USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Colossus 2]

Nobody will do anything really dramaticly until something REALLY bad is happening.

People are so short-sighted

If we don't do anything now it might be late when people realise that they have to do something.

Waiting on the Kyoto protocol is just bullshit to me.

[EiZei 0]

People are so short-sighted

Quite a broad statement considering the nation that is refusing to sign the damn treaty has less than 10% of the world's population.

[Colossus 2]

Ok... Maybe your right.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/20/bush.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Monday he will submit a federal budget that will half the deficit in five years and maintain strict spending discipline.

"We will provide every tool and resource for our military, we will protect the homeland," Bush said. He said he would "maintain strict discipline in spending tax dollars."

In the 17th news conference of his presidency, Bush was pushing his second-term agenda.

Bush said he will submit a federal budget that will cut the deficit in half in five years and maintain strict spending discipline. His fiscal 2006 budget is due to Congress in February.

"We will submit a budget that fits the times. It will provide every tool and resource to the military, will protect the homeland, and meet other priorities of the government," he said.

With a growing number of lawmakers, including Republicans, voicing no confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Bush defended his Pentagon chief.

"Beneath that rough and gruff no-nonsense demeanor is a good human being who cares deeply about the military and the grief that war causes," Bush said, batting away criticism that Rumsfeld had not personally signed condolence letters to the families of troops who have died.

Rumsfeld agreed to Bush's request this month to stay in the Cabinet during the president's second term and has won repeated votes of confidence from the White House since.

Critics have raised questions about whether enough U.S. troops are in Iraq to bring security for the elections. More than 1,300 American troops have died since the war began in March 2003. Also, soldiers have complained about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment.

Rumsfeld agreed to Bush's request this month to stay in the Cabinet during the president's second term and has won repeated votes of confidence from the White House since.

Bush pointedly acknowledged that Iraqi troops are not ready to take over their country's security, and cautioned that next month's elections there are only the beginning of a long process toward democracy.

"I certainly don't expect the process to be trouble-free," Bush said.

"The elections in January are the beginning of a process and it is important for the American people to understand that," he said.

He said "I would call the results mixed" on a U.S. effort to put Iraqi security in the hands of its own people.

"When the heat got on, they left the battlefield -- that is unacceptable," he said. "We are under no illusion that this Iraqi force is not ready to fight in toto."

On Social Security, Bush said he recognized that there would be "difficult choices" but he wouldn't lay out specifics until Congress has a chance to address the issue.

"The first step in this process is for members of Congress to realize we have a problem," he said. Without any changes, Social Security would begin paying more in benefits than it takes in by 2018.

"The first step in this process is for members of Congress to realize we have a problem," he said.

Bush defended his close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has had disagreements over the war on terror and, more recently, over the disputed elections in Ukraine.

"The relationship's an important relationship and I would call the relationship a good relationship," Bush said, adding that he's talked with Putin about getting Russia admitted to the World Trade Organization.

Bush also said he work toward giving both Russia and the United States equal access to nuclear storage sites.

Over the years, Bush has toned down criticism of Russia's campaign against separatist rebels in Chechnya, and Putin has acquiesced to U.S. troops being stationed in Central Asia, close to Moscow.

But earlier this month, Putin said he could not imagine how Iraqi elections that the Bush administration scheduled for January 30 could be held under "conditions of occupation by foreign forces," a reference to the United States.

Bush also defended his failed nomination of former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik to be the Homeland Security secretary. The controversy over the nomination raised questions about the ability of the White House to fully vet its nominees.

"In retrospect he made the right decision to pull his name down," Bush said. "The lessons learned is continue to vet and ask questions."

Bush didn't tip his hand about who might be nominated to be the new national intelligence director -- a post created by the largest overhaul of U.S. intelligence-gathering in a half century that Bush signed into law last week.

The new law creates a national intelligence center and a powerful new position of national intelligence direction to oversee the nation's 15 separate intelligence agencies.

"I'm going to find somebody who knows something about intelligence," Bush said, "and capable and honest and ready to do the job."

Let's see if he can actually keep up with that spending cut.

Also note that Rumsfeld is accepted well in the Whitehouse. But if I were Rummy, I'd be careful. If things go really bad, then Whitehouse can also sacrifice him, since he was indeed the architect of invasion.

kinda funny that CNN is also reporting a news that seems to promote thriftness and service to nation.  :

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/20/shipbuilding.santas.ap/index.html

[shinRaiden 0]

Back to the elections engineering in Washington State...

Among several other counties, King County has posted a list of voters and residences online for anonymous access of ballots which were marked invalid and not counted in the general election or in the first recount.

When the list was publicized, King County Council chairman Larry Phillips (Democrat) was shocked to discover that his own ballot was invalidated. This discovery launched the current campaign by the Democratic party to add ballots to an already certified election.

Furthermore, as these ballots (originally some 200+, then 500+, now 723 'found' ballots, plus 22~23 more 'found' today) were originally invalidated, they were not kept in the same secured, monitored location that the remainder of the ballots were kept in. There is no physical security records for these ballots since they were recieved nearly two months ago.

Quote[/b] ]

According to details found in a King County staff report prepared by Bill Huennekens, a chronological history of the ballots follows the discovery of the error up to our current situation.

May

King County decided to make an effort “to locate the voter’s original registration card, or the image of their signature†in order for a ballot to count.

August

“In August 1, 146 letters were mailed to voters who did not have a signature in our system.â€

“In August, 101 of these voters [from the batch of 573 ballots] were sent letters asking them for an updated signature because we did not have a signature on file in our system and they did not return a signature on the letter.â€

September

King County conducted the primary election and did not count votes without a signature on file.

October

Voters without signatures on file were again “sent a letter asking for an updated signature.â€

· “If the voter sent back the completed letter, the signature was compared and the ballot accepted if the signature matched.â€

· “If the voter did not return the letter, the ballots were kept secured in the vault and not tabulated and no research was done to find the voter’s original registration form.â€

November

As ballots were returned to the County, each “was reviewed again and researched.â€

At the time of certification for the General Election, the ballots in question “were accounted for in the mail ballot report as signature mis-comparisons.†Therefore, the Canvassing Board voted not to count these and other ballots with signature problems.

No one raised this issue during the first count, or the machine recount.

December

King County Council Chair Larry Phillips learns his name is on the list of ballots not counted. Suddenly, King County’s position changes 180 degrees and Logan and Huennekens begin their current frantic efforts to make these previously rejected ballots count.

A lawsuit was filed in Pierce County regarding the addition of previously untabulated invalidated ballots, and the Superior Court Justice made a very clear and strong ruling that such additions were illegal following the certification of the election after the machine recount. The judge also noted that the current recount is a post-election challenge, and is thus limited in scope solely to the ballots tabulated and retabulated in the general election. This ruling has been appealed by the Democratic Party to the State Supreme Court, which will hear the case on an expedited basis Wednesday, Dec. 22nd.

In light of this case, the King County Elections Canvassing board voted to table any ruling on the inclusion of invalidated ballots until after the State Supreme Court rules. A ruling would come down on the 23rd at the earliest, but would likely extend the physical calendar time requirements to complete the challenge recount out to next week due to the holidays.

In light of the continued harrassment and subversion of the election system by the Democratic party and their operatives in the elections department, a rally is scheduled for Tuesday, Dec. 21st at 4pm at the State Capitol. In an interview this past weekend, widely respected former Washington State secretary of state Ralph Munro warned that voter confidence is rapidly eroding over the continued engineering, and that it may be time to consider an unprecedented special election.

In an Elway research poll over the weekend, 52% of the state said that if any disputes remain after this second recount, a special election should be called for. 26% were content with judicial arbitration, and 12% would leave it up to the legislature to pick the next Govenor. If the second recount were to shift the favor to the Democrat Gregoire, 51% said that Republican Dino Rossi should call for a new election, even if Gregoire were to win by more than 100 votes (currently behind by more than that, all projections suggest that it would be either side of a tie - within ~100 votes.)

[theavonlady 2]

I was going to suggest randomely killing 300 Washingtonians as a prep for the next election but then I realized that statistically you're likely to kill about 50% Reps and 50% Dems anyway, so what's the use!

Say! Did you see that John F. Kerry did not win New York State after all? Here's the official NYS Electoral College certificate - I kid you not!

[shinRaiden 0]

New York (Avon's)

Massachusetts

FEC Candidate filing for John F. Kerry

No matches in Google Phonebook...

[SpongeBob 0]

Minnisota' was a f'up as well: (know it was posted before)

[shinRaiden 0]

- Washington State Govenor's race -

Went to the rally this afternoon at the state capitol, I know a few particular people drove over 200 miles to be there. There was little immediate media coverage, I suspect it will be in the papers in the morning. There was a pile of people there filling the Capitol steps.

Additional details came out today about further irregularities.

King County has a long history of mailing ballots to people on the elections mailng list who do not also have a valid voter registration on file. When those ballots are recieved, historically they have been counted even though there was no signature on file to compare with.

Because of the increased scrutiny in this election, they were forced to play by the 'rules' this time and set aside any technically invalid ballots. The general tabulation and the state-mandated recount (due to the close margin) was completed and the General election certified and closed the last week of November.

The final results from that certification showed Republican Dino Rossi winning the Govenor's race by 42 votes. Democratic party observers then called for a challenge recount, which is to tenetively conclude tomorrow. In the course of this recount, the King County elections board mentioned that there were a number of 'mistakes', 'errors in validation', etc., that allegedly incorrectly invalidated ballots. To date there has been at least 9 seperate 'discoveries', half validation questions, and half un-documented ballots. All of these were not secured at any time after initial processing due to being ruled invalid.

When the list of invalid ballots was published as part of the public records, it was discovered that King County Councilman Larry Phillips' (D) own ballot was among those disqualified. The canvassing board, comprising a Democrat-nominated member, a Republican-nominated member, and the Elections director (appointed by and accountable only to the County Council) voted 2-1 to begin the process of immediately validating these ballots using alternate data sources. The decision to actually include these ballots was postponed until after the State Supreme Court rules tomorrow.

Late-night leaks from reports compiled by Democratic party observers at the King county elections warehouse suggest that the lead has actually shifted to Democratic candidate Christine Gregoire, but with only a lead of 8~10 votes over a real tie. This does not include the tabulations of the pending invalid ballots, nor is it actual official King County numbers.

Additionally reports are circulating that four or five other counties may have had individual cases where they merged in invalid ballots into their certified results. It is unknown if they retained records allowing them to be able to remove those ballots if the Supreme court rules it illegal, or if there is provision to correct that following the county's certification of tabulation.

Anyway, the Washington State Supreme court will hear arguements regarding the appeal of the restraining order in Pierce County (that has state-wide ramifications) tomorrow (22nd) at 09:30am local time (GMT -8) (12:30pm ET (GMT -5)). It will be carried live by C-SPAN, not C-SPAN2 like the prior hearing.

[shinRaiden 0]

C-SPAN coverage of the Washington state supreme court's hearing begins now...

Streaming Video here: c-span

Justices Sanders, Bridge, and Fairhurst are off on holiday, Judge C. C. Bridgewater from the 2nd division of the State Court of Appeals is sitting in as Justice pro-tem.

Statutes under question:

29A.60 Canvassing.

29A.68 Contesting an election.

Specifically this section is being debated...

Quote[/b] ]

RCW 29A.60.210

Recanvass -- Generally.

Whenever the canvassing board finds that there is an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns of a primary or election, the board may recanvass the ballots or voting devices in any precincts of the county. The canvassing board shall conduct any necessary recanvass activity on or before the last day to certify the primary or election and correct any error and document the correction of any error that it finds.

[2003 c 111 § 1521; 1990 c 59 § 64; 1965 c 9 § 29.62.050. Prior: 1951 c 193 § 1; 1917 c 7 § 1, part; 1913 c 58 § 15, part; RRS § 5315, part. Formerly RCW 29.62.050.]

NOTES:

Intent -- Effective date -- 1990 c 59: See notes following RCW 29A.04.013.

Voting systems: Chapter 29A.12 RCW.

The Democratic position is that the canvassing boards 'have the discretion to recanvass any and all ballots' at any time in any recount.

The Republican position limits support of that claim to the time frame from the general election on Nov. 2nd through certification of the state-ordered machine recount on Nov. 30th.

This section is also being picked over...

Quote[/b] ]

RCW 29A.04.139

Recount.

"Recount" means the process of retabulating ballots and producing amended election returns based on that retabulation, even if the vote totals have not changed.

[2003 c 111 § 124. Prior: 2001 c 225 § 1. Formerly RCW 29.01.136.]

- edit -

Court has just recessed for deliberations.

- edit -

What is the legal residence of the homeless? Answer: The county elections office.

SoundPolitics

Quote[/b] ]

Precinct 1823

Crunching the data in the King Ukraine County voter registration file, I came across precinct SEA 37-1823, or simply Precinct 1823, located in downtown Seattle between Elliot Bay and I-5 near the James St. exit.

Precinct 1823 has 763 registered "Active" voters. 527 of them list as their residence address 500 4th Ave -- the King County Administration Building. 241 of these voters specifically note their apartment number as #553, which is the room number of the ... King Ukraine County Records and Elections office.

Over 300 of these alleged "voters" give 500 4th Ave. (with or without the Elections office room number) as both their residence and mailing addresses. Several of the other Elections Office residents give overseas mailing addresses, such as Anuj Rathi of Mumbai, India, Rayko Suzuki of Tokyo, Japan, and Pascal Engi of Bern, Switzerland.

Another 48 of the Precinct 1823 "voters" give as their residence address 511 3rd Ave, which appears to be some sort of private mailbox service.

And then there are the two Messrs. Harder -- Mike Harder of 509 3rd Ave. Apt. 507, who registered to vote on April 28, 2004 and Michael D. Harder of 509 3rd Ave. Apt. 507, who registered to vote on July 20, 2004. Both Messrs. Harder are flagged as permanent absentee voters.

465 (61%) of the Precinct 1823 voters registered during 2004 and nearly all of them "live" at 500 4th Ave. By contrast, only 13% of all of King County voters registered in 2004.

3 members of the List of 573 Magical Mystery Voters are from Precinct 1823, 2 of whom "live" at the Elections Office.

In the machine recount, Precinct 1823 gave 203 votes to Gregoire and 87 votes to Rossi, for a net Gregoire lead of 116 votes.

The only way for Christine Gregoire to win the governor's race is to carry Precinct 1823 in a landslide.

UPDATE: Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens explained that the residents of the Elections office are "homeless individuals", and that there is a special section of the administrative code which allows for that. He sees nothing unusual in the fact that some of these so-called homeless individuals also give mailing addresses elsewhere. I asked him what the county did to verify the identities of individuals who list the elections office as their residence and he said that they can't be treated any differently from anybody else. I take that to mean, that anybody on the planet who wants to vote (or vote again) can simply claim to be a resident of the King County Elections office.

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]

THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON

NO. 7 6 3 9 9 - 2

WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN

PARTY, an unincorporated association;

CHRISTOPHER VANCE, a citizen of

Washington State; and JANE MILHANS,

a citizen of Pierce County, Respondents,

v.

KING COUNTY DIVISION OF

RECORDS, ELECTIONS AND

LICENSING SERVICES; and KING

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD Petitioners,

and

WASHINGTON STATE DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL

COMMITTEE, Intervenor-Petitioner

SECRETARY OF STATE SAM REED,

Intervenor-Petitioner

ALEXANDER, C.J.—During the hand recount in the 2004 Washington State election for Governor, the King County Canvassing Board discovered that some 573 ballots had been coded by election workers as having “no signature on file†after the workers found no signatures of the voters casting those ballots in the County’s electronic elections database. But the workers had failed to check for signatures elsewhere, such as the voters’ original registration forms, the archive of images from the County’s old electronic registration system, and the registration records maintained by the Secretary of State. At its December 15, 2004, meeting, the canvassing board decided to recanvass these ballots pursuant to RCW 29A.60.210 to determine whether the failure to count the ballots in the Governor’s race was erroneous. The next day, the Washington State Republican Party, Christopher Vance, and Jane Milhans filed in Pierce County Superior Court this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the canvassing board and the King County Division of Records, Elections and Licensing Services, and sought a temporary restraining order prohibiting recanvassing of the 573 ballots. On December 17, 2004, after a hearing on the request for a restraining order, the Pierce County Superior Court issued the requested order. The court concluded that “RCW 29A.60.210 does not apply in this context.â€

Now, the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, an intervenor below, seeks direct review of the superior court’s order, arguing that the King County Canvassing Board properly concluded that RCW 29A.60.210 permits recanvassing of the 573 ballots. (Note 1) The canvassing board joins in that request, as does the Secretary of State, who is the chief elections officer of the State and who also intervened below. We grant review and reverse the superior court.

This hand recount of ballots came before the court very recently in a case involving whether a recount necessarily involves a recanvassing of previously-rejected ballots. In our decision in that case, issued December 14, 2004, we held that under Washington’s recount statute, “ballots are to be ‘retabulated’ only if they have been previously counted or tallied, subject to the provisions of RCW 29A.60.210.†(Emphasis added.) The quoted language, referencing the “recanvassing†statute, RCW 29A.60.210, acknowledges that under proper circumstances a canvassing board may decide that ballots should be recanvassed before certification of a recount. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s Director of Elections, Nick Handy, has provided this court with a detailed declaration explaining how other counties have already employed RCW 29A.60.210 to count votes from ballots not counted in the original returns for this election. Our prior opinion did not hold that the recanvassing statute may not be employed by canvassing boards during a recount. (Note 2)

The question here is thus whether RCW 29A.60.210 authorized the King County Canvassing Board to recanvass the 573 ballots in question. RCW 29A.60.210 provides in part:

Whenever the canvassing board finds that there is an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns of a primary or election, the board may recanvass the ballots or voting devices in any precincts of the county.

Since this statute permits recanvassing, the statutory definition of “canvassing†is also pertinent. RCW 29A.04.013 provides:

“Canvassing†means the process of examining ballots or groups of ballots, subtotals, and cumulative totals in order to determine the official returns of a primary or general election and includes the tabulation of any votes that were not tabulated at the precinct or in a counting center on the day of the primary or election.

And although our election statutes do not define “returns,†RCW 29A.60.120(3) provides that the “official returns†are “[t]he returns produced by the vote tallying system, to which have been added the counts of questioned ballots, write-in votes, and absentee votes.â€

As noted, the King County Canvassing Board says that these 573 ballots were previously coded by election employees as having “no signature on file.†The board has now concluded that this designation may have been in error, since election workers failed to check the signatures against voter records on file, as required by RCW 29A.40.110(3) and King County rules for this election. The board has therefore decided to recanvass the ballots and correct any such errors that it finds. Respondents suggest that there may have been some impropriety involved in this decision, or that the ballots involved might have been tampered with, but point to no facts supporting such a conclusion. (Note 3) The question becomes whether the type of error thus identified amounts to “an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns†of the election, as contemplated in RCW 29A.60.210.

This court has issued but one opinion construing the recanvassing statute. See State ex rel. Doyle v. Superior Court of King County, 138 Wash. 488, 244 Pac. 702 (1926). The version of the statute then in effect permitted the opening of voting machines to recanvass the vote “whenever it shall appear that there is a discrepancy in the returns of any election district ….†In Doyle all votes tallied, but some returns were not made in both words and figures and in ink, as required by statute.

Given these facts, this court found it “quite evident that there is no disagreement or discordance upon the returns made by the precinct officers.†Informed by a dictionary definition of the word “discrepancy,†it concluded that “[a] discrepancy referred to by the statute would be something to indicate that an error or a mistake has been made; that the total as shown is not a true one.†Doyle, 138 Wash. at 492. By way of example of such discrepancies, the court said that

[t]here is no claim that there is any difference between the number of persons who voted and the number of votes cast. Neither is it claimed that any total shown on any return is incorrect…. Nor is there any claim that if the counter compartment were opened it would show details different from those contained upon the returns. Nor is there any claim that the returns as made are actually incorrect.

Id.

Here, by contrast, the canvassing board has concluded that the returns as made may indeed be “actually incorrect.†The board also says that further examination of the ballots under question may well show details “different from those contained upon the returns.†When election workers found no matching signatures for these ballots in the county’s electronic voter files, the ballots were apparently set aside to check for signatures elsewhere, including original paper registration forms. But this was never done. Instead, the ballots were described to the canvassing board and not counted in the returns as votes.

Respondents would have us narrowly construe “an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns†to mean only an arithmetic error disclosed on the face of the returns. But this is contrary to Doyle, which speaks in terms of “incorrect†returns and returns at odds with other evidence. Moreover, since the statute permits recanvassing, it is instructive to remember that canvassing involves “examining ballots or groups of ballots, subtotals, and cumulative totals in order to determine the official returns,†RCW 29A.04.013. Here, certain ballots were coded as having “no signature on file†without having been fully examined to properly place them in that category. In that sense they were never fully canvassed, and the seeming error in placing them in any category has become evident to the King County Canvassing Board. Under Doyle this is just the sort of apparent discrepancy or inconsistency that the board can correct through recanvassing. (Note 4)

It thus follows that the superior court erred in granting a temporary restraining order, and that the King County Canvassing Board properly concluded that it had authority to recanvass the subject ballots pursuant to RCW 29A.60.210. Based on the law as declared in this opinion, respondents are not entitled to injunctive relief. Therefore, the superior court’s “Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause†is reversed and vacated, and the cause is remanded to the superior court for entry of an order of dismissal forthwith.

CHIEF JUSTICE

1 The Washington State Democratic Central Committee initiated this review by filing a notice of appeal directed to this court, a statement of grounds for direct review, and a motion for accelerated review. Because the superior court’s decision is not a final judgment or other decision subject to appeal under RAP 2.2(a), we redesignate the Democratic Central Committee’s notice as a notice for discretionary review. RAP 5.1©. Thus, the superior court’s decision is subject to review under the criteria of RAP 2.3(b).

2 While RCW 29A.60.210 requires recanvassing prior to certification of an election, and RCW 29A.60.190 speaks of certification occurring on the fifteenth day following a general election, it is clear to us that whenever a recount occurs, amended abstracts are certified that supersede any prior abstract of the results. RCW 29A.64.061. The statute does not define “certification,†but the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of State make clear that certification involves the preparation and transmission of abstracts of votes to the Secretary of State. See WAC 434-262-010, -020, and -080.

3 The King County Canvassing Board has stated that these ballots should be kept separate and secure, and we agree that this shall occur.

4 Our decision accords with the only analogous out-of-state authority cited to us, Comley ex rel. Harrison v. Wilson, 116 Conn. 36, 163 A. 465 (1932). The court there held that in using the phrase “discrepancy in the returns†the legislature “could hardly have intended only a discrepancy apparent by comparison of the respective votes cast for the different offices or officers as they appear in the moderator’s return.†Comley, at 42. Rather, the legislature must have intended reference to the figures giving the total number who have voted, “for only in this way could there be any definite information indicating the failure of the machine to register votes for the candidates as a whole or for those of any one party.†Id.

King County has scheduled to release the results of their re-canvassing of the election as requested by the Democratic Party this afternoon by 15:30 local time (-8 GMT), or in about 1 hour from this posting. Early reports suggested that tabulations completed without these suspect ballots would give the lead to Democrat Christine Gregoire, but by only 8~10 votes. If a 60-40 split is applied to these ballots (consistent with King County at large) Democrat Christine Gregoire would be ahead by about ~100 vote. Results on targeted recanvassings have been running higher, closer to about 70-30 or more to the Democrat's favor.

From comments made in the proceedings this morning, it is expected that regardless of which way that the results turn out today, the election will be contested. It was requested by the Washington State Republican Party that the counties be ordered to maintain a list of the recanvassed ballots to expedite the process of a legislative or judicial election contest, no such provision was given in the ruling.

-edit-

King County Dept. of Elections has just announced that they will release the preliminary unofficial results (without the newly authorized recanvassedballots) today at 15:30 local time. The canvassing board will then meet tomorrow morning at 10am local time to vote 2-1 (see prior posts as to why) to approve canvassing those ballots. The board will then meet again at 15:00pm tomorrow the 22nd to vote 2-1 to certify the election results.

--------------

The reason for this mess goes back to state law, and King County mismangement. There is no provision for statewide voter registration in Washington State, theoretically a person could register once in each of the 39 counties with a forwarding Post Office Box as there is no inter-county verification. Maintanence of voter registration lists is solely up to the jurisdiction of the counties.

In 1997-1998, King County awarded a contract to digitize and automate the Dept. of Elections records including Voter Registration databases. The implementation and migration was an unmitigated disaster, and was not fully online until after the 2000 elections.

Like many other areas throughout the country, King County had a massive amount of new or changed voter registrations this year. These registrations were supposed to be digitized and entered into the system. These 500~700 invalidated ballots were those that were from voters that did not have a record in the system, but a 'matching' card was on file somewhere. Because a manual verification of the voter-provided registration card was not originally verified, these ballots were initially invalidated, under a new policy adopted only this past May. Previously, the ballots were tabulated without confirmation of voter registration data.

In at least one documented case, one of these 500~700 ballots was cast under the registration of a voter who has resided in another county for several years, has been unsuccessful in removing her name from the King County records, and submitted a sworn affidavit that at no time did she cast the alleged ballot.

[shinRaiden 0]

From the Seattle Weekly:

Quote[/b] ]

Retabulation 2004

"It will never, ever again happen," King County Executive Ron Sims said of election snafus. Unfortunately, he said that in 2003, after technical glitches and human errors led to delays and uncounted ballots in 2002. Here we are again. The outcome of the gubernatorial election teeters on hundreds of votes lost and then found in King County's still-flawed counting process. If the supposedly improved system functions this poorly, how bad was it earlier? Is Sims really executive? Was Greg Nickels actually elected mayor? Are Judy Nicastro and Heidi Wills still Seattle City Council members? The new monorail was approved in 2002 by just 877 of 189,000 votes—or was it? In the primaries, especially, margins are often narrow. In their 17th District Democratic race this year, for example, Pat Campbell nudged Ilene Ferrell by a mere 88 votes. Or so tabulators say. The thin margin separating mansion hopefuls Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi has exposed us to the sausage-making reality of vote inexactitude, layered with the hypocrisy of both candidates (every vote counts unless it was cast for the other candidate) and the rhetoric of state party officials: top Democratic hack Paul Berendt ("Dino Rossi is a thief") and GOP gasbag Chris Vance (the Dems are either "colossally incompetent or totally corrupt"). Why don't they both sit down and shut up? As it is, voters will forever wonder who really was elected. Maybe we're better off with the position vacant. No one has earned it, and we could use the savings to pay for election reform that puts deserving candidates in office. Can that be retroactive?

[denoir 0]

Enjoying your monologue shinRaiden?

[shinRaiden 0]

My entire point (admittedly belabored), spreading back to the Presidential Election thread, is that either you take the elections seriously and rationally - and all of them, or you sit back and grab a bowl of popcorn and watch the show.

I had a lengthy chat with a good friend of mine over the weekend about this whole mess, and the electoral year in review, and he (voted for Kerry, and is an ardent liberal) admitted that he got overly sucked into it and all worked up, and lost his cool and sense of reason at several times.

For all the hype and paranoia about chads and conspiracies leading up to the election, it seems to me that much of that was artifically contrived. Where's the activism and concern here? There are several serious issues outstanding here agreed to by all parties:

* Absence of inter-jurisdiction unified voter registration

* Proven inaccuracies in electronic electronic elections records

* Structural conflicts of interest in elections departments

* Inconsistent ballot verification and certification policies

So for all the doom-and-gloom prognosticators, here's your conspiracy. Where's the observers? Where's Michael Moore? Where's the outrage? Where's the media coverage? Washington State has an estimated population of over six million people, and is home to several of the top national and global corporations - Microsoft, Starbucks, Costco, Nintendo (US Operations), Valve, Boeing's civilian operations, and a host of other businesses. The office of Govenor is most certainly not that of Dogcatcher, but is fraud or gross negligence overlookable even for Dogcatcher?

The Main-Stream Posters (MSP) had a field day running wild with conspiracy theories earlier this year, now here's your conspiracy. Merry Christmas.

-update-

Unofficial numbers from King County dept. of Elections show that with an adjustment of +47 votes for Gregoire and -12 for Rossi, Republican Dino Rossi is behind statewide by 9 votes. This does not include the previously invalidated ballots which will be added in tomorrow.

[denoir 0]

Well, it probably averages out in the long run. You got the presidential elections in 2000 on very dubious grounds. Now the same methodology applied (i.e supre court decision) is giving you results that you don't like.

Were you personally as vocal in 2000?

As far as I'm concerned your system is very flawed on two accounts:

1) No error margin on your elections. Any normal election system recognizes the statistical error of the counting process and has a reasonable errror margin. Outside the margin = re-election.

2) Politically appointed supreme court justices. This little "feature" you share with assorted banana-republics. It is not normal that the heads of the judicial branch are political appointments. The law is supposed to be a level above all that.

Bottom line, why so surprised? You do not seem to have objections about the system in general, but only when the results arn't to your liking. Tough luck.

[shinRaiden 0]

0) I was off in a remote part of Japan in 2000, my contact with the process that year was not much more than filling out my ballot and mailing it back.

1) Which is why this is going to be contested or run-off, and the legislature is threatening to revisit the whole elections management laws and do major overhaul on them. Democratic majority in the State House and Senate.

2) Washington state voters directly elect the State Supreme court, court of Appeals, and county Superior court justices, however the State Supreme court ducked a number of issues in both cases on 'vagarities' of law, and returned the decisionmaking to appointed administrative elections boards.

[denoir 0]

0) I was off in a remote part of Japan in 2000, my contact with the process that year was not much more than filling out my ballot and mailing it back.

I'm sure you formed an opinion following the controversy. I don't remember you objecting to the procedures in place in the prelude to the election. You were even personally involved in the election process which affirms your support for the system.

So again, it looks to me that you are willing to look the other way when the results of this flawed process works in your favour while you loudly objects when the fallout is different. Bottom line is that in a closly contested election the fallout is pretty much random. There is a margin of error here which decides the election in one way or another. And the organization of the judicial system allows the outcome be dictated by the opinion of people with a political agenda.

Quote[/b] ]1) Which is why this is going to be contested or run-off, and the legislature is threatening to revisit the whole elections management laws and do major overhaul on them. Democratic majority in the State House and Senate.

It should be revisited as it allows random statistical errors in the counting process to decide the outcome of elections.

Quote[/b] ]2) Washington state voters directly elect the State Supreme court, court of Appeals, and county Superior court justices, however the State Supreme court ducked a number of issues in both cases on 'vagarities' of law, and returned the decisionmaking to appointed administrative elections boards.

It is far better that neutral officials set up regulations than people with a political agenda.

[ralphwiggum 6]

I had a lengthy chat with a good friend of mine over the weekend about this whole mess, and the electoral year in review, and he (voted for Kerry, and is an ardent liberal) admitted that he got overly sucked into it and all worked up, and lost his cool and sense of reason at several times.

And same for the otherside. They viciously spewed out unverified claims, made false allegations. What are they doing now? nothing. they are sitting back and just doing nothing eating popcorn.

If you remember, after results from the presidential election was tabulated in, the TBA supporters were in height of euphoria. One member complained about how liberal this forum is and said it shouldn't be so since VBS is funded by DoD.

Quote[/b] ]Where's the activism and concern here? There are several serious issues outstanding here agreed to by all parties:

* Absence of inter-jurisdiction unified voter registration

* Proven inaccuracies in electronic electronic elections records

* Structural conflicts of interest in elections departments

* Inconsistent ballot verification and certification policies

So for all the doom-and-gloom prognosticators, here's your conspiracy. Where's the observers? Where's Michael Moore? Where's the outrage? Where's the media coverage?

as denoir said, where was this concern in 2000 for GOP?

And why are YOU concerned with Washington State governor race right now? Because you want your side to win. If you are so worried about the integrity of the election system, let Democrats get their chance in court, and let the ball roll on its own.

I'm thinking that if democrats were causing enough ruckus with Moore and media covering this like a hot issus the GOP supporter's response would be, 'Those democrats are sore losers.'

oh wait, that's what they already said when the lawsuit was filed.

[shinRaiden 0]

I got involved in the system because I wanted to be more involved than in just the process. So far I've been able to yank the chains of quite a few people and stick my nose in lots of places.

I agree with you completely that margins this close are infinently ambiguous. Both sides here are loudly claiming "Count every (valid/legal/deserving) vote", but when following up on the dubious ballots, the script was "Hi, I'm a pollster for the Dem/Rep party, did you vote Dem or Rep?", then if friendly help them out with their affidavits. One of the one's I skipped from my town was interviewed in the paper the next day commenting how the Democratic party had done the same thing.

The result is that when the parties start looking after 'their' voter's interests, they're not looking after the interests of the 'voters' at large. A couple of the justices alluded to that in the hearing this morning when they asked the attorney if he was seeking relief for the voters at large, or just a select group of voters. I along with many other Democrats and Republicans would rather see the Republican candidate lose in honest and transparent elections with standardized rules, than see the Democrat win in uncertainty and potential illegetimacy.

-----

There are two options now. One is to contest the election, either before the courts or before the legislature. This involves taking all the ballots down to either location, spreading them out on a table, and voting on them one at a time with evidence, witnesses, and hearings to determine them. The results however will still be within the statistical margins of error.

The other option is to have a special run-off election in January or February. The major problem with that though is that they will still be using the suspect voter registration records. Any attempt to clean up the records either locally or as part of merging into a central state records will be aggressively litigated on grounds of potential disenfranchisement, which the federal Supreme court would have interest in.

In many (but not all) counties the county Auditor/Elections director is directly elected. Not so in King County. In King County, the office is directly appointed by the County Council, and the director sits on the three-person canvassing board. I would have as much problem with the conflict of interest if it were all Republicans involved as it is here with all Democrats.

A lot of people think that the State Secretary of State has jurisdiction over the local elections, but in reality all he does is make recommendations and sign-off on what the counties give him. This leaves the local counties to make autonomous and independent decisions.

There's a lot of political theory, history, opinion, and postulation that goes into the study and arguement of the old Big state - Small state debate and balance, and it is a constant battle. Whether you win or lose can often be determined by who shows up, and who sticks around.

[shinRaiden 0]

This is a supplementary concurring opinion from Supreme Court Justice Tom Chambers. An excellent synopsis of the court's theoretical role in the elections process.

Quote[/b] ]

No. 76399-2

CHAMBERS, J. (concurring). I concur fully in the judgment and reasoning of the court. I write separately to express my view on a broader subject. I have observed a recent trend of political interest groups seeking judicial intervention before matters are placed on the ballot, before the people vote, and before election officials have fulfilled their duties to canvass and count the votes. See Maleng v. King County Corr. Guild, 150 Wn.2d 325, 76 P.3d 727 (2003) (pre-election challenge to initiative); Philadelphia II v. Gregoire, 128 Wn.2d 707, 911 P.2d 389 (1996) (same); MacDonald v. Secretary of State, No. 76321-6 (Wash. Dec. 14, 2004); cf. Sane Transit v. Sound Transit, 151 Wn.2d 60, 104-06, 85 P.3d 346 (2004) (Chambers, J., dissenting). This trend perhaps was exacerbated by Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2000).

In my view, there is little to commend judicial intervention into the electoral process before the process is complete. First, the necessary procedures of judicial decision making do not lend themselves to instant resolution of electoral issues. Our procedures are based upon a deliberative and adversarial process. Proper judicial decision making requires notice and an opportunity for interested parties to be meaningfully heard. At the trial level, we engage in discovery, evidentiary hearings, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. At the appellate level, we must be thoughtful and deliberate both to insure a just and correct result in the instant case, and because our decisions set precedents for the future.

Judges should never shy from their constitutional duties. Any election or ballot measure, including resolutions, initiatives, referendums or the election of officials, which violates constitutional, federal, or state laws may, in due course, be declared void and unenforceable by the judicial branch. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."); see also Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 191-92, 11 P.3d 762 (2000) (striking unconstitutional initiative). But courts, in my view, should be reluctant to issue temporary restraining orders or grant emergency review of election matters before election officials have had sufficient opportunity to fulfill their duties. Because we play a part in a government of separated powers, we are not a Council of Revision, routinely advising the other branches as to the constitutionality of proposed laws. James T. Barry III, Comment, The Council of Revision and the Limits of Judicial Power, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 235 (1989) A trip to the court house should not become a customary election routine.

We have, however, in barely more than a week heard two cases involving Washington's 2004 gubernatorial election. While it may be perceived that one case was resolved in favor of those representing the Republican party, MacDonald v. Secretary of State, and one resolved in favor of those representing the Democratic party, the two decisions are consistent and well grounded in sound principles of separation of powers and good government. In each case this court has declined to issue writs to elections officials instructing them how to fulfill their duties. I fully support this court's action in the 2004 gubernatorial election, but in the future courts should resist requests that we oversee the election process. This takes us to the second reason why courts should be wary of entering these disputes; to maintain proper separation of powers.

The legislature should make the law, the courts should interpret the law, and the executive should execute the law. The legislature has empowered county election officers and canvassing boards to administer elections. For courts to micromanage elections officers is to inappropriately blur the executive and judicial functions of government.

Our legislature has established a comprehensive body of laws detailing how elections should be conducted. So long as those laws are constitutional, the courts are obliged to enforce those laws. There is a certain amount of subjectivity inherent in the legislatively established process of comparing signatures and counting absentee and provisional ballots. See RCW 29A.60.210. The legislature, probably in recognition of this inherent subjectivity, has given local county election officials the authority and the discretion to recanvass ballots or voting devices until the last day to certify the election. RCW 29A.60.210. Should election officials fail to carry out their duties within the law; there are procedures for challenging the results. See ch. 29A.68 RCW (contesting elections). This temporary restraining order should not have been granted

by the trial court. I concur.

[denoir 0]

Hehe: http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

Quote[/b] ]

Fuck the South. Fuck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.

And now what do we get? We're the fucking Arrogant Northeast Liberal Elite? How about this for arrogant: the South is the Real America? The Authentic America. Really?

Cause we fucking founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about? All that bullshit about what you think they meant by the Second Amendment giving you the right to keep your assault weapons in the glove compartment because you didn't bother to read the first half of the fucking sentence? Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were fucking blue-staters, dickhead. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the fucking monuments are up here in our backyard?

No, No. Get the fuck out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and fucking Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those fucking stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for fucking blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten their fucking Subarus together and broken off from New York a little earlier. Get it? We started this shit, so don't get all uppity about how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for almost a hundred years" dickheads. Fuck off.

Arrogant? You wanna talk about us Northeasterners being fucking arrogant? What's more American than arrogance? Hmmm? Maybe horsies? I don't think so. Arrogance is the fucking cornerstone of what it means to be American. And I wouldn't be so fucking arrogant if I wasn't paying for your fucking bridges, bitch.

All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it’s a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice.

The next dickwad who says, "It’s your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. That’s right, motherfucker, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It’s too easy, asshole, they’re blue states. It’s not your money, assholes, it’s fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own fucking stop signs, assholes.

Let’s talk about those values for a fucking minute. You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you fucking Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? It’s fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that’s right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think that’s just some aberration? How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to fucking guess? 10 of the top 10 are fucking red-ass we're-so-fucking-moral states. And while Nevada is the worst, the Bible Belt is doing its fucking part.

But two guys making out is going to fucking ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little bastards. Oh, but that's ok because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? Cause we fucking get to hear about it every goddamn year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're fucking towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us fucking Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous assholes? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the fucking Northeast Liberal Elite. And who has the highest murder rates in the nation? It ain't us up here in the North, assholes.

Well this gravy train is fucking over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass.

And no, you can't have your fucking convention in New York next time. Fuck off.

[shinRaiden 0]

Heh, thanks for the funny read. Made my Christmas day. That and my mom gave me "God and George Bush" today too. There's too many moss-heads here in Seattle, and the grumpy people up north don't get enough sunshine or something. I got to go down to Houston for four days for my cousin's wedding, it was the most relaxing, refreshing vacation I've had in a long time. Wide roads, and wide smiles.

I used to live in Florida west of Tampa for a while, yeah it was a swamp, but it was a nice happy swamp (except when the gators are hungry). My aunt still lives just outside of Atlanta near Stone Mountain, got to go there twice when I was little. The pecan tassies, all the different types of citrus and tasty fruits, the homemade key lime pies, warm sunshine and critters, the friendly generosity and hospitality of the neighbors, it was wonderful.

But the very best part about the south is the fireflys. Take a jar with holes in the lid, sneak out after bedtime, roam the neighborhood barefoot (watch out for fireants and slimey toads though) and chase the fireflys up and down the street. By far one of the most enjoying things to do.

[EiZei 0]

O'Reilly must have been reading denoir's replies lately apparently..

Quote[/b] ]

O'Reilly: I want you to counsel me, pastor...I'm sitting here, I'm fighting this ferocious battle against people at this juncture who want to change America, all right? They want to change it to de-emphasize religion, they want a country like Sweden where less than ten percent of the population goes to church. Now I believe the Founding Fathers wanted religion in the public marketplace as a behavior deterrent because they knew they couldn't control the population, and they felt that a faith-based population would be more likely to behave. Very practical.

So I'm fighting against these secularists and they're sliming me, they're smearing me. Okay? So I can't go around like you with a happy face all the time, I gotta hit these people right between the eyes. I gotta have negative thoughts because they're bad people and I'm fighting. It's like a war. So I'm not really doing what you advise, am I?

Free healthcare, 200 years of peace, low domestic violence and no religious fundamentalists?

The horror.. the horror..

[llauma 0]

Hehe: http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

Great link Denoir.. Truly hilarious reading

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/23/rowland.investigation.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]NEW HAVEN, Connecticut (AP) -- Former Gov. John G. Rowland, driven from office by a corruption scandal, pleaded guilty Thursday to a single federal charge that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.

After reaching a deal with prosecutors, Rowland pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to steal honest service, a felony that also carries a possible $250,000 fine.

The plea deal ends the two-year-long investigation into corruption in the administration of Rowland, who resigned July 1 after 9 1/2 years in office. Rowland's lawyer, William F. Dow III, acknowledged the former governor was "the recipient of certain gratuities."

Prosecutors told the judge that Rowland accepted $107,000 worth of vacations, work on his cottage and free flights from state contractors and others.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Nora Dannahey said the single charge also involves a conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.

U.S. District Judge Peter Dorsey advised Rowland that as a convicted felon he would not be able to vote or hold public office.

of course, if this was a Democrat governor, it would have been posted here already...right?