More ballots found in King county

[J. J.]

First, I don't see anyone saying that the vote count was error free.  Secnd, and most important, ever if all the votes went to Rossi (which is unlikely), he'd still come up short (by a smaller margin).

[J. J.]

Ah, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

So much has been found already, and filed with the judge, that even the Democrats in their filing, admitted the election was badly messed up.

Moreover, Logan tried to hide this particular piece of evidence, which has riled the judge.

There's a lot more which will become public in the next few weeks.

If and when enough of the iceburg bobs to the surface, I might change my opinion.  Get the evidence that this could make a difference and I might change my opinion.

There is precedent for a revote (and federal precedent for overturning a state election).

[J. J.]

There's a good chance this would widen Gregoire's victory if counted.

Oddly enough, I agree.  I've been one of the Republicans that has not willing to call this a "stolen election," or suggest that their should be a revote.

We need proof to do either, and, so far, we do not have it.

[J. J.]

I, for one, have not used the term "stolen."  Obviously, errors were made, but as of this monent, there is no evidence that these errors have effected the result.

[J. J.]

The question becomes a definitional one.

When one disobeys a clear state law regarding the process of counting votes, is this merely a "mistake"?

When the disobedience of the law favors one party/candidate, is this merely a "mistake,"

When there is a pattern of cover up and lies about the vote count, is this merely a "mistake"?

Just how massive must the "mistakes" be to render the election results void?

The "mistakes" would have to be enough to effect the results; they are not there, yet.

[J. J.]

Carl, I'm not "stonewalling." "Stonewalling" suggests that I am delaying something, which would require actually having some power on my part to delay anything. Do you not think there is any merit to the argument that the state should probably not have a change in administration five months after the first election?

Alcon, first, I have not used the word "stolen" and I'm complete agreement with you on that point.

Second, there is precedent in Washington for ordering a revote, if the result cannot be determined.  There is also Federal precedent for a court to overturn a state election, if there is evidence that there was enough fraud to indicate that outcome would have been different but for the fraud.  This happened in a Phila State Senate Race in the mid 1990's (Marx (R) was eventual winner).

Now, I'm not overjoyed with either, but they are there.  An this point, I don't see either coming into play, but the possibility is out there, unfortunately.

[J. J.]

How many graveyard voters have been found so far?
How many "lost" votes have been "discovered" so far?

Not enough, so far.

[J. J.]

It seems that this dispute is going on far longer than 2000, which Gore clearly should have won.

Same problem there as here; no proof.

[J. J.]

It seems that this dispute is going on far longer than 2000, which Gore clearly should have won.

Same problem there as here; no proof.

Even if you ignore the recount which was ended, it's clear that each of the following ndependently cost Gore the election

- The scrub list, denying the right to vote to people with felony convictions in *ahem* 2006.
- The Palm Beach butterfly ballot
- Duval County ballot
- Much higher rates of votes not counted in minority areas
- Absentee ballots modified by Republican officials after they were recieved

And?  The ballot construction didn't violate any law (and in at least one case was appoved by a Democrat and Democratic Party officials had a chance to review and object prior to the elect). 

Felony conviction bars voting in both sates and their have been complaints from Rossi that felons voted in WA.

As for the minority voters, perhaps there should have better instruction of first time (or few times) voters.

I've said in both cases, provide real evidence.

[J. J.]

She was a DINO< she appeared a lot with Harris and Jeb, and was defeated by the Democrats last year.
The scrub list barred people from voting who did not have a felony.
The machines were set to accept invalid votes in minority areas, while they would reject them (and tell you do your vote again) in non-minority areas. It wasn't minority voters being stupid that led to the differences.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She was still a Democrat and, IIRC, all parties had a chance to challenge the ballot construction prior to the election.

I've never said that minority voters were "studid," just that there wwere a lot of new or infrequent voters in minority areas.  I question your claim that the machines were set differently in minority areas.

So far as I've seen, there were no claims that someone who tried to vote, and didn't have a conviction, was not permitted to vote.  There were cases in WA where felons, banned from voting did vote (and, yes, at least one voted for Rossi).

[J. J.]

Further update.

Have had a chance to see (with exception of sealed portion)  the Logan deposition.

As much as I despise the little weasel, I almost feel sorry for him.  Its clear he thought he could contain the situation by stonewalling.

He never thought that anyone would take the time to carefully check up on the multiple inconsistencies.

He has already tried to dump the blame on subordinates, which has just antagonized even more people into providing evidence.

The question is, when he realizes he cann't divert blame to subordinates, will he point to others?

While I enjoy the update, this still isn't proof that that Gregoire lost the election or that there are enough invalid votes to throw out the results.

Logan shifting the blame only proves that he's a beaurocrat.  :-)

[J. J.]

JJ

There already is in hand (in the judge's hands) enough evidence.

We're merely waiting for the process to be completed.

When it's completed, you'll have a story.  We need evidence of the correct count or proof of the invalid ballots.

[J. J.]

The statistical method suggested by the GOP should not be used; I'm with the Dems on that one.

Call the ineligible voters in, under oath, and make them state how they voted.

[J. J.]

The statistical method suggested by the GOP should not be used; I'm with the Dems on that one.

Call the ineligible voters in, under oath, and make them state how they voted.

Officer: "Well, Crazy Jimbob, did you or did you not kill 600 people with a KaBar?"

Crazy Jimbob: "Nope"

Officer: Well, that settles that, you're free to go.  That's all the evidence I need."

Wouldn't we want a little more to go on than the word of established law breakers?

There better a lot more evidence than Jimbo's answer, either way, to the question.

[J. J.]

First, it is illegal to try to compel someone to say how they voted.

Second, it is unethical.

Here is what the contstitutional section really says:

All elections shall be by ballot. The legislature shall provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot.

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."

There is nothing either illegal or unethical in this.

[J. J.]

"Preparing and depositing" is far different than "disclosing by way of a court order."

Secrecy in preparing the ballot is denied if a voter is compelled to disclose how he prepared the ballot.

No, after the fact, the court could order him to reveal his vote.  This cannot influence how he cast his vote.

As pointed out by Jimrtex, there is precedent for it.

[J. J.]

jimrtex,

The situation in Washington is far more complex.

First, there were a number of votes counted which never went throught the verification process (contrary to state law).

Second, a number of people cast both absentee and precinct ballots (both were counted, again contrary to state law).

Third, a number of dead people rose from the grave and voted (tell me how you're going to hie them into court to ask them how they voted).

Fourth, a number of convicted felons not restored to their civil rights voted (again, contrary to state law).  While those that can be found can be (theoretically taken to court to seek identification of their vote), this will NOT happen in Washington.

Fifth, there are other problems with the vote in that apparently valid votes were discarded (King County).

1.  Can be fixed, or at least determined (though I'd be interested in knowing what law is violated).

2, 3, 5.  Is part of #1.

4.  Why not?

[J. J.]

You apparently don't understand.

In a number of precincts in King County, ballots were processed which were unverified.  There is NO way whatsoever of seperating them.

With respect you your other statement, let me be equally as pity, abeit on point.  You just don't seem to understand.
Its not that you lack the intellect to understand, but simply have decided that once an election is stolen, the thief must get away with it.

No one (except perhaps you) argues that there were several thousand ballots counted that should NOT have been counted.

The number of ballots counted illegimately (by the way I have previously on other threads listed the Washington Administrative Code sections involved) are far more than the 'margin' of victory.

There is a line between healthy skepticism, and obstinate unwillingness to accept basic facts.

You're now at that line.

First of all, you can quantify the number of improper ballots, and in the case of provisonal ballots, there should be a record of who voted.  I'm not yet seeing a problem of not being able to determine if these voters were legitimate or not, and if now, for whom the voted for.

You seem to have confused "counted illegitimately" with "votes cast by people not entitled to vote."  They are two different things.  There should be a record of who voted, including who cast provisional ballots.  The might be 1000 votes that were "counted illegitimately" and we might find out that 950 of them were votes of people entitled to vote.

What you are suggesting might be the ex post facto deprivation of the right to vote of most, if not all, of these people.  Get some evidence that these people were ineligible to vote, if possible factor out those votes, and then look at the situation.  I will admit that you are closer to the possibility of a re-vote (or judicial overturning of the result), but you still have a long way to go.

[J. J.]

Let me make it simple for you.

First, (as I previously noted) how are you going to determine how the dead voted?

Second, how are you going to determine that when it is clear that a convicted felon voted illegally, the way that person voted?  Will you just take their word for it?  Will you take their word for it that they were never guilty of the crime(s) for which they were convicted.

Third, due to the failure of King County to follow the procedures established by law, it is impossible to selecte out the multiple votes cast or in many instances the provisional ballots improperly tabulated.

Let me see if I can make it simple for you.  You will have to show that that the there were enough dead/fiticious persons voting to have affected the result.  You have not.  That it did occur is not enough to challenge the election.

Second, some have come forward in the press, and disclosed whom the have voted.  Yep, saying how they voted, under oath is one way of determining this and some have stated that voted for Gregoire.

Third, in King County there should be a record of the voters, not whom they voted for.  You are claiming that because the county didn't follow the procedures, that the votes of potentially legitimate voters shouldn't be counted.  Before throwing these out, there should be a check to determine if these voters are legitimate.  That hasn't happed yet.  You are very probably talking about disqualifying the votes of some legitimate voters.

There is, IIRC a 126 difference between the two candidates.  Show that 126 votes were not cast by legitimate voters and that the cannot be factored out, and we can begin to talk about changing the result.

Until that level is reached, you have a whole bunch of nothing.

[J. J.]

Is this the republican version of Florida 2000. please dont bother to be the lawyer and provide a case of why its different. result is a result.

you know the feeling when you know your hockey team clearly deserved to win but some how finds a way to lose. you feel frustrated? same feeling here for republicans?

MissCatholic,  please note that several of the people here demanding proof of violations before there is any attempt to overturn the results are Republicans. 

Just for the record, I did not oppose the initial recounting in FL, only the attempts by Gore to expand the scope of it after the first ones were unsuccessful.  Had he asked for a full recount immediately after the election, I would have been supportive.

[J. J.]

First, to list all the specific names of the persons who:

a.) were deceased at the time they supposedly voted, or
b.) cast more than one ballot, or
c.) where not legally entitled to vote but did so (felony convictions) would take up too much of this forum, and my time.  There has been an implication made that I am some how making up these points.

In category one, two names which have been released to the press as deceased long before the November election, but who supposedly cast a ballot in that election are:

John A. Fey (Seattle) died in May of 2004
Joe D. Burk (Seattle) died in May of 2004.

In the category of those casting more than one ballot in the 2004 gubenatorial election is Dustin S O'Coilain of Seattle.

So far, you have a total of three invalid votes, assuming that there are not two Mr. O'Coilain's out there.  (Junior and Senior would be a possibility.)  Rossi lost by more than three.

I have implied that you are "some how making up these points."  I have stated, point blank, that you have to show there were not yet enough of this to void the election, and you still have not.  I have also stated that, prior to any revoting or declaring Rossi the winner, efforts should be made to clear up how illegal voters voted.

[J. J.]

In category one, two names which have been released to the press as deceased long before the November election, but who supposedly cast a ballot in that election are:

John A. Fey (Seattle) died in May of 2004
Joe D. Burk (Seattle) died in May of 2004.

Let's ask them how they voted

That'll take some digging.

Yes, and if Rossi lost by two votes, there would be a case.  He lost by more, so it still hasn't been shown, as of yet.

[J. J.]

I apologize that your questions were not answered sooner.

First, the most recent 'certified' margin of victory is 129 votes.

Second, the number of questioned votes amounts to several thousand.  They're broken down into the following categories:

a. In many counties, more ballots were counted than there are registered voters identified as voting.

b. In at least one county, many provisional ballots were placed directly into counting machines on election day rather than being reviewed and validated to ensure that they were cast by eligible voters who did not cast another ballot.

c. Illegitimate votes were cast by convicted felons whose civil rights were not restored, deceased persons, and persons other than the registered voter whose ballot was voted.

d. Ballots were “enhanced” and altered in a manner that permanently obscures the original mark of the voter, in violation of state law.

e. Counties treated voters inconsistently in their decisions whether to count ballots that were incorrectly rejected.

f. Inconsistent and changing standards were employed in determining when a ballot was an overvote or and undervote.

g. Private information about provisional ballot voters was released, and third parties were allowed to use that private information to procure documents seeking to validate the ballots.

The exact number in each category is yet to be determined by the court, but, BOTH sides in the court action in their filings agree that the number is far in excess of the number constituting the margin of victory!

It is my informed judgement that when all is said and done, the court will find that somewhere between six to seven thousand vote counting errors occured.

My particular problem is that we have yet to establish the "six to seven thousand vote counting error" or a six to seven hundred or a six to seven vote error.  For example, a lot is being made of the inclusion of the provisional ballots in the count.  We don't how many of those were due to legitimate voters voting.  In some cases the "felons" have come forward and stated that the voted for Rossi (and seem to be willing to do so under oath).

When there is a demonstration that a net 129 of these votes were either for Gregoiri or that at least 129 votes were illegally cast and that who they voted for cannot be determined, I'll be the one questioning the result.  Rossi has not yet reached that level of proof.

[J. J.]

You have yet to answer the earlier question.

Specifically, will you take the word "under oath,' of the convicted felons that they were NOT guilty of the crime(s) for which they were convicted?

Should their convictions be overturned soley based on their sworn testimony?

Then why do you give any credibility other statements on their part?

I tend to give them a lot of credibility, expecially since this isn't a "self incrimination" situation (and I'd be willing to see them given immunity).  I doubt it there was an organized effort to get ex-felons to vote.

We've seen (mentioned in another thread) one voter state that they voted for one candidate and one vote for the other.

[J. J.]

One thing that should be pointed out is what the Secretary of States office says about felons voting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, I wonder how many people released thought that because they were not under parole and had discharged their sentences, that the DoC had restored their right to vote?  DoC seems to be able to do that under its own authority, possibly without telling the ex-felon.

I'm seeing a conspiracy of ex-felons to throw an election.

I'll add that this doesn't make their votes valid, but with these regulations, I can understand the confusion.