OpenCDA

July 17, 2010

Who Decides When Violations Matter?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 9:37 am

[

Here is a link to Friday’s Coeur d’Alene Press article headlined Affidavit:  Many ballot irregularities.   Please read the article carefully.  Further in the post is my affidavit with exhibits filed with the District Court in the Coeur d’Alene election contest (CV-09-10010).  After looking at both the article and my affidavit, here are some questions you may wish to consider asking of your elected state representatives and senators and your mayor and city council:

1.  Who or what agency audits the performance of Idaho’s city and county clerks to ensure compliance with state and municipal election administration laws and policies?

2.  What statutes define the discretion of the Secretary of State, city clerks, and county clerks to decide which of Idaho’s election administration statutes will be followed and which ones can be “bent” or broken?

3.  When an elector signs his voter’s affidavit falsely or fails to sign the affidavit as required, was it the Idaho legislature’s intent that particular vote would be counted in the same manner as the vote cast by an elector who signed truthfully and completed the affidavit in the form prescribed?  (Both the poll book at polling places and the absent elector’s ballot envelope are affidavits.)

4.  Do Kootenai County Clerk Dan English’s statements in the article accurately reflect the intent of Idaho’s legislators who passed the state and municipal election administration laws?  Do they accurately reflect the intent of present legislators, or should Idaho’s legislators closely examine and if necessary revise Idaho’s election administration laws?

The Press article refers to my affidavit filed with the District Court on July 9, 2010.  It is a public record, so I’ve linked to it and its exhibits below.  My sworn affidavit speaks for itself.

The affidavit specifically refers to two Idaho municipal election statutes:  Idaho Code Section 50-446 and Idaho Code Section 50-447.  Before looking at the exhibits, especially the photo exhibits B through F, please take a couple minutes to read both these Idaho code sections.  Please note when and how the Idaho legislature used imperatives such as “shall” or “must” when it wrote and passed these laws.

Affidavit of William L. McCrory

Exhibit A

Exhibit B (Maloney) —– Exhibit B (Maloney)

Exhibit B (Dobslaff) —– Exhibit B (Dobslaff)

Exhibit B (Litz) —– Exhibit B (Litz)

Exhibit B (Frazier)

Exhibit C (Phelps) —– Exhibit C (Phelps)

Exhibit C (Martin) —– Exhibit C (Martin)

Exhibit C (Beard) —– Exhibit C (Beard)

Exhibit D (Creighton) —– Exhibit D (Creighton)

Exhibit D (Mutch)

Exhibit E (Locke)

Exhibit E (Thomas) —– Exhibit E (Thomas)

Exhibit F (Johnson)

Exhibit F (Kirchner) —– Exhibit F (Kirchner)

Exhibit F (KTaylor) —– Exhibit F (LTaylor) —– Exhibit F (LTaylor)

11 Comments

  1. Deedie Beard’s envelope lacks a date/time stamp?

    Comment by Dan — July 17, 2010 @ 9:55 am

  2. No date stamp on the City Street Chief?

    Comment by LTR — July 17, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

  3. Dan and LTR,

    My affidavit, which includes the photographs, speaks for itself, and I cannot elaborate on it.

    Comment by Bill — July 17, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

  4. The photograph election documents do speak for themselves! The election office can’t even follow the law.

    Is it possible for the insiders to submit absentee votes after the polls close and votes are counted?

    Comment by LTR — July 18, 2010 @ 8:47 am

  5. I’m not privy to the specifics of the case, but from what I’ve heard every possible scenario for something going wrong with this election happened. You name it, it happened.

    Comment by Dan — July 18, 2010 @ 9:07 am

  6. Just looking at the envelopes in Bill’s photos makes me think of many things I would do, if I were in charge (and no, I don’t want the job)

    1. ALL envelopes would be stamped with a combined DATE/TIME stamp. (Right now some of them are, some are only DATE stamped, some have no stamp at all. And, right now, the date/time stamps are located at random places all over the envelope, and at any angle.)

    2. ALL envelopes would have the Date/Time stamp in the SAME SPOT on the envelope. Pick a spot. To the right of the address? Ok, that’s where it will be on EVERY envelope, so anyone can look at that spot and instantly find the information. And the Date/Time stamp will be upright, not sideways or upside down so the reader has to turn the envelope to view it.

    3. EVERY signature will be checked to see if they are the correct person and the correct handwriting. ANY variation from the norm, if there’s valid reason to allow it, would be noted and explained on the envelope and/or an accompanying, referenced document. This information will also be in a standardized location on the envelope.

    Those are just the first three ideas that pop into my head. I could go on and on. Does anyone else have some suggestions too?

    Comment by mary — July 18, 2010 @ 10:57 am

  7. Mary,

    Regarding your suggestion #3: Idaho has no statutory signature comparison standards. Likewise, Idaho has no training standards or requirements that local officials must meet in order to make signature comparisons. In other words, although signature comparisons are required on absentee ballot affidavits, they are completely at the discretion of the person making the comparison (according to Betsy Kimbrough in the Idaho Secretary of State’s office).

    Washington state, on the other hand, has prescribed standards defined in the Washington Administrative Code. Sheryl Moss from the Washington Secretary of State’s office provided these:

    WAC 434-250-120 Verification of the signature and postmark on ballots.

    A ballot shall be counted only if:

    (1) It is returned in the return envelope, or a similar envelope if it contains the same information and signed affidavit and is approved by the auditor;

    (2) The affidavit is signed with a valid signature in the place afforded for the signature on the envelope;

    (3) The signature has been verified pursuant to WAC 434-379-020, or if the voter is unable to sign his or her name, two other persons have witnessed the voter’s mark;

    (4) It is postmarked not later than the day of the election or deposited in the auditor’s office, a polling
    location, or a designated deposit site not later than 8:00 p.m.
    on election day; and

    (5) The ballot is received prior to certification of the election.

    The signature on the return envelope, or on a copy of the return envelope, must be compared with the signature in the voter’s voter registration file using the standards established in WAC 434-379-020. The signature on a return envelope may not be rejected merely because the name in the signature is a variation of the name on the voter registration record. The canvassing board may designate in writing representatives to perform this function. All personnel assigned to the duty of signature verification shall subscribe to an oath administered by the county auditor regarding the discharge of his or her duties. Personnel shall be instructed in the signature verification process prior to actually canvassing any signatures. Local law enforcement officials may instruct those employees in techniques used to identify forgeries.

    The signature verification process shall be open to the public, subject to reasonable procedures adopted and promulgated by the canvassing board to ensure that order is maintained and to safeguard the integrity of the process.

    WAC 434-379-020 Signature verification standard.

    A signature on a petition sheet must be matched to the signature on file in the voter registration records. The following characteristics must be utilized to evaluate signatures to determine whether they are by the same writer:

    (1) Agreement in style and general appearance, including basic construction, skill, alignment, fluency, and a general uniformity and consistency between signatures;

    (2) Agreement in the proportions of individual letters, height to width, and heights of the upper to lower case letters;

    (3) Irregular spacing, slants, or sizes of letters that are duplicated in both signatures;

    (4) After considering the general traits, agreement of the most distinctive, unusual traits of the signatures.

    A single distinctive trait is insufficient to conclude that the signatures are by the same writer. There must be a
    combination or cluster of shared characteristics. Likewise, there must be a cluster of differences to conclude that the signatures
    are by different writers.

    Comment by Bill — July 18, 2010 @ 11:22 am

  8. Wow, Bill. That’s good info. Smells like a lot of facts, something that the supporters of this crooked election seem to be lacking.

    Comment by Dan — July 18, 2010 @ 4:03 pm

  9. Dan,

    The emails I exchanged with Kimbrough and Moss were on November 16 and 17, 2009, about seven days after Coeur d’Alene’s Mayor Bloem and the City Council of headnodders automatically rubber-stamped Weathers’ and English’s FUBAR’d election results.

    My biggest question is why haven’t Idaho’s legislators been hammering both Ysursa and the Idaho Association of County Clerks and Recorders (of which Dan English proudly proclaims he has been an officer) for signature standards and training for election officials. This issue came to prominence in 2004 in Gregoire v Rossi in Washington state. Washington state’s standards were refined after that debacle. I guess it’s too much to hope that our legislators, Secretary of State Ysursa and his deputy Hurst, Coeur d’Alene City Clerk Susan Weathers, and Kootenai County Clerk Dan “Tote-A-Vote” English can learn from other states’ debacles.

    Comment by Bill — July 18, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

  10. Until the legislature’s collective IQ rises above 80, I don’t see anything getting done. Honestly, we have the largest collection of do-nothings in the legislature. And Ysursa is just occupying space. I’m very disappointed there is no one running against him.

    Comment by Dan — July 18, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

  11. Well there it is, DeeDee is in trouble for not doing her job. Too bad she is retired, is there any chance us voters can get a piece of that retirement? I sure feel let down. Mississippi Mike is sure to be sorry he opened his yap on H berries again this weekend by claiming Bills affidavit, well just ain’t true. By the number of posts it looks like even his faithful don’t by it anymore. By the way has anyone heard from Scott Reed the smartest attorney in Idaho?

    Comment by WannaBe JD — July 19, 2010 @ 10:08 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