Washblog

by Jason's unholy alliance with Sharkansky. This is what Sharkansky represents here in WA state, and our poor misguided fool Jason is his willing dupe.

With all the time and effort that Jason appears to have expended on voting issues, we might have expected by now to have read some examination by our self-described "progressive" of the right-wing voter suppression agenda, and why he opposes it.

But no. Instead we get "Stefan and I," "Stefan and I," "I share Stefan's concerns."

Get it straight, people. Jason's buddy Stefan is our enemy. Everything he does is ultimately directed against us. I want to see some acknowledgement of this from Jason before I take anything he says seriously, ever again.

And Jason, I warn you, if you attempt to contact me by private e-mail, as you have done before, I will rat you out to your ISP as a stalker.

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:59:26 AM PST

---

I am not opposed to efforts to make the integrity of the voting system bulletproof. I consider that an admirable goal. But do it without Sharkansky, and quit kissing up to him, or even acknowledging him. That's what I object to.

His agenda is not our agenda, and his friends, like Bob Edelman, are not our friends. Maybe they're your friends.

Their aim is voter suppression. I know this because I read absolutely every single post, and every comment, on his blog, every day. Nothing could be clearer.

If you can't bring yourself even to acknowledge this, much less condemn it, in public and in detail, after all the time and energy you have spent on this issue, but rather go to great pains on a liberal blog to rationalize the efforts of some of the worst scum in this state, then until you do, I will continue to question your motives.

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:30:24 AM PST

---

to unwind and understand.

From my first reading, it sounds like you're saying Stefan's critique of the WA Post article was largely correct.  But that WAPO article exactly hit the nail on the head on one of the most critical issues facing us now.  The continual attempts of the Republican Party -- many of them successful -- to suppress the vote.  Part of this suppression campaign is the attempt to make "voter fraud" the central focus of election integrity.  This is, in itself, a massive fraud. I see Stefan Sharkansky as probably deliberately engaging in it with ill-intent.  

I suspect you do not see that ill intent and that this is where we would disagree on the issue.  I suspect that you're trying to get people to look at what you see as the legitimate aspects of the voter fraud campaign.  

First step I can do now to understand your piece is to look at WA Association of Churches v Reed.  You say this was decided correctly -- but you don't say -- as far as I can see -- what this case was about or what Sharkansky is claiming, whether he thinks it was decided correctly or not.  So I went to read the Shark. article --- and he presents it as a miscarriage of justice.  So this means you and Stefan disagree here, right?

So then I go to read the case itself.  What was it about and how was it decided?  The key part of the final stipulation:

Defendant (this means the Secy of State), his employees, agents, representatives and successors in office are
permanently enjoined from enforcing RCW 29A.08.107 in such a way that any application
for voter registration is denied solely on the basis of a failure to match a voter's driver's
license number, state identification card number, or last four digits of a social security
number with information on record with the state Department of Licensing or federal Social
Security Administration, including by enforcement of RCW 29A.08.107(2) and (3).

So, in other words, Stefan is in favor of people being denied the opportunity to register vote if they can't produce the exact right ID -- something that will disenfranchise many potential voters.  He speciously denies it will have this effect.  I see him, all along the line, in everything he does and asserts, as dishonest.  My bias, perhaps.

The WA Association of Churches -- and the court that decided this case ... and you Zappini ... all disagree with Stefan and want people to be able to register to vote if they are eligible and not be disenfranchised on technical grounds if they have difficulty complying with those technical grounds.    Ok, I got that part -- now on to the next.  

by noemie maxwell on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:55:31 AM PST

---

like Sen Byrd would say, I'll say it again why?
Why would you write such a diary stressing where you think you agree with Stefan and excluding the detail on what you disagree with?
You would I think do well to step back and look at how Stefan is using a few convenient "facts" as a basis for leaps of faith aimed at causing harm. Your post will be used far and wide to suggest that his conclusions have grounds. My hope is that you will make good use of the edit tab and correct the gaps in your content, resist being defensive and make the changes.

by Particle Man on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:39:13 AM PST

---

Oops. There is a form of registration fraud that I do care about: partisan tossing of registration forms. That's when someone's gathering forms, offers to send it for you, sees that you're the wrong party, and trashes your form. That happened a lot in 2004, but not in Washington as far as I know.

I'm a little fuzzy on partisan gathering of registration forms. That's when they selectively ask you to register to vote. Start with some lead in questions to qualify the voter and only offer forms to members of your own tribe. That happens a lot, probably more than we imagine, but I don't know if it's actionable.

by zappini on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:48:53 AM PST

---

Brian Mellor of ACORN said something pretty funny during Whatcom Fair Voting's forum on VRDB.

The more restrictive voter registration rules have unintended consequences. Whatever the hurdle, ACORN's mission is to register voters. They have the resources. ACORN can adjust. Whereas the "informal" groups, like the League of Women Voters and churches, can't adjust or accept the liability. So the more restrictive rules end up reducing voter registration in a partisan way. Like cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

I don't know much about ACORN. My interest has been with the databases, purges, caging lists, etc.

Mellor said they take internal measures to reduce fraud. Since they pay their workers per form, they have an incentive to keep their gatherers honest. When there's a problem, they assist with investigations and turn the bad apples in. Makes sense. Seeing how they're being defrauded as well. And any "errors" that still make it through are caught later when the voter has to present id. No worries.

Until I hear otherwise, I don't have a problem with ACORN.

by zappini on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:20:37 AM PST

---

should be in the public dialogue.  He has a depth of technical knowledge specific to the state and to King County that is rare.  The independence factor is also important.  I too often see the guilt-by-association thing happen.  Fool is the wrong word to use here and discredits the people using it.

Having said that, I'm glad you're clarifying on your piece, Jason.  

Stefan has what amounts to a campaign of putting false information into the public dialogue  -- from mocking the reality of climate change and attempts to deal with it; to the most nasty attacks on public officials for doing their jobs (for example epeatedly comparing Ron Sims to the African dictator Mugabe); to nasty attacks on individuals (calling someone a patsy for believing in taxes to pay for public services); to asserting that King County falsified information and mailed out its military ballots late when they had not verified this was true (did he ever correct the record?  I doubt it); to turning the truth exactly upside down on election matters over and over.  For example, in a post entitled What's the Difference between Ohio and King County, he asserts that Ohio is a paragon of election integrity and King County is crooked.  Goldy sums up well, I think, the kind of obfuscation Stefan is at, asserting election fraud even after:  "A Republican Secretary of state, a Republican state Attorney General, a Republican King County Prosecutor, a Republican U.S. Attorney, and the local FBI office of a Republican DOJ all failed to find evidence of fraud or criminal activity -- (and a) cherry picked judge in a Republican county dismissed (fraud allegations) "with prejudice."  As Carla says in her Preemptive Karma piece linked to above -- this is a tried-and-true method, simply throwing shit at a wall and seeing what will stick.

Can useful, limited alliances be made with such a person?  Maybe.  But many of the people who read Washblog will have no idea of Stefan's approach to truth and his long distortion campaign.  So we owe it to readers, I think, to provide that context.

 

by noemie maxwell on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:47:19 PM PST

---

well said

by Particle Man on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:00:40 PM PST

---

(We can move this to a different thread or to e-mail if Jason or Noemie wishes.)

The 36th District Democrats, of which I am a member by virtue of being an elected PCO has as part of its adopted bylaws a requirement that it shall have some sort of published information collection, use and sharing policy. I am on the Executive Board as an at large member, and have been appointed the head of the committee (of three) which is drafting said policy.

The prevalent view about personal information, particularly contact information, within campaign and political organizations in general seems to be that they are exempt from all regulation regarding their use of contact information. Indeed they are to some extent, having cleverly written themselves exemptions to most of the applicable statues.

However I personally know of two incidents where this exemption came close to being tested in 2004 and the Democratic Party relented.

So the following comment concerns and interests me for broad policy reasons. Ivan Weiss says:

And Jason, I warn you, if you attempt to contact me by private e-mail, as you have done before, I will rat you out to your ISP as a stalker.

OK, really: I don't think it's good to joke about this kind of thing, folks. That's the simple and plain truth. I think it was an ill-considered remark; but I defend Ivan's right to be his bombastic self (Galloway is my hero!) as long as nobody seriously thinks Jason is a stalker. I still worry about the possible chilling effect.

Ivan Weiss is a public official, the chair of the 34th District Democrats. Jason is widely recognized as an election integrity activist. So to some extent they are both public officials.

I presume, barring convincing evidence to the contrary, that Jason was contacting Ivan on an issue which Ivan has evidenced obvious interest.

1. Is Jason a public official, asserting prerogative under granted exemptions?
   
2. Is Ivan, a public official, asserting some special prerogative contrary to the assertions his organization largely makes?
   

Is Ivan asserting this as a public official? Jason is not, to my knowledge, a resident of the 34th Legislative District or even a member of the Democratic Party. (Inviting correction on either of those points.) But it's hard enough to contact public officials about matters of public policy already, without fears of restraining orders.

Is Ivan asserting this as a private citizen Because it seems to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom which the organization which he belongs to and represents espouses.

Finally I want to point out that I would be very surprised if any ISP would act on Ivan's "say-so" without evidence that he had at least filed a police report.

by m3047 on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:23:08 PM PST

---