 Jan. 5, 2005 Dean Logan responds to reports of discrepancies in accounting of voters credited with voting and votes cast in the Nov. 2, 2004 general election.Recent statements/articles highlighting the difference between the numbers of votes cast and the number of voters credited with voting as evidence of fraud miss the mark. Historically, the number of votes cast and the number of voters credited with voting does not typically balance. State election laws address ballot security and accountability on the front end of the elections process – at the polls, in ballot counting centers, and throughout the certification process. The process of crediting voters for voting is not designed to determine if voter fraud occurred, but rather a process to ensure voter registration lists are updated and current, to assist in administering and managing elections (i.e.; merging voter registration update information, updating absentee ballot requests, etc.), and to be available for use by political organizations for tracking voter participation. What is the reason for the difference in the number of votes cast and the numbers of voters being given credit for voting? The most common reasons persons who voted may not appear on the list of registered voters occur because:
Despite automation and advanced use of technology, our election system depends, in large measure, on manual, human interfaces. This results in a margin of administrative and procedural error which contributes to the difference in the crediting of voters. Safeguards and oversight are built into the process to mitigate this margin of error. King County recognized, in running its preliminary report, that the difference
in the number of voters credited and the number of ballots accounted for
during the certification of the election and subsequent recounts was greater
than what this difference has been historically. The difference in these numbers does not mean fraud has occurred. Evidence of voter or election fraud must be taken very seriously and acted upon in the same open, transparent, and fair manner in which elections are administered. Likewise, the suggestion or accusation of voter fraud should only be made when facts are identified or clear evidence exists indicating fraudulent activity has occurred. Otherwise, public confidence in the elections process is undermined. The controls in place in the administration of an election and inherent to our election laws address voter registration and who should receive a ballot -- be it a mail ballot or a ballot used at the polls. Those laws and rules require that administration and staffing of critical election processes are conducted in an open and public manner. Oversight consists of direct involvement of representatives of the major political parties and final certification of a canvass board comprised of the county’s chief elections officer, the county prosecuting attorney or his designee, and a member of the county’s legislative body appointed by its chair. In King County, ballots cast in the Nov. 2 General Election have been secured since certification of the election on Nov.17. The ballot containers were unsealed during both the mandatory machine recount and the requested manual recount of the Governor’s race. In all cases, the ballots were unsealed and then resealed in the presence of political party observers. There has been no indication of fraud in the security of the ballots. In summary, combined, we believe the statutory protections have worked
well in this election. We have not found voter fraud in this election.
King County conducted the election and the subsequent recounts in an open,
fair and transparent manner and in accordance with state election law.
|
|
Updated: Jan. 5, 2005 King County | Elections | News | Services | Comments | Search
Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. |