Washington Gubernatorial Fiasco

Luckily this is for the governor’s mansion in a state capital, rather than for the Whitehouse. We need to reform voting and take some rather stiff measures to guard against fraud.

Florida Northwest
Will Democrats steal the Washington governorship?

Monday, November 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

The country dodged a repeat of the 2000 Florida election debacle this year because George W. Bush’s margin in the decisive state of Ohio was 136,000 votes. But the one out of 50 Americans who live in Washington state are living through a Florida-style nightmare, with Republican Dino Rossi clinging to a 42-vote lead over Democrat Christine Gregoire in the governor’s race after a machine recount of 2.8 million ballots. In the latest example of why this country needs to clean up and clarify its sloppy election systems, Douglas firs substitute for palm trees as the backdrop.

In Seattle’s King County alone the vote counting so far has featured such anomalies as 10,000 ballots being mysteriously discovered nearly two weeks after Election Day, election officials “enhancing” hundreds of unreadable optical-scan ballots, and a judge allowing political partisans to selectively track down voters who cast questionable provisional ballots to see if they could turn them into valid votes. Ms. Gregoire gained several hundred votes through such maneuvers, so she has now declared her intention to pay for a hand recount of some of the state’s precincts to see if she can take the lead. If a selective recount changes the overall winner, the state would pay for a laborious hand recount of all the votes The process could drag on past Christmas and might eventually have to be settled by the state Supreme Court. Gov. Gary Locke is scheduled to leave office on Jan. 12, but wags are already joking he shouldn’t be pack his bags too soon.

The trouble began when it became clear the race was so close it wouldn’t be settled by the ballots counted on election night. Washington allows absentee ballots–used by 70% of the voters this year–to be counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Thus everyone knew that the way late absentee and provisional votes (cast by people not on the registration rolls, and subject to later verification) were counted might wind up swinging the election.

That set off a legal fracas over the 929 people in heavily Democratic King County whose provisional ballots hadn’t been counted because of mismatched or missing signatures. Democrats demanded the names and addresses of those voters so they could contact them and correct the errors. County officials responded that in requiring that all 50 states offer provisional ballots Congress had stipulated that such votes remain private. Republican lawyers argued that having partisans scavenge for votes would increase the potential for fraud.

But Superior Court Judge Dean Lum said such arguments weren’t as important as the need to make sure every vote counted–an echo of Florida. A full 10 days after the election, while absentee votes were still being counted, he ordered election officials to give the names and addresses of the provisional voters to the Democratic Party. Judge Lum did express regret that the judiciary was being “whipsawed in the middle” of a bitter partisan dispute and asked to “micromanage an election.” But then he proceeded to do precisely that by allowing partisan workers the opportunity to mine flawed ballots after the election, for the first time in the 20 years that Washington has used provisional ballots.

Democrats spent the next three days knocking on doors and speed-dialing voters. Ryan Bianchi, communications assistant for Ms. Gregoire, made it clear how blatantly partisan the approach was. Democratic volunteers asked if voters had cast ballots for Ms. Gregoire. “If they say no, we just tell them to have a nice day,” he told the Seattle Times. Only if they say yes, did the Democrats ask if they want to make their ballot valid. Republicans played catch-up by belatedly using their own phone banks to call up voters and identify ballots that might fall their way if made valid. In the end Democrats turned in some 600 written oaths from provisional voters and Republicans about 200.

Those votes helped narrow Mr. Rossi’s eventual lead to 261 votes as the late absentee votes were finally counted and the results certified on Nov. 17. Then the state began a mandatory machine recount. Once again, King County was the center of controversy. More than 700 previously uncounted ballots were added to the county’s total after election officials “enhanced” them to better divine voter intent. When optical scan machines didn’t accept ballots, workers would fill in ovals on ballots or create duplicate ballots if they felt the voter had meant to register a choice. Hanging chads, meet empty ovals. Through this process, Ms. Gregoire gained 245 votes in King County, dwarfing the shifts to either candidate in any other county.

Such creative counting brought Mr. Rossi’s lead down to 42 votes, a critical threshold to justify further recounts and litigation. Former governor Booth Gardner, a Democrat, told a press conference last week that he thought Ms. Gregoire should concede if the final recount margin had been 100 votes or more. But at 42 votes he now feels a hand recount is appropriate.

But is it? It certainly isn’t more precise, as the fiasco of Florida’s chad counting proved in 2000. “When you’re talking about close to 900,000 pieces of paper, I think the machine count is going to be more accurate than a manual count,” Dean Logan, the elections director of King County and a Democrat, admitted to reporters. “Every time you have human judgment and frailty enter into the process it will change the result,” agrees Bruce Chapman, a Republican who served as Washington’s secretary of state before becoming director of the U.S. census in the 1980s. In an interview, he said a hand recount will likely result in bitter litigation that will see the courts intervene to settle the dispute. John Carlson, a Seattle talk show host who was the GOP nominee for governor in 2000, worries that “this state’s reputation for clean government may not survive the bitter struggle that appears about to begin.”

There but for the grace of Ohio voters went the rest of us this election year. The country dodged the bullet of another presidential election through litigation as thousands of lawyers from both parties stood ready to challenge the results. But Washington state’s mess should remind us that it is still imperative to clean up our election systems, better educate voters, develop more precise rules on how provisional ballots should be treated, and discourage judges from “interpreting” the election rules in creative ways that second-guess the intent of legislators. If we ignore the lessons of Florida in 2000 and the lessons from Washington state this year, we will continue to play a form of Russian roulette with our vote count and make inevitable an eventual repeat of 2000.

Mr. Fund is author of “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy” (Encounter Books, 2004), which is available from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

I agree this type of thing is a mess. It seems the piece is slanted along the lines of…

My take would be to find a way to unequivocally capture and record the casting of a vote keeping it both private and verifiable.

Lacking that, with current technology and practices, how realistic is the judges comment? This comment has been made a couple of times now.

The answer to this question should be no different no matter which way the votes shift during recounts.

Is the underlying principle correct, that a determination of the will of the people has to be made? How else to do it but to revert to human judgement and interpretation with respect to ballots?

Heh, I’m not bitching about anything or supporting either side… just wondering what else we can do with the current system.

It doesn’t seem as if it should be that hard, but then again nothing ever seems as if it should be that hard.

It would seem that we need a combination of things – proof of ID/registration to vote, touchscreen voting with printed records, and enforcement of the restrictions against “fixing” voting mistakes post hoc would seem a minimum. Voting machines are expensive, but I don’t think they’re prohibitively expensive, and besides, the cost will go down for that technology as fast as it falls for other technologies.

They still haven’t found a governor – apparently they are going to order recounts until the Democrat manages to win one of them… I find the continual recounts and the found ballots suspicious, and with such a small margin there is a highly increased incentive to cheat – and a higher probability of being able to get away with a small enough “cheat” to affect the outcome.

December 13, 2004
The Problem is in Washington, not Ohio

While the left’s whack jobs continue to trump up phony sounding complaints about the Presidential vote in Ohio, it looks like there may be some serious hanky-panky going on in the Washington gubernatortial vote. John Fund complained last month of serious irregularities out there:

"In Seattle's King County alone the vote counting so far has featured such anomalies as 10,000 ballots being mysteriously discovered nearly two weeks after Election Day, election officials "enhancing" hundreds of unreadable optical-scan ballots, and a judge allowing political partisans to selectively track down voters who cast questionable provisional ballots to see if they could turn them into valid votes."

Now the Democrats who run King County’s election board claim to have “discovered” hundreds of new ballots allegedly disqualified in error. ( http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/13/165604.shtml ) Apparently, the rule in King County is that you keep finding new ballots until your guy wins.

If Democrat candidate Gregoire ends up winning after this recount, there needs to be a very serious investigation at the federal level of whether there was vote fraud in King County.


Also, there’s this good stuff - I don’t know if he takes it too far, but it seems pretty rotten in King County:

15 December 2004
Washington Recount Math, The Sequel

I started to do this as an update to yesterday’s post: Washington Recount Math ( Hamilton's Pamphlets: Washington Recount Math ), but the more I wrote, the more I wanted this to be a separate post.

Stefan provided some higher math in the comments to yesterday’s post last night. I had pointed out that the 561 “found ballots” in King County were conveniently just enough to give Ms. Gregoire a narrow 2 vote victory. Stefan wrote to tell me that it turns out that as of yesterday there were 577 “wrongly disqualified ballots”. Using his superior math skills Stefan determined that the 577 ballots should yield a 106 vote advantage for Ms. Gregoire in King County.

Strangely, Dino Rossi had a 106 vote advantage as of about 5:00 pm yesterday, with 32 of 39 counties reporting in. Proving once again that their math skills suck like a Hoover (sorry but I’m still not sold on Dyson) the Dems managed to manufacture a TIE. Not a “virtual tie” or a “statistical tie”, but a real no kidding they have the same number of votes tie.

Using my questionable math talent, and my numbers from yesterday (mostly cause I didn’t save that spreadsheet), that leaves six counties left to report and Rossi has averaged around a 2 net vote gain per county, so it looked like a 12 vote win for Rossi.

But wait, on my way to work today while listening to KVI (AM 570) and Kirby Wilbur, I hear that yesterday’s number was 573 not 577 and that King County has “found” 22 MORE ballots bringing the grand total to 595. I think the math still holds up, but even if it doesn’t, you can count on King County to come up with a few more ballots to pad Gregoire’s margin.

Using Stefan’s numbers from yesterday, that would result in 21 two party votes. Use the 60/40 split numbers and GUESS WHAT?! It gives Gregoire 13 votes, or a 1 vote margin of victory. Does it get any more transparent than this? Every time the math goes against Gregoire, King County “finds” just enough ballots to eke out a Gregoire win.

Last night at Sound Politics Stefan Sharkansky started calling King County “Ukraine County”. ( http://www.soundpolitics.com/ ) I think that is an insult to Ukraine. At least in the Ukrainian elections nearly everyone condemned them as invalid and corrupt (gratefully, Jimmy Carter didn’t weigh in). Here, no one seems to want to step up and call it what it appears to be: FRAUD. How else can anyone explain that King County keeps “finding” just enough ballots to push their candidate over the top. Sorry, but I just don’t believe that it is coincidence. Maybe it’s time to get fitted for my tinfoil hat… Maybe not…

This is a fiasco. I think both sides need to fix.

However, if I remember the election season banter, the DNC was a vocal opponent of requiring ID at the polling place. The ACLU also had an opinion on the matter. Seems that some folks who vote are “unable” to obtain ID.

Seems like time for a reformer to take the lead, from either party. McCain seems to have the jiuce to do it. Maybe the Dems have someone similar.

The fiasco contiues…

All the Votes Fit to Count
Ukraine gets to revote. Why can’t Washington state?

by John Fund

Monday, December 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

If President Bush’s margin of victory in Ohio had been 1,190 votes instead of 119,000 votes, it’s a safe bet that state’s 20 decisive electoral votes would still be locked in a bitter legal battle. In fact, the battle would likely resemble the one going on right now over who won Washington state’s bizarrely close race for governor. The state is now concluding its third count of the 2.9 million ballots, and Republican Dino Rossi clings to a 50 vote lead over Democrat Christine Gregoire. King County, which includes liberal Seattle, is the only county left to report.

Amid all the wrangling over this election, almost all semblance of a fair system has been lost. It now looks like Washington’s election will be decided by lawyers and a court, rather than by the voters. The result probably hinges on whether 723 King County absentee ballots that were rejected during the first two vote counts will be counted after all. A local judge has ruled that it is too late to inject the 723 ballots into the recount and that if they were valid votes they should have been counted in the first or second recounts. Democrats respond that the fault lies with King County clerks, who failed to take extra steps to verify the ballots, and not with the voters.

The state Supreme Court will in all likelihood settle the argument and thus determine who the winner is this coming week. Regardless of the outcome, there’s now a growing number of people who believe the counting process in King County has been compromised. King County, after all, has a long history of incompetence in handling its elections and has now discovered “new” uncounted ballots nine times since Nov. 2–and there’s still time for another surprise or two.

Washington state’s election nightmare began when Dino Rossi apparently won the election by about 3,000 votes. Then two days before the original vote count was certified, King County announced it had 10,000 more absentee ballots than it had previously estimated. Mr. Rossi’s lead fell to less than 1,000 votes.

A local judge allowed Democratic Party officials to obtain the names and addresses of 723 people who had cast provisional ballots but were in danger of not being counted because of mismatching or missing signatures. Democratic officials then contacted voters and asked them who they had voted for in the race for governor. If the answer was Ms. Gregoire, the voter was allowed to correct his or her signature and thus have their ballot counted. Republicans belatedly began contacting their voters. The result was a net gain of some 400 votes for Ms. Gregoire. Mr. Rossi’s lead fell to 261 votes.

At that point, the state began a mandatory machine recount of all ballots. But in King County the recount went beyond running the ballots through the counting machines. Officials there “enhanced” some 300 votes that had been rejected by the machines, in some cases altering them with white-out or filling in the ovals on the optical scan ballots. Again, these additional ballots benefited Ms. Gregoire. In 38 of the state’s 39 counties, only 208 net votes were added to either Mr. Rossi or Ms. Gregoire in the recount. Then came King County, which represents 30% of the state’s votes. Ms. Gregoire, who won 58% of the overall King County vote, harvested a net gain of 245 votes–more than the changes in the rest of the state for both candidates combined. At that point, with Mr. Rossi holding only a 42-vote lead, Democrats put up the money to pay for a third recount that would be conducted by hand, a process that most election observers, including those in charge of King County, view as less accurate than a machine count.

It didn’t take long for new ballots to be discovered. On Dec. 7, more than a month after the election, King County said it had found 573 absentee ballots which had been rejected because they lacked or had improper signatures. A couple of days later, another 22 ballots were found hidden in voting machines that had been put into storage. None of these ballots had been stored in sealed and secured boxes. Election officials are usually leery of counting votes that haven’t been kept under constant lock and key.

Nonetheless, the Democratic controlled King County canvassing board rejected the Republican county prosecutor’s advice not to count the 573 ballots. Then someone noticed that the list of disputed ballots did not include any voters whose names began with A or B. Another treasure hunt turned up 150 more votes that had been mistakenly put into storage. On Friday, Stephanie Arend, a local judge in neighboring Pierce County, stepped in and blocked the counting of all 723 new ballots. She said state law clearly stipulated that a recount was only supposed to count ballots already ruled valid, not add any more ballots to the mix.

On top of all this, the actual hand tabulation of the rest of the ballots in King County also saw a change in procedures midway through the count last week. Officials announced that they were overturning the policy of not counting ballots that had ovals filled in for both candidates (“over votes”) and now would send these ballots to the canvassing board for final review. Officials said this represented no change in the rules, but the fact is that ballots are now being treated differently depending at what point in the recount they were examined.

The state Supreme Court will have to sift through this tangled web and reach a final decision quickly. The inauguration of a new governor is scheduled for Jan. 12. The dilemma the court faces is clear. The 723 disputed new voters were rejected by King County officials using a level of verification and scrutiny that they had agreed on in advance. Now county officials want to add votes into the final recount that were not included in the first two counts because they have belatedly found that the ballots would have been declared valid if the clerks had gone further and taken additional verification steps.

Legally, there is a strong argument for not adding new ballots into the already compromised recount process. But perception also matters. Should Mr. Rossi win because some ballots aren’t counted, he’ll take office under a cloud of “fraud” as Democrats claim that more people wanted Ms. Gregoire to win. Their argument will carry some weight.

Former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, a moderate Republican, says confidence in the election system has been so damaged that the only way to restore it may be to consider holding a new election in February. King County has now added ballots into its count so many times that almost no one other than the lawyers involved can easily explain the chain of events.

There is no provision in Washington state law for holding a new election. It would have to be ordered by the state Supreme Court or by a special session of the legislature. But now is the time to raise the issue because no one knows for sure which candidate will come out ahead this week in the final count. Sam Reed, the state’s secretary of state, says a rerun of the election is eminently doable and notes that a small town in Washington did rerun an election after it was discovered that some people who were ineligible had been allowed to cast ballots.

There is also a precedent for a statewide rerun of an election in recent times. In 1974, New Hampshire Democrat John Durkin ran for the U.S. Senate and very narrowly lost. A recount overturned the original result and gave Mr. Durkin a 10-vote lead over Republican Louis Wyman. But then the state’s Ballot Law Commission recounted the ballots and certified Mr. Wyman the winner by two votes. Mr. Durkin had no real evidence of fraud, but he contested the election anyway. The Democratic-controlled Senate sided with him and refused to honor the state’s certification. The seat remained vacant for seven months. The debate spanned 100 hours over a month with 35 inconclusive roll-call votes. The 1975 impasse ended only when Mr. Durkin agreed to a special election. He won that race, but then lost a bid for a second term in 1980.

If leaders of both parties could agree that the November election has been hopelessly compromised, public pressure for a clarifying rematch would build. It would be highly irregular, but so too is the fact that whoever wins the third count of votes would govern under a cloud in which their legitimacy would be questioned. Let’s hope the public will also demand a thorough housecleaning of Washington state’s election laws, which imprudently allow 65% of its voters to cast troublesome absentee ballots.

Washington state’s predicament is also a warning flare for the rest of the country about how sloppy our election procedures still are. In most states we are just as unable to handle a photo-finish election as we were when the Bush v. Gore legal fight occurred in 2000; It’s time to redouble our efforts to make our elections something the rest of the world can’t snicker at.

Maybe the Dems have finally “found” enough votes to win…

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-recount22.html

Washington Democrats say gov race theirs by 8 votes

December 22, 2004

OLYMPIA, Wash. – The head of the state Democratic Party said late Tuesday that recount results from King County give Democrat Christine Gregoire an eight-vote victory in the closest governor’s race in state history.

Neither King County nor the Republican party could confirm the hand recount results on Tuesday night. But if the Democrats’ analysis is correct, it’s a stunning reversal in the gubernatorial race, which has been hotly contested ever since election day.

Republican Dino Rossi won the first count by 261 votes and won a machine recount by 42 votes, out of 2.9 million ballots cast.

‘‘We’re confident Christine Gregoire has been elected the governor of the state of Washington,’’ Democratic Chairman Paul Berendt said.

Berendt and Democratic party officials reached their conclusion after crunching numbers supplied by King County. The county has finished tallying its 900,000 ballots, but election officials said they still need to reconcile differences in the precinct totals.

Official results today

‘‘We are not releasing our results until tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.,’’ said King County Elections spokeswoman Bobbie Egan, who confirmed that both parties received the recount data Tuesday.

Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane said Republicans are also looking at the data but had not drawn any conclusions. ‘‘It’s just too close to call,’’ she said.

The Rossi camp has said that if it lost the third count it might challenge the election in court, and Republicans were already preparing for a possible legal challenge. AP

This election is a fiasco. We can only count our lucky stars that the Presidential election did not come down to a similar margin, because the problems of Washington are endemic to our system, especially in big cities:

Don’t Count Rossi Out
A stolen election in Washington state? Not if bloggers can help it.

Monday, January 10, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

The new media–talk radio, bloggers and independent watchdog groups–have followed up their success in exposing Dan Rather’s use of phony memos by showcasing another scandal: Washington state’s bizarre race for governor, which features a vote count so close and compromised it allows Florida to retire the crown for electoral incompetence. If Democrat Christine Gregoire, who leads by 129 votes and is scheduled to take the office Wednesday, eventually has to face a new election, it will have been in large part because of the new media’s ability to give the story altitude before it reached the courts.

When the idea of a revote was first broached three weeks ago by a moderate Republican former secretary of state, Ms. Gregoire’s reaction was swift: “Absolutely ludicrous.” With Republican candidate Dino Rossi filing a formal court challenge last Friday alleging a massive breakdown in the vote count, she may still think the idea of a court-ordered revote is laughable, but her legal team is taking it seriously. “There’s not even a 50-50 chance a court would rule with Republicans to set aside the election,” says Jenny Durkan, a Gregoire confidant who is representing state Democrats. Hardly an expression of supreme confidence.

The feeling that a revote is possible is buoyed by polls showing the public still thinks Mr. Rossi, who won the first two vote counts before falling behind in the third, actually won. His legal team has also compiled a strong body of evidence showing irregularities, certainly one far more detailed than that which North Carolina officials used last week to order a statewide March revote of the race for agriculture commissioner after a computer ate 4,438 ballots in a GOP-leaning county. Without those votes, the GOP candidate was leading by 2,287 votes out of 3.5 million cast.

In Washington state, the errors by election officials have been compared to the antics of Inspector Clouseau, only clumsier. At least 1,200 more votes were counted in Seattle’s King County than the number of individual voters who can be accounted for. Other counties saw similar, albeit smaller, excess vote totals. More than 300 military personnel who were sent their absentee ballots too late to return them have signed affidavits saying they intended to vote for Mr. Rossi. Some 1 out of 20 ballots in King County that officials felt were marked unclearly were “enhanced” with Wite-Out or pens so that some had their original markings obliterated.

Most disturbing is the revelation last week by King County officials that at least 348 unverified provisional ballots were fed directly into vote-counting machines. “Did it happen? Yes. Unfortunately, that’s part of the process in King County,” elections superintendent Bill Huennekens told the Seattle Times. “It’s a very human process, and in some cases that did happen.”

King County elections director Dean Logan, Mr. Huennekens’ boss, also concedes the discrepancy between the number of ballots cast and the list of people who are recorded as voting. Even though the gap is 1,200 votes, he says, “that does not clearly indicate that the election would have turned out differently.” Are voters supposed to trust an election merely because it can’t “clearly” be shown to be hopelessly tainted? Mr. Logan is certainly singing a different tune now than he was on Nov. 18, when he responded to charges of voting irregularities in an e-mail to colleagues, which read in part: “Unfortunately, I have come to expect this kind of unsubstantiated crap. It’s all too convenient, if not now fashionable, to stoop to this level when there is a close race.”

Slade Gorton, a Republican former state attorney general and U.S. senator who is advising Mr. Rossi, says a court should order a revote rather than declare valid one of the two earlier vote counts that Mr. Rossi won. “No one can govern effectively under the cloud this race has created,” Mr. Gorton says. He notes that state law doesn’t require any showing of fraud to contest an election. “That is irrelevant to whether the election should be done over,” he says. “The law is quite clear in giving a court the right to void any election where the number of illegal or mistaken votes exceeds the margin of victory, and it has done so in the past.”

Mr. Gorton notes that Sam Reed, the Republican secretary of state who certified Ms. Gregoire’s victory, issued a report in 2003 noting that King County’s sloppy election procedures could lead to just this sort of election meltdown. “The county is not consistent in their ballot enhancement procedures,” Mr. Reed’s report concluded. “Ballot enhancement, while done in full view of political observers, did not use the procedures outlined in the Washington Administrative Code. Inconsistencies in how this procedure is handled significantly increase the possibility of a successful election contest.”

Much of the evidence uncovered on King County’s flouting of election laws first appeared on Soundpolitics.com, a blog run by computer consultant Stefan Sharkansky. A former liberal who worked for Michael Dukakis in 1988, Mr. Sharkansky calls himself a “9/11 conservative mugged by reality.” He uses his knowledge of statistics and probability to illustrate how unlikely some of the reported vote count changes are. He also uncovered the fact that in Precinct 1823 in downtown Seattle, 527, or 70%, of the 763 registered voters used 500 Fourth Avenue–the King County administration building–as their residential address. A full 61% of the precinct’s voters only registered in the last year, and nearly all of them “live” at 500 Fourth Avenue. By contrast, only 13% of all of King County voters registered in 2004.

Not all of the voters at the county building are homeless or hard to find. A noted local judge and her husband have been registered at the county building for years. When I called her to ask why, she became flustered and said it was because of security concerns, specifically because “the Mexican mafia are out to get me.” When I pointed out that her home address and phone number were easily found on the Internet and in property records, she ended the conversation by refusing to answer a question about whether she had improperly voted for state legislative candidates who would represent the county building but not her residence.

Even liberal officeholders in Seattle privately acknowledge that the combination of bloggers, talk radio and local think tanks like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation have helped skeptics of the election’s validity win the public relations war. Evergreen president Bob Williams says his group isn’t focused on overturning Ms. Gregoire’s election so much as on highlighting the obvious problems in the vote count that cry out for permanent legislative fixes. He notes the public is paying attention: A poll taken last week by Seattle’s KING-TV found that by a 20-point margin state residents back a new election, and by 53% to 36% they don’t think Mr. Rossi should concede.

Seattle Times columnist Joni Balter says the attack on the vote count by Republican-leaning media “is by now a near-military operation–air, land and sea.” She blames radio hosts Kirby Wilbur, John Carlson and Mike Siegel for keeping listeners updated and in a constant state of outrage. “There’s a lot to be outraged about,” responds Mr. Carlson, an unsuccessful candidate for governor in 2000. “Last week, I did 13 out of my show’s 15 hours on the election and people wanted more.”

In his new book, “Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation,” radio host and law professor Hugh Hewitt calls the new media a form of “open-source journalism” in which gatekeepers can no longer control what reaches the public. Readers and listeners interact with bloggers and talk show hosts so that a free market of ideas and information can emerge. “Blogs analyzed the Washington state election shenanigans in a more sophisticated and comprehensive way than the mainstream media,” he told me. “When a swarm of blogs and new media focus on a story it can fundamentally alter the general public’s understanding of an event or person. Ask John Kerry, Trent Lott, Tom Daschle and soon-to-retire CBS anchor Dan Rather if they think the new media changed people’s perceptions of them.”

Similarly, when Christine Gregoire takes the oath of office as governor on Wednesday, she will still face a threat to her seat of power should the new media keep up the pressure and more evidence of a tainted vote count emerges in court.

She would do well to recall what happened in Minnesota after the 1962 election for governor there. Republican Elmer Anderson won a squeaker and was sworn in, but a recount of disputed ballots ground on. A hundred days into Mr. Anderson’s term, a panel of three state judges ruled that Democrat Karl Rolvaag had actually won by 91 votes. To end the legal wrangling, Mr. Anderson dropped any appeals and calmly left office, allowing Mr. Rolvaag to move into the governor’s mansion.

You can expect the new media to talk up that historical example a lot as they seek to instill in the public’s mind the belief that Washington state’s election for governor isn’t over just because after Wednesday someone occupies the office.

Sore losers.

Oh the horror! What a fiasco!

It’s a close race… it’ll possibly (get this) flip-flop a few times…

[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh the horror! What a fiasco!

It’s a close race… it’ll possibly (get this) flip-flop a few times…[/quote]

No vroom,

The flip-flopping isn’t the fiasco. The voter fraud is. Silly Canadian.

Well, lets see some charges filed concerning voter fraud then… I’m all for the guilty party/parties getting caught.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The flip-flopping isn’t the fiasco. The voter fraud is.[/quote]

BB, if you have evidence of voter fraud I urge you, please seek out the approprate authorities and present your findings.

YOu may have to wait a bit for charges – the wheels of justice grind very slowly down here in the States. And of course, they would have to find a “who” on whom to pin the blame.

However, until then, you may find this interesting:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200501111725.asp

UPDATE FROM WASHINGTON STATE

Check out Sound Politics ( http://www.soundpolitics.com/ ) for the latest on the Washington state governor’s race. The latest odd and unnerving development:

[Begin Soundpolitics excerpt] It's all slipping away from the King County elections department, and you read about it here first, thanks to ace Sound Politics data-miner Stefan Sharkansky. The latest crushing revelation of institutional incompetence is the admission, reported to newspaper readers here in today's Seattle Times, that the department's Friday Jan. 7 estimate of 1,217 more gubernatorial votes than voters in King County was about 600 shy of the revised figure. Even then, county Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens can only guess that the number of unnacounted for votes is "somewhere around 1,800."

Democrat Christine Gregoire's victory margin was 129 votes, and King County, of course, was where she "won" the election.

The "around 1,800" does not include the estimated 348 provisional ballots fed directly into the voting machines without inspection for legitimacy. That in itself is grounds for a new election.

What's really revealing to me in today's Times story is this (paraphrased by the paper) statement from Huennekens' boss, county Election Director Dean Logan:

    ...Logan, said Friday many of the unexplained ballots probably were cast by registered voters who failed to sign in when they went to polling places.

Or many of those (now 2,148 and counting) ballots were cast by people who were not legitimately registered, and we can't really know if they were now, can we? It seems we are at a real fork in the road here, Mr. Logan; Ms. Gregoire; and State Supreme Court justices.

We can keep making lame excuses for the failure of safeguards to ensure the legitimacy of this election, excuses for failures of the type that in the private sector would result in termination of those responsible.

Or we can have a new vote for Governor, with some basic, court-ordered (?) safeguards in place to prevent the sloppiness and unaccountability that plagued the Nov. 2 vote. In so doing, we start down the road to credibile, 21st Century elections in Washington State.

Dino Rossi's suit contesting the election is initially to be heard in Chelan County this Friday. The whole nation is watching. [End Soundpolitics excerpt]

Do all those Democrats who felt the need to interrupt the certification of the electoral college results want to offer a comment or two on these reports?

I’m divided on the re-vote plan, however. Why can’t they determine if the provisional ballots were from properly registered voters or not? Why can’t they toss out the ballots from voters who died before absentee voting began?

And if you fail to sign in at a polling place… didn’t you flunk the basic test of following directions? I’m sorry, but it is really that unreasonable to declare that “if you don’t follow the rules, your ballot doesn’t count”? Everybody else managed to do it right, why are election officials making exceptions for the 2,148 or so who couldn’t follow the proper voting procedure?

I hate to quote Zoolander, but really, “Doesn’t anybody notice this? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”

UPDATE: I am informed by several readers that the ballots had their outer envelopes removed when they were put in the voting box ? “thus there is no longer any way to identify which ballots came from the improperly allowed provisionals, and which did not.”

Ugh. Now a re-vote seems sensible.

UPDATE, AGAIN: TKS reader Scott answers the questions further:

"Why can't they determine if the provisional ballots were from properly registered voters or not?"


Because provisional ballots are indistinguishable from regular poll-site ballots. Once they go into the machine, they cannot be separated out.

This in spite of a recommendation to the contrary from an oversight committee. ( http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003418.html#003418 )

"Why can't they toss out the ballots from voters who died before absentee voting began?"

Because once the ballot is separated from the mail-in envelope, there is no longer any way to link the ballot to the voter (this is understandable, given our reverence for the secret ballot, but does make fraud easier to get away with).

"And if you fail to sign in at a polling place... didn't you flunk the basic test of following directions?"

No. The poll workers flunk the basic test of honesty and/or competence. It is their job to require each voter to sign in before they issue that voter a ballot. Voters cannot be expected to know the procedures. Many of them go to the polls only once ever four years. It's the election workers who are responsible.

In any case, the ballots which do not correspond to poll-book signatures cannot now be separated out.

I was iffy on the revote, too, until it became clear how many votes had been illegally tallied in King County. Now I believe a revote is the only way to remedy the harm done.

Boston, are you stuck on the fact I’m from Canada again?

Hahahaha. It’s too funny. I’d guess you’ll either have to count the votes you have or have a revote. What is making me laugh is that it doesn’t really matter who is in the office anyway, not with the vote so close. Neither candidate represents a travesty of democracy.

You know, some new systems need to be put into place to make close elections easier to figure out, but complaining about trying to figure out the vote tally based on the crappy system in place for the current vote is just plain stupid.

Everybody gets to point fingers. Grow up already (everybody, not you personally). It gets tiring to listen to people (authors) characterize things as fraud, intimidation or whatnot when there is no real indication it has occured. There are plausible explanations that don’t involve these issues – but if there is a chance the election will go the wrong way, oh no, this must be fraud.

What do you mean “again”? I just enjoy poking fun at my Canadian friends from time to time… You know, living in igloos jokes and whatnot…

Anyway, I believe you’re correct about the candidates. THe problem is inherent to the system, and the opportunity to focus on the problem is provided because of the fact that this particular election is close enough for the fraud to matter. In other elections, with margins of hundreds of thousands of votes, 500 mis-registrations in King County would not be enough to focus attention, but in this case that is bigger than the margin of victory. I think they should have a re-vote just to focus attention on the fraud issues, which, as I’ve stated above, are endemic to urban political contests.

The WSJ editorial board weighs in:

Stolen Election?
January 12, 2005; Page A10

Democrat Christine Gregoire will be sworn in as Washington’s Governor today, possibly thanks to voters such as Mary Coffey, James Courneya and Rosalie Simpson. Why do we mention them in particular? Because, as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently reported, they’re all dead – and have been since well before the first absentee ballots were even mailed out.

Revelations of the formerly living casting ballots in elections isn’t new to American politics, although it’s something most of us thought was a relic of the late Richard Daley’s Chicago. But this isn’t the only jaw-dropper to have come out of Washington’s gubernatorial race, which Ms. Gregoire claims to have won – on a third recount, by 129 votes – over Republican Dino Rossi. Now Mr. Rossi is contesting the result in state court, hoping a judge will find enough evidence of fraud or incompetence to order a revote, a prospect Ms. Gregoire calls “absolutely ludicrous.”

Mr. Rossi certainly has a mountain of evidence on his side. In December, officials in King County, which includes Seattle, discovered 573 “erroneously rejected” absentee ballots, plus another 150 uncounted ones that showed up in a South Seattle warehouse. There were reports that hundreds of voters were registered in storage rental facilities and private mailboxes, that felons had voted, and that military ballots were sent out too late to be counted. Then we learned that several hundred provisional ballots had simply been fed into voting machines, making it impossible to authenticate their legality. Now it turns out the number of votes cast in King County exceeds the total number of voters by about 1,800.

County election officials insist these are all honest goofs, and that the vote tally was “99.9% accurate.” That might be true. But when the outcome of an election hinges on a considerably smaller fraction than 0.1%, the Ivory soap standard isn’t good enough. According to a KING-TV poll, 53% of Washingtonians believe Mr. Rossi won the election, against 36% who think Ms. Gregoire won it. Washingtonians also want a revote by a similar margin.

We sympathize with Mr. Rossi, who seems to have lost the governorship to sloppy electoral procedures and the laxness and partisanship of election officials, if not actual fraud. But the election irregularities are so tangled that no court is likely to reverse the result. The best he can hope for is that the state Supreme Court will ultimately order a revote, which Mr. Rossi could go on to win. As former U.S. Senator and Rossi adviser Slade Gorton notes, “a court [can] void any election where the number of illegal or mistaken votes exceeds the margin of victory.”

Still, we have our doubts about the wisdom of a court challenge and a revote, especially if no fraud can be proven.

Consider, first, the problem of moral hazard. There are dozens of extremely close elections in the U.S. at every level of government, elections in which – like this one – the “real” outcome can never be known. What should determine which of these merits a revote? The judgment of a court? An opinion poll? Either of these is a recipe not for more perfect democracy, but for the destruction of democracy.

Then too, there is that democratic virtue known as losing gracefully: that Ms. Gregoire failed to show it at the first and second ballots does not mean Mr. Rossi should fail to show it on the third.

Finally, there is the straightforward matter of political calculation. According to political reporter David Postman of the Seattle Times, “Gregoire said that she felt a lot of pressure from Democrats around the country, who were sort of sending her a message that somebody needs to stay and fight: ‘You need to stay and fight. There’ll be a price to pay if you don’t. …’”

The Democrats are certainly right that there’s a price to be paid here. Our guess, however, is that they are the ones who’ll be paying it. Ms. Gregoire’s anything-to-win attitude may have gotten her to the Governor’s mansion in Olympia. Where this poisoned chalice takes her next remains to be seen. As for Mr. Rossi, his honor remains intact – something voters will remember come 2008.