning to shoot straight for a change.
bump
A couple of good stories in recent days- I had almost lost hope.
Otherwise, one thing I'd like to see in future would be an election-law provision stating that if a revote is ever made necessary by an excessive number of fishy ballots, the cost of the revote should be paid for by counties in proportion to the number of fishy votes originating therein. Note that this would give Democrats an incentive to look for fishy votes in Republican counties; if they failed to find many, that in and of itself should be interesting.
Judge Bridges has ruled that a revote for governor would violate the state constitution. Relief in this case would consist of voiding the election, declaring the governorship vacant and putting the governorship on the fall general election ballot.
Regrettably, Gregoire's signature on bills stands. She was "legitimately" elected under the law and took the oath of office as governor, so under the law she is the legitimate governor -- until the court says otherwise.
BUMP!
I mailed another letter off to the U.S. Attorney General's office practically begging them to investigate this election. I told them that if they needed more info to visit soundpolitics.com
I also heard that KIRO had a phone in poll and 75% of the 53,000 respondents said they wanted a new election.
Hank,
I received one of those from the Sec of State's office:
-----Original Message-----
From: Pharris, Ingrid [mailto:ipharris@secstate.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:19 PM
To: 'scottschu@comcast.net'
Subject: RE: Elections in WA
Dear Mr. Schumacher,
To ask Secretary Reed to "RESCIND his certification, INVESTIGATE the problems" would actually be asking him to do something illegal. According to Chapter 29A.60.250 of the Revised Code of Washington, Secretary Reed was constitutionally mandated to certify the election results in December.
"As soon as the returns have been received from all the counties of the state, but not later than the thirtieth day after the election, the secretary of state shall make a canvass of such of the returns as are not required to be canvassed by the legislature and make out a statement thereof, file it in his or her office, and transmit a certified copy to the governor."
Regardless of any election errors that might occur under a certain county's jurisdiction, the Secretary of State does not have the authority to refuse certification. RCW 29A.60.130 states that "No certificate shall be withheld on account of any defect or informality in the returns of any election." Keep in mind that if Secretary Reed had chosen not to certify the governor's election, not only would he have broken law, but he would have denied the Republicans their right to contest the election.
Please be aware that the Office of the Secretary of State does not have the regulatory authority necessary to investigate discrepancies occurring at the county level. All investigations must be made with the cooperation of the counties. Secretary Reed cannot and will not investigate problems happening in a county without the full cooperation of that county's Executive and Council Members.
Thank you,
Ingrid G. Pharris
Constituent Relations Assistant
Office of the Secretary of State
(360) 902-4151
PO Box 40220
Olympia, WA 98504
The Washington State Republican Party is paying for the election challenge. They have spent or will have spent 2.5 million by the trial in May. We could use donations. www.wsrp.org
Rossi has said that he does not want the court to appoint him into the governorship because that would open up the whole "selected, not elected" issue. Were that to happen, Rossi has said he would work out a deal with the legislature for a special election for governor -- and then he would resign the governorship to put the special election into effect.
Kudos to Stefan Sharkansky who has determinedly stayed the course on this. I hope Justice comes to pass here soon.
The 'rats' are just that. . .they are first, professional hypocrits. . .and then professional criminals. And they are professional 'noisemakers'. . .
Regrettably, Gregoire's signature on bills stands. She was "legitimately" elected under the law and took the oath of office as governor, so under the law she is the legitimate governor -- until the court says otherwise.
I've wondered about this... and the more I think about it, the more interesting the question becomes. The judge has said that he only has the power to void the election and vacate the office (putting the LT Gov in charge). But if he's vacating the office, he's also implicitly saying that the office was *never* occupied, isn't he?
This would imply that anything signed by that vacated Governor would have to be either co-signed by the Lt Governor (now the legitimate Governor) or would be otherwise implicitly vetoed.
I dunno. But it remains a very interesting legal question.
I recognize his concerns. But I would think that there would be some level of fraud where a reasonable person would say that there's no plausible way Gregoire really won. I don't know if THAT level of fraud would ever be shown, but if it were I'd hardly begrudge Dino Rossi for simply accepting the governorship. Hard to say what level of fraud should be required for him to take such action, though.
Maybe I'm not seeing our govt in Washington DC support you
good people the way I think they should but I'm proud to see
the "citizens" stand up. I'm as proud of you as I am the minutemen in Arizona. Just maybe America is becoming strong
again.
She knew. . .they all knew. . .Washington Demrats, knew. . .
It is a travesty; but then the these Demrats live, cheat. . .steal. . .and die; by the 'Utilitarian' mo. . .
Remember how hard it was to get the Clinton's out of the White House - post term. . .delays. . .rude delays (while the WH was trashed/vandalized. .) .
Can only imagine the exits scenes on this one. . .I hope someone is watching. . .and taking notes. . .they will have to 'debug' the place as well. . .
sack seattle.
It's good to point out the voting fraud, but this will change nothing.
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.