SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: greenspirit who wrote (115212)5/22/2005 1:04:36 PM
From: Neeka   of 793895
 
Don't know if you've seen this Mike, but it looks like Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens filed a false report after the Nov election with the county canvassing board, which certifies election results.

seattletimes.nwsource.com

This is what Sharkansky has to say about it.

BTW......the court proceedings to overthrow the Nov election results starts in Chelan county tomorrow.


May 21, 2005
A conscious effort to throw the election to Gregoire
By now it's firmly established that King County Elections officials (1) violated state laws by failing to properly account for their absentee ballots, and (2) conspired to falsify ballot records in order to conceal this problem from the canvassing board prior to certification.

The Democrats will argue that this was simply a matter of sloppy accounting with no evidence that it changed the outcome of the election. In fact, it points to a conscious effort to throw the election to Christine Gregoire --

Continue reading "A conscious effort to throw the election to Gregoire"

One of the Republican arguments is that there were 875 more absentee ballots tabulated than there were absentee voters. I haven't seen the analysis they'll present as evidence, but I arrive at the same number by taking the figure of 873 that I came up with on April 7 and adding the 2 subsequently discovered uncounted absentee ballots.

Now, let's suppose that Bill Huennekens publicly admitted the gaps in the absentee ballot accounting and other discrepancies prior to certification: The canvassing board would have been obligated to order that the absentee ballots be recanvassed, even if it meant a manual recount of the absentee ballot envelopes. Indeed, that would have had to be done as part of the manual recount, with partisan observers recounting all of the envelopes as others were recounting all of the ballots. Similar efforts would have been conducted to manually recanvass poll books and provisional ballots. After all, other errors were corrected by recanvassing certain ballots during the recounts. The "Larry Phillips" no-signature ballots were recanvassed, adding 566 mostly Gregoire votes to the tally. If they could do that, they should have also manually recanvassed any other known discrepancies, such as the surplus of hundreds more ballots than voters. They would have had to correct, or at least report, these errors.

If the numbers of ballots still equalled the sum of the absentee ballot envelopes, provisional envelopes and poll book signatures, then fine. If it were disclosed that there were still hundreds more ballots than there were voter signatures, then the post-election political dynamic would have been very different. The legislature could not have gotten away with simply certifying Gregoire's "129 vote victory" without some other remedy.

By recanvassing some ballots while concealing discrepancies with other ballots, Bill Huennekens and whoever else knew about the discrepancies consciously threw the election to Christine Gregoire.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at 10:56 AM | Comments (69) | Email This

soundpolitics.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of the gas tax, we now have a ballot title. We're trying our best to hold up our end while you're gone. -gg- There are allot of really angry people in our state. Gregoire really pulled a fast one on us and we're not going to take it sitting down.

M

"No New Gas Tax" initiative now has ballot title
I-912, the proposed "No New Gas Tax" Initiative now has a ballot title:

This measure would repeal vehicle fuel tax increases of 3 cents, 3 cents, 2 cents, and 1.5 cents per gallon in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively, enacted in 2005 for transportation purposes. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would repeal a series of increases in the motor vehicle fuel tax enacted by the 2005 session of the Legislature. The 2005 enactment provides that the motor vehicle fuel tax rate would increase by three cents per gallon on July 1, 2005, by three cents more in 2006, by two cents more in 2007, and by one and one-half cents per gallon more in 2008. The measure includes liberal construction and severability provisions.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at 05:18 PM | Comments (39) | Email This
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext