Following up on the manufactured kerfuffle over "illegal" voter registrations in Washington State is WashBlog, who sent an intrepid blogger to the first of the challenge hearings in King County. As was predicted here, there and elsewhere (Horse's Ass, NPI, The Stranger's Slog, et al), things were going to get cravat-tugging uncomfortable for Lori Sotelo, who had the ignominious honor of signing her name to each of the challenges.
To catch you up if you didn't follow the top link, just before the recent general election, the WAGOP brusquely announced they were challenging nearly 2,000 voters--all in King County--for having registered at a place not plausibly considered a residence. Notwithstanding the exceptions made by King for homeless people, students or other residents with no permanent address, or the special conditions of resident managers working and living at the storage facilities they managed, the Republicans also managed to simply get dozens upon dozens of their allegations flat out wrong. As in, calling a long-standing apartment building something other than a legal residence.
Today, the chickens began roosting and at times clucking loudly as Sotelo laid her series of eggs:
Hamilton: Did you fill out all 1,944 of the challenges yourself? Did you fill out the challenge for Mr. Bylsma yourself?
Sotelo: Yes. (ed: this seems a bit questionable, as I observed someone holding two of the challenge forms up to the light together, and her signatures fit over each other perfectly – it’s not natural to sign your name exactly the same 1,944 times in a row!)
Hamilton: What personal knowledge did you have about Mr. Bylsma when you signed the form?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question.
Hamilton: Did you send Mr. Bylsma any letters, make any phone calls, try any other way to contact him personally before you made the challenge?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question.
Diane Tebelius (Sotelo’s GOP hack lawyer): Objection!
Hamilton: Will you name the names of your volunteers who compiled the list for you? Did you pay them?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question.
Hamilton: You don’t know Mr. Bylsma, do you?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question.
Satterberg: How do you know that Mr. Bylsma’s storage facility doesn’t have a residence attached?
Sotelo: I believe it does have a resident manager, but Mr. Bylsma’s PO Box number isn’t the same as the residence.
Satterberg: Couldn’t someone live there and use one of the mailboxes?
Sotelo: That could be reasonable to think, but I don’t believe it so.
Hamilton: Ms. Sotelo, admit it – you didn’t have any personal knowledge or know anything about Mr. Bylsma before you filed this challenge.
Sotelo: The evidence speaks for itself.Hamilton: Your evidence is an internet search. Is that good enough evidence to disenfranchise someone?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question. The evidence speaks for itself.
You bet it does. Apparently it began speaking to Sotelo and her lawyer, and it told them to begin getting testy, defensive and a little absurd:
Logan: Can you provide us documentation about your methodology for how you produced your list of challenged voters?
Tebelius: Objection!
Logan: Just a reminder to everyone, this isn’t a Court of Law (probably the third or fourth time that Logan had to remind Tebelius about this fact since the hearings have started – at one point Tebelius’ co-council said “if it pleases the Court” – stuff like that cracks me up)
Logan: Do you know that none of the PO Box locations have attached apartments?
Tebelius: Look at the pictures we’ve supplied. Isn’t that good enough for you!
Sotelo: To the best of my knowledge, none of them have residences attached.
Oi. WashBlog reports that KC Elections will attempt to rule on the first batch of challenges next Monday. While most have turkey, Sotelo may spend the weekend thinking more about cooked goose.
Yours in bad pun-ditry,
TJ
Comments