(Note: Covered extensively by
the Stranger, and Goldy at Horsesass (
here,
here,
here and
here). Diaried
here,
here and
here.)
As I reported, at Thursday's meeting the GOP used screenshots of Google searches as proof of new residences of the challenged voters (as pointed out here, the law clearly states that someone challenging a voter's right to vote must have the voter's new address - Sotelo and the GOP skipped this step when filing the challenges initially, and is now trying to make up for it after the fact). Apparently they read my post, and decided that a Google search isn't enough to reach the burden of proof - but instead of actually doing their due diligence (which is the least someone can ask if their vote is being taken from them), they decided instead to change search engines. Brilliant!
Read on for more of this, and a great exchange between one of the Democratic lawyers and Ms. Sotelo.
Apparently a
Zabasearch.com search is enough to disenfranchise someone. At least that's what Lori Sotelo and the King County GOP thinks. Zaba's in, Google's out! And here is the problem with Zabasearch - it doesn't know where
I live. It knows my past two residences, but not my current address (which I've been at for almost a year). The Canvass Board also saw problems with the methodology - as in the case of Shirley Ammett, whose Zabasearch came up with a simple "S. Ammett". Dan Satterberg (member of the Canvass Board) asked Sotelo how they knew that "S. Ammett" was Shirley, and not Steve or Sally. Her answer? Something along the lines of "All I have to do is find something that could reasonably be their current address".
When a Zabasearch came up with multiple listings for the same person, the Board asked Sotelo how she had determined that one address was the current address, and the others were wrong. Her response - "It is my understanding that Zabasearch puts results in chronological order". When asked how she had come to that understanding, her response was that this is how she understood how the site worked. No documentation - we just have to take her word for it that Zabasearch ranks addresses chronologically. So now we're disenfranchising people because someone with a similar name lives at a different address. Fantastic!
(just a reminder - anything in quotes isn't actually a direct quote - just my best reconstruction of what they said based on my notes)
And the Republican case just got shakier as the night went on. When asked by Dean Logan (head of King County Elections) if Sotelo had performed the same tests on these "new" addresses as they had on the challenged addresses (to see if they were also PO Boxes or storage facilities) Sotelo seemed confused. The question was repeated, and after a moment or two she acknowledged that they hadn't held up the "new" addresses to those that were originally challenged.
On a latter challenge (of a man who was registered at a storage facility), when asked by the Canvass Board how Sotelo knew that there was not a resident manager at the facility, her answer was that "there was no mention on the storage facility's website of a resident manager". So if they don't mention it on their website, there is no way it could exist?
Our first exciting challenged voter of the night was Douglas Bylsma. He had taken as council Kevin Hamilton (one of the lawyers working with the KC Dems on this case). Mr. Bylsma came to the hearing wearing his Purple Heart on his flannel shirt. Sotelo introduced her evidence, then Mr. Hamilton got his chance to ask her:
Hamilton: How did you find Mr. Bylsma's name?
Sotelo: I found it by performing a database query of the King County Elections database.
Hamilton: Did you do the query yourself?
Sotelo: No, I directed volunteers to do it.
Hamilton: Can you give us the name of the volunteer who specifically found Mr. Bylsma's name?
Sotelo: No, I can't.
Hamilton: Can you explain the exact methodology you used to find the names of the 1,944 voters you challenged?
Sotelo: We compiled addresses for storage facilities and professional PO Box facilities, and compared them to addresses in the King County Elections database.
Hamilton: Washington State Republican Party Chair Chris Vance stated in a recent Seattle Times article that "while the GOP had prepared its list by comparing the street addresses of voters with those of private mailbox businesses and storage complexes, its database expert had not compared cities or geographic designations."
Sotelo: I don't know anything about that, and I won't answer any more questions (talked with Tebelius for a few seconds and then), Ok, I won't answer this question.
Hamilton: What is the name of the organization that worked at compiling these challenges?
Sotelo: The Voter Registration Integrity Project.
Hamilton: And is this organization filed as a political committee in this state?
Sotelo: No.
Hamilton: And was there any money spent on this project?
Sotelo: No.
Hamilton: So no money was spent on phones or an internet connection or anything?
Sotelo: The King County Republican Party gave us the office space, etc.
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.
Then we moved on to Kevin Hamilton's opening comments:
"The challenger failed to conduct an adequate investigation. She didn't make any calls, make any visits, or even perform her internet searches before she filed these challenges (ed: she admitted that most of the Google and Zabasearches, and visits to the challenged sites took place after the election). The challenge statute has been abused by Ms. Sotelo and her Voter Registration Integrity Project.
"It is also improper to just add language to an official form with the King County logo on it.
"The challenger must also provide the address where the challenged voter actually resides. A Zabasearch doesn't meet this requirement. We have this requirement so that the challenged voters will properly receive notification that their voter registration had been challenged, and because in order for an established residence to be invalidated, a new residence must have been established.
"Every one of these 1,944 challenges are facially invalid, as Ms. Sotelo hadn't collected her evidence about them until after the challenges were filed - relying only on the first database search.
"In closing, Ms. Sotelo didn't do this research herself, thus could not have any personal knowledge in relation to these voter registrations, and because of this all the challenges should be dismissed. The challenge statute was not meant to be used as a political tool like this, and should only be used in cases where the challenger actually has personal knowledge that a voter is registered to a location that isn't their residence."
At this point, Tebelius interjects - and gives us the best exchange of the night:
Tebelius: This is taking way too long.
Logan: I am keeping an eye on the clock.
Tebelius: But there are 37 more challenges to look at tonight!
Logan: That's because of the high number of challenges submitted!
Mr. Bylsma then testified that he had assumed that when he changed his vehicle registration, that the DOL had passed on his new residence information to the Secretary of State, who was then supposed to pass it on to King County Election (as stated in RCW 29A.08.360)
Satterberg then wanted to ascertain whether or not the DOL had in fact change his DOL registration - and figured it out by asking if he had paid a Monorail tax on his tabs (he changed his vehicle registration from a Seattle address to a Duvall address). Mr. Bylsma stated that he hadn't paid any Monorail tax - thus his car was no longer registered in Seattle. Obviously the communication line between the DOL and King County Records and Elections had somehow broken down and his change of address had not been passed on. Definitely not his fault - he did his part. The Republicans still wouldn't rescind their challenge to his vote.
Fun questions from the Canvass Board:
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)
Satterberg: Did you cross check against all PO Box locations, or just some?
Tebelius: Objection! Goes to intent.
Sotelo: There was no discrimination in which PO Box locations we checked.
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 (of course, she doesn't actually have any personal knowledge of this with many of the locations, as she's admitted that she hasn't personally visited most of the locations herself - relying on her minions to do the visiting and picture taking for her).
Again - if I had turned in a paper in college that was as poorly researched as these voter challenges, I never would have received my degree.