OpenCDA

June 15, 2012

Recall Update – Friday Morning

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: — Bill @ 7:16 am

Here is Friday morning’s press release from the Kootenai County Clerk announcing the up-to-date results of his office’s examination of the Coeur d’Alene recall petitions.

15 Comments

  1. I have to say I am shocked at the arrogance of these anti-recall folks, the more verified signatures the more media on how conceptual plans are now changing, now NO TUBBS HILL PHASE & all of a sudden they can make room for BOAT PARKING….via Cd’A Mess I mean press, THE BLATENT DISREGUARD FOR THE PUBLIC OPINION, that it took all this for things to start changing. Recall on let’s get rid of these people, who have to be forced to listen to the people who pay their outrageous salaries they obviously don’t deserve.

    Comment by nativetocda — June 15, 2012 @ 7:35 am

  2. I’m concerned that if the recall signature numbers don’t pan out, those recent changes will vaporize. It is telling that these changes have come out only since the recall appeared to be strong.

    And on that note, will there be any oversight into looking into the invalid signatures? Some may very well be invalidated in error. I went to the election department prior to the end of the signature gathering period to correct my name on the voting records to ensure my signature would be valid. I’ve since rec’d my registration card but when did the record that the county uses for comparison get pulled? Will the invalidated signatures have any chance to prove validation? Especially with the 911 address updates that seem to be problematic. Just wondering. The 20% number seems suspiciously high to me. How can that many people not know if they are registered to vote in CDA? Seems illogical.

    Comment by chouli — June 15, 2012 @ 7:45 am

  3. and remember, it ain’t over til the slender lady sings.
    we knew it could be close. stay positive. and if all else fails, there’s still the november 2013 election to look forward to. that’s a certainty.
    have a good friday, my friends.

    Comment by chouli — June 15, 2012 @ 8:02 am

  4. I have faith that they do have enough signatures…

    Comment by nativetocda — June 15, 2012 @ 8:04 am

  5. I’m positive. And positively worried. I remember Adam Graves suggesting that non valid residents sign the petition to foul the numbers. Of course when questioned by the police he claimed he was kidding. Can’t be proved, however I suspect many of these “illegal signatures” were done purposely. Is there any double checking the throw outs? Aparently the anti recall people are hanging over the shoulders of the verifiers. Is that even legal? What is legal in CDA is what Bloem and Co. say is legal.

    nativetocda…I wouldn’t brag about that!

    Comment by rochereau — June 15, 2012 @ 8:43 am

  6. chouli,

    Your questions concerning invalid signatures in comment #2 are right on the money. There are some others as well, County or City ministerial errors or inconsistencies, that should not invalidate a qualified elector’s petition signature. We are doing our best to resolve them lawfully and quickly.

    Comment by Bill — June 15, 2012 @ 8:48 am

  7. All,

    Regardless of how many fraudulent signatures there are on petitions, it does not change the fact that we were required to get 4,311 valid signatures to get that official on the recall ballot. The effect of falsified signatures does not in any way change the number of valid signatures we were required to get.

    How law enforcement chooses to handle (or, more likely, ignore) violations of the law committed to try and interfere with our lawful petition signature gathering does not affect the number of valid signatures we were required to get.

    Comment by Bill — June 15, 2012 @ 8:55 am

  8. Bill, I understand that fradulent doesn’t change the number of required signatures needed. However, too many fradulent signatures could cut into the numbers, therefore fouling the required number. In you comment 6, you answer my question about recourse on “discarded” signatures. Apparently you can challenge the discards. I just don’t trust that bunch. I believe the verifiers should have been complete outsiders. As it stands, the deck appears to be stacked. What else is new!!

    Comment by rochereau — June 15, 2012 @ 9:31 am

  9. I think the invalidated signatures should have a review to see if any were unjustly invalidated. If it’s a middle name without the first name signature or something of that nature, it should be looked into and verified, or if it’s a 911 address change situation. On the other hand, I’d like to know why there are so many people who signed the petition and aren’t in the CDA city limits or registered. I’d like to contact those folks and ask them why…

    Comment by chouli — June 15, 2012 @ 5:04 pm

  10. chouli,

    We’ve asked the County Clerk to provide us with any guidance he has received from the Secretary of State’s office about how to evaluate the validity of petition information.

    I tried to explain the answer to your last question in an earlier post.

    Comment by Bill — June 15, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

  11. Bill:

    Did every signer show a picture ID proving who they were prior to signing the petitions?

    Comment by LTR — June 15, 2012 @ 7:09 pm

  12. LTR,

    No. Some showed picture ID spontaneously and voluntarily, but there was no requirement that we ask for or that the signer present a picture ID.

    Comment by Bill — June 16, 2012 @ 6:22 am

  13. Bill, it does matter how many invalid signatures there are especially if you only have a finite number to work from.
    You say that you need 4311 signatures yes? Lets say you have 5000 signatures and 20% are invalid that gives you only 4000 valid ones and not enough.
    I don’t know how many you have but keep an eye on the invalid percentages as they are counted and do the math it will then show if you have enough.
    Unofficially, I think the Mayor for example has 5384 signatures if there is at the end of counting a 20% rejection then that’s 4307 valid signatures and not enough for a recall if 4311 is what you need.
    Of course if you had say, 10,000 signatures one could use the theory that all you need to do is get to 4311 valid ones but seeing as you guys have a limited number 5384? then rejection rate is very important.

    Comment by Eric — June 16, 2012 @ 8:16 am

  14. Eric,

    The only number that matters is 4,311 — the number of valid signatures we need to get one or more officials on a recall ballot.

    We did not allow ourselves to be distracted by statistical and mathematical hocus-pocus which would give us some target figure in excess of 4,311 for each official. Our objective was to collect every valid signature we could, and we would not let ourselves be influenced by some meaningless target figure in excess of that number.

    Comment by Bill — June 16, 2012 @ 8:31 am

  15. I understand Bill and wasn’t trying to cause a stir. Just that the numbers don’t and won’t lie and it’s not hocus pocus.
    It’s simple math however, it doesn’t mean it can’t be close and yes 4311 is the magic number.
    Not to be distracted by those darn trees while looking for the forest but, if you get 1074 invalid signatures you lose and ironically that would be 20%

    Comment by Eric — June 16, 2012 @ 8:54 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2014 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved