Your apartment building does not exist *update*

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
I haven't looked into this much, but remember the reason republicans have to challenge now: The democrats successfully argued that to overturn a ballot after the election, a challenge must be made prior to the election.

In my opinion, the reason this is happening is that the democrats (Sims, Logan and Huenekkins (sp?)) were to lazy or incompetent to keep clean voter roles in the first place.

I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just incapable of doing their jobs. Given the number of different types of mistakes, I can understand how others would think differently.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: ciba
I haven't looked into this much, but remember the reason republicans have to challenge now: The democrats successfully argued that to overturn a ballot after the election, a challenge must be made prior to the election.

In my opinion, the reason this is happening is that the democrats (Sims, Logan and Huenekkins (sp?)) were to lazy or incompetent to keep clean voter roles in the first place.

I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just incapable of doing their jobs. Given the number of different types of mistakes, I can understand how others would think differently.

None of which changes the fact that the challenges appear to have been rather willy0nilly and not legitimate.
 

IndieSnob

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2001
1,340
0
0
Originally posted by: ciba
I haven't looked into this much, but remember the reason republicans have to challenge now: The democrats successfully argued that to overturn a ballot after the election, a challenge must be made prior to the election.

In my opinion, the reason this is happening is that the democrats (Sims, Logan and Huenekkins (sp?)) were to lazy or incompetent to keep clean voter roles in the first place.

I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just incapable of doing their jobs. Given the number of different types of mistakes, I can understand how others would think differently.

While I am all for challenging votes that aren't legimitate so we can avoid another 2004 governor fiasco, they went about it completely wrong.

First, they challenged people on a Thursday, giving them only two more days to respond that they would challenge the revoking of their vote.

Secondly, they could have easily sent one of their volunteers to check on physical addresses, or even made some calls. Hell, they could have called the realtor company that owns the apartment building.

Yes, people make mistakes, but these are huge mistakes. Under penalty of perjury they stated that they knew firsthand no one was physically at this address.

Chris Vance who heads up the state gop party said it was a mistake made by volunteers and interns. Who the hell trusts these decisions to such people?

Plain and simple, they got caught being careless and are going to pay dearly.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
this "under penalty of perjury" issue could really be a serious legal issue for them.. they have hopefully broken some serious law by use of this threat.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
this "under penalty of perjury" issue could really be a serious legal issue for them.. they have hopefully broken some serious law by use of this threat.

I wonder how long the jail sentence is for 140+ counts of perjury I bet scooter knows.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: dahunan
this "under penalty of perjury" issue could really be a serious legal issue for them.. they have hopefully broken some serious law by use of this threat.

I wonder how long the jail sentence is for 140+ counts of perjury I bet scooter knows.
It's actually over 1,900 counts of perjury since they admitted to not really having "personal knowledge" for any of their challenges (140 is just the number they've since withdrawn).

As I mentioned a couple of times above I'm not giving KC election officials a free pass for their mistakes, I'd like to see firings and people not be re-elected, but this clumsy attempt to "clean up" elections displayed even greater incompetence.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: bamacre
My girlfriend received a registered letter in the mail informing her that that Lori Sotelo (Sr. Vice Chairman) of the King County Republican Party has challenged her as a legal voter. The letter stipulates that the physical address of her apartment building does not exists.


If her address does not exist, why did they bother sending a letter to it?

If I were her, I'd write back and tell them that she received the letter, and that, in and of itself, is proof that the address exists.

:)
I would write back and tell them I didn't get the letter because the address does not exist.

:D :heart:
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
This is just part and parcel of an ongoing rightwing effort to shape the electorate more to their liking- from purging the rolls in Florida to goofy requirements in Ohio to poll taxes in Georgia, it's the same message...

And there's this, from Arizona-

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld...0,1430736.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Got your passport, birth certificate, marriage license? No? No vote for you...

Don't be so hasty in leaving Pennsylvania out of the mix:

PA Voter ID Republican sponsored bill

Senate approves bill to require ID from voters
12/14/2005, 11:36 p.m. ET
By MARC LEVY
The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) ? A bill that would require Pennsylvania voters to show some form identification on election day or be forced to cast a provisional ballot passed the state Senate on Wednesday night.

The Republican-sponsored bill was approved without debate, 29-21, and was sent to the House, which has already approved a bill with similar identification requirements.

However, a spokeswoman for Gov. Ed Rendell and an American Civil Liberties Union official criticized it as putting up obstacles for voters.

"The governor is concerned that identification requirements may discourage people from voting and eventually disenfranchise people," said Rendell's press secretary, Kate Philips.

If the bill becomes law, the identification requirements would be in force for the November 2006 election, when Pennsylvania voters will elect a governor, U.S. senator and most members of the state Legislature.

"What we want is to give people a reason to have 100 percent confidence in the system, that everyone who's eligible to vote had a real chance to vote ... and to only vote once," said Erik Arneson, the chief of staff for the Senate's Republican leader, David J. Brightbill of Lebanon County.

Currently, only people voting in a polling place for the first time must show identification. Under the legislation, every voter would have to show election workers a form of identification such as a valid driver's license; U.S. passport; a student, employee or government ID; a county voter registration card; a firearm permit; a current utility bill; or a current bank statement, paycheck or government check.

If the voter cannot produce such identification, or if the identification is challenged by an election judge, the voter could cast a provisional ballot, which are typically used when an individual's name does not appear on voter rolls.

Elections officials later decide whether provisional ballots are valid.

Provisional ballots cast under the legislation would not be counted if the ballot is challenged at a later hearing and the voter who cast it does not produce identification to the county board of elections.

Larry Frankel, the legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, warned that the legislation could lead to long lines at polling places and higher costs for counties that must process greater numbers of provisional ballots.

The legislation also would extend the counting of absentee ballots sent from overseas until seven days following the election if the absentee ballot is postmarked no later than the day before the election.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
wow just read the OP article and I must say that is so low and deceptive and conniving. Those people should at the very least lose their jobs and face some type of fine.

we think that its no big deal but our right to vote is very serious stuff!
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
i'm surprised SOG has not posted some useless comment, or posted his usual attack the messenger posts to justify his views
 

GeekDrew

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2000
9,099
19
81
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Before I explain what I'm about to post about, please don't turn this into a petty flamewar. Also note I am not calling out all republicans, whether they be in the presidential administration, conservative posters on this board, etc.. This only has to deal with the King County Republican Party.

My girlfriend received a registered letter in the mail informing her that that Lori Sotelo (Sr. Vice Chairman) of the King County Republican Party has challenged her as a legal voter. The letter stipulates that the physical address of her apartment building does not exists. So, when she votes, not only will her vote not count, but she has to go to a hearing, on a work day no less. Every neighbor asked so far has received the same notice.

Ok, so you say no big deal? Well it's pretty damn easy for this woman to google the apartment address and see a phone number listed, and call the building. She could also drive from her home and see there is an actual building. Also, why has King County allowed this to happen without just simply verifying the address.

Now yes I know we just had the big to do over the governers election in 2004, and we should be safe. But to simply not do two minutes of legwork and possibly nullify sixty votes is an absolute sham.


Folks, we need to be careful. If we allow these kinds of things to become common, we lose our voices.

When I get a chance I will scan the letter.

Sounds like this will be a pretty easy problem to correct.



Easy problem or not, do you not agree that they could have spent an extra minute or two to check on the address?

It's not about the time it takes to go to a hearing, it's about them being overzealous and not taking an extra minute to check the facts.

Have you considered that perhaps the entire process was automated, and that they don't have the *time* to spend an "extra minute" to verify that the address exists? And how would they do that, by the way? Google, MapQuest, the phone directory? They can't be trusted, because they aren't authoritative sources.

Originally posted by: daniel49
if it makes you feel better the moron running the elections up there are also sending out lots of double ballots to voters. One women called up to try and straighten it out that they had sent her a ballot for her maiden name and a ballot for her married name.

They straigtened it out by sending her a third ballot.
So if the other side seems a lil jumpy you may understand why..none the less I find it hard to believe its not something that could be settled with a phone call/ and or documentation.

And if its not then your question about King County Govt. is certainly pertinant....many feel Sims has been at best incompetant.

I'm not sure about the State in question, but I know that some states have declared that phone calls are not sufficient evidence.