Dino Rossi has made allegations of disenfranchised military voters a central issue in the lawsuit to set aside the election. Today, David Postman reports in the Seattle Times that "Feds threatened suit over military ballots"
Less than a month before the November election, the U.S. Department of Justice threatened to sue Washington state because it was moving too slowly in mailing military ballots overseas.How was the lawsuit averted?At that point Washington was the only state that hadn't mailed its overseas ballots.
After polling county election officials, the Secretary of State's Office told the Justice Department that all but four counties would have ballots in the mail by Oct. 8, with the rest coming the following week.Did King County meet the deadline? Not clear. The county's Fact Sheet on Military Ballots says that
The bulk of the military and overseas ballots were mailed on Oct.7, 2004, with some mailings in between these two dates and subsequent mailings as further requests were received.On the other hand, I recalled seeing slightly different dates when I first read this fact sheet a few days ago. Oh, wait! There's the Google cache version:Number of military/overseas ballots issued on that date:
On Oct.1, 246 ballots were issued
On Oct.7, 3055 ballots were issued
The bulk of the military and overseas ballots were mailed on Oct.6 with some mailings in between these two dates and subsequent mailings as further requests were received.The current version was updated on Jan. 9, 2005. Since when do county election workers work on Sundays? When there's a major news story coming out about their department, apparently. Was yesterday's update a correction, or a cover-up? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 10, 2005 02:34 AM | Email ThisNumber of military/overseas ballots issued on that date:
On Oct.1, 246 ballots were issued
On Oct.10, 3055 ballots were issued
It's typical that the feds consternation and the fact that WA was the last state to send the ballots to our military was never in the Times or PI back in October.
Posted by: zip on January 10, 2005 03:07 AMThe bigger question is, why did it take the feds to come in and make threats to get the state to move on getting the ballots out? And of course we were the last state in the union to get the overseas ballots out. How pathetic is that! I received my absentee ballot in late September. Since it is roughly a 30 day turn around time for overseas ballots, would it not had made more sense to send them out first, then the other absentee ballots? Now mind you, I only have public education under my belt.
I guess in the state's defense, I wouldn't expect anything less (or would it be "more") from an obvious inept system.
Posted by: Matt on January 10, 2005 04:28 AMWhy are you clogging up this blog with your spam? What does this have to do with the election?
Anyone: can this crap be removed?
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 10, 2005 05:47 AMI wore my damned scroll button out going through that and still don't know what I read.
Posted by: Chuck on January 10, 2005 06:07 AMIt would be interesting to know what the written procedures at King County are for version control of this kind of status data (not to mention version control of the voting database).
Posted by: Boonie on January 10, 2005 06:29 AMSo there's a good chance that even mailed Oct. 8th, would disenfranchise some military members on remote tours.
Kalroy
Posted by: Kalroy on January 10, 2005 06:37 AMLet's see, we have upwards of 3500 friends and neighbors serving in the Guard in Iraq. Fort Lewis Stryker Brigades coming and going. Forward deployed. Various people deployed to ships, stations, posts throughout the country and world.
Reasonable to presume 10K plus out of King County? Perhaps triple that for the rest of the state?
Sounds like a big deal to me. My experience being deployed to the other side of the world was a 1-7 week delay in getting mail of one sort or another, depending on operational commitments.
Posted by: Steve on January 10, 2005 06:54 AMI contrasted that with the treatment of homeless and provisional voters. Motor voter. No ID for voting. This is cr@p!!!
Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 07:08 AM~ Rong Summs
Posted by: Rong_Summs on January 10, 2005 07:10 AMUnless it reports stuff you like?
It's like "42 is a victory!" but "130+ is too close"
Or "Concede" but "I won't concede"
Or "Get over it" but "I won't get over it"
Or "Too much litigation" but "SUE!"
Choose a belief and stick to it. Rossi's been the biggest flip flopper around....not surprising to see his fans follow suit...
Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 07:30 AMReally appreciate all that you have done to help - I hope your work is rewarded somehow. I wrote my democratic representative (Bill Grant) and our republican senator (Mike Hewitt) last Friday. Haven't heard back from Bill Grant yet - but Mike Hewitt was definately in favor of a revote - and referred me to Soundpolitics as a place to check out the "latest" - as well as linked me to revotewa.com to sign (which had already been done). Anyhow - thought it was cool that he referenced this site - which I have been checking out since a week or so prior to the "1st" count.
Great work Stefan - and again - hope you are somehow rewarded for all of your effort.
Stefan, awesome work. I think KC officials forget that Google has a long memory, and bloggers know how to use it.
One thing: is that cache usable in a court of law?
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 10, 2005 08:39 AMMaybe that is a newer rule, but way back when I was in the military (B.C.-before computers), I wasn't aware of it. I would bet many in the military still think that the ballot envelope has to be postmarked by election day. I know ignorance is no excuse, but I'm following the example set by King County.
I'm still trying to decide which three people most deserves the "three monkeys award" of:
see no fraud, hear no fraud, and say "No Fraud!"
Perhaps Gregoire, Sims/Logan, and Reed.
So many people to chose from.
Posted by: JG on January 10, 2005 08:46 AMGreat questions!
I'd like to know *exactly* what went on between the Feds and Washington State. According to the Times story:
1. Less than 1 month before the Nov election - the US DOJ threatened to sue WA state over delayed mailings of military absentee ballots..
2. Nick Handy sends urgent letter out to counties saying the Feds have given him *One final offer*? to avoid the lawsuit? (I'm wondering when and what the initial offers were if the one Handy acted on was *final*?)
3.The compromise consisted of 4 counties (Franklin, Whatcom, Pend Orielle, San Juan) sending out federal write in ballots instead of regular absentee ballots. These write in ballots allow voters to write in their preferences for President, Governor,Party, etc...(To me - this doesn't sound like a favorable deal for our military...as they basically received a completely blank ballot and had to fill in even the most basic information...But I guess this ballot was better than NO ballot at all..)
4. The other counties (including King County ) mailed their regular absentee ballots *soon after* (This is vague...when exactly was *soon after*? And did it fall within the agreement made with the Feds? Postman's article was purposely vague on this...)
OK..Back to the beginning of this....
What information did the US Dept of Justice obtain that caused them to contact Washington State about delayed military ballot mailings in the first place? Why would the Feds devise this *weak* compromise for the State and then NOT check up on the states largest county for adherence? (see Stefan's remarkable google cache find - showing King County did not send military ballots out within the time allowed in the compromise)
Why wasn't any of this disclosed to the public prior to the election?
Hmmm...
Threats of Federal lawsuits?
A coordinated effort in staggering county vote counts to deny King County the information needed to pad the ballots?
It sounds to me as though A LOT more has been going on behind the scenes in our State elections than *we the people* have been privy to! And YET - it appears that King County was still able to allow dead voters, felons and illegal provisional ballots in their count!
I think we need to know what the heck is truly going on here! We need the Feds now - simply because it appears that they were already involved in some sense!
Someone has some 'splaining to do!
From reading your post on Sound Politics I conclude that you do not have any problems with electorial fraud. Am I correct? Is so why is that? Inquiring minds want to know.
I am further curious as to what would possess you to create a fictious MSN address to use for your posting? You must be one of the typical bomb throwing loonies who cannot engage in any debate, but only shout and when confronted run away.
I thought most men outgrew that "...Georgie Porgie ran away." crap by the time they were 13.
Posted by: Not a Yank on January 10, 2005 12:15 PMIt states that the federal write-in ballot could be used to vote for federal offices -- but not for state and local offices.
How many of those federal write-in ballots were used by overseas servicemembers who realized their regular absentee ballots weren't going to arrive in time?
Did King County count the votes on those federal write-in ballots for state and local offices, or just federal offices?
http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/news/2005_01_05.htm
"The Federal Voting Assistance Program, a program of the United States Department of Defense monitors services for military and overseas voters. Under federal law, a federal write-in ballot is also available from armed services voting assistance officers to allow service members the opportunity to cast a ballot for federal office. These ballots are accepted and counted even if the service member is not listed as a registered voter in the jurisdiction where they indicate their residence."
The linked cached version of the KC voting record page reads in part:
...
Date of Initial Mailing of Military/Overseas Ballots:
King County Elections began mailing oversea and military ballots for the General Election on Oct.1, 2004. These were from an absentee category referred to as “submarine” or “special absentee ballots” for voters who may not be able to receive a regular absentee ballot within the timeframe necessary to participate in the election.
The bulk of the military and overseas ballots were mailed on Oct.6 with some mailings in between these two dates and subsequent mailings as further requests were received.
Number of military/overseas ballots issued on that date:
On Oct.1, 246 ballots were issued
On Oct.10, 3055 ballots were issued
For the Oct.7 mailing, King County prioritized our mail-out to ensure military and overseas ballots were mailed as soon as they were available and within the timeframes required by state law and guidelines from the United State Department of Justice.
...
I'm confused about the last paragraph. It refers to an "Oct. 7 mailing" but previously claims the ballots were mailed out between Oct. 1 - 6 and then lists an Oct. 1 and Oct. 10 mailing. Pretty inconsistent.
Also, I'm not Google-savvy, but how does the cache system work exactly? I tried getting to the same Jan. 5 page by using the same key phrases googled in the Soundpolitics link, but only got a Jan. 9-updated page when I went to the "cached" link.
Posted by: Chris on January 10, 2005 02:23 PMThanks alot, Washington liberals. Once again you have proven where you really stand on the military, and the men and the women who serve.
GRRRR!
>=^(
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on January 10, 2005 04:46 PMI was on the Army's "Voting Action Officer" website TODAY, and Washington's rules state that it must be postmarked by election day and recieved within two weeks of election day. Additionally, the site (for all, not specifically Washington) advises that to be sure your vote counts, you should mail NO LATER THAN October 15th! Fat chance given when they were sent out.
Posted by: Nancy S on January 11, 2005 04:32 PMAccording to the New York Times: Recently, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company's stock.
In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. The company acknowledged that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In February 2004, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
Kaplan is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. I provide the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the "flagship" of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.
Why didn't the Justice Department and S.E.C. included Kaplan in their investigation?
Posted by: first_real_online_law_student@yahoo.com on January 24, 2005 10:39 AM