« In Loco Parentis--Something Good | Main | One small step for blogger, one giant leap for blogkind »

March 07, 2005

Comments

John

Fantastic work, TJ.

The EFF report is so laughable. Tons of references to Sharkansky's scribblings and the "findings" of the BIAW.

Torridjoe

Thanks John. Regarding the EFF, I just edit-posted a cite found in the comments at SP, on what EFF really is and where they get the majority of their funding.

Micajah

Torridjoe,

Take a look at RCW 29A.60.230(2), which appears to be the March 31st report to which you refer.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.60.230&fuseaction=section

Do you see which kind of ballot is the subject of the report that is due no later than March 31st?

Do you recall which kind of ballot is the subject of the reconciliation reports in the "big binder" at King County?

Now, read RCW 29A.60.230(1). See when the abstract that reports the county's election returns is due?

Did you perhaps misunderstand Mr. Excell, or is there some report other than the one in paragraph (2) that is due to be sent to the SecState by March 31st?

Torridjoe

No, I don't believe I misunderstood him. The phrase "precinct abstract" comes from him. It would appear that paragraph (1) is what is expected to be received on March 31st, combined with the parts in paragraph (2).

Micajah

Paragraph (1) says its report is to be sent "immediately" after the official returns are certified by the canvassing board -- not several months later at the end of March.

Paragraph (2) is a strange requirement for a report about absentee ballots -- if the information wasn't already put into the report required to be submitted "immediately" in accordance with paragraph (1). (I say "strange requirement" because I cannot think of a reason why anyone would have singled out absentee ballots for some kind of months-later report to the SecState. I don't know what purpose it was thought to serve, much less why only absentee ballots would be the subject of the report.)

At any rate, while there may be some other report being requested by the SecState, the "big binder" has zilch to do with the absentee ballot report required by paragraph (2).

So, if there is another report, what RCW or WAC requires it? I found nothing -- that's why I asked if you perhaps misunderstood what Excell said.

Torrid

I agree it doesn't quite add up according to the RCW/WAC. But I've just checked my notes, and they are in order--ballot count verification for certification, then WAC compliance (the emergency order) to be held by the county, and then the "precinct abstract" on March 31st. Para (2) refers to the abstract, and para (1) seems to be about the abstract.

I'll see if I can have Excell clarify.

Micajah

Since Excell apparently did say that King County wasn't obigated to provide the requested info, maybe the SecState is just sort of reviewing what happened without getting into the details while the court discovery process is ongoing. You had also said:

Excell was careful to say that King was not obligated to provide these things, but that "it would be helpful," and that it would "happen anyway; it's just a matter of time"--again underlining the lack of urgency...


I'm thinking that the discovery process must be expected to conclude by the end of March, and that's why King County is not promising to make the "big binder" available until then to people who submit public records requests. Excell and the SecState's office may simply not be pressing King County for the same reason -- letting the discovery process be the method by which the parties get their info for the trial.

Torrid

It may not have been clear, but there are two separate issues we talked about re King: the required submissions, and any extralegal requests. The "not obligated" part refers to the latter, the "no hurry" part to the former, was my sense.

I notified Excell of the posting of both, and called for him to offer clarifications if necessary; at this point none has come, and I interpret that at this time as assent to what I published. But I will contact him and ask him to clarify a) what they expect 3/31, and b) how it relates to the RCW sections you cited. I think that will be helpful--thanks for commenting.

Torrid

That should read "posting of both parts"--as in, of the interview...

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

AlsoThinkTank

Blog powered by Typepad