The Democratian's hatred of the right again on full display.

For years now, the Democratian has regaled us with the line that they, as an organization, have precisely zero bias in their politics, and their attacks on those to the right of Mao are honest and sincerely based on sober reflection as opposed to their endemic, institutional efforts to portray Republicans as scum generally, and conservatives particularly as dregs of the earth.

The lie that they lack fringe-left political bias is easily proven.  This blog is rife with the kind of tales of Democratian hatred towards Republicans and their manifold efforts to either ignore leftist thuggery (Oddly, their efforts to cover for then state Rep. Jim Jacks, forced to resign over his mistreatment of female staffers in Olympia... first broken here in my meager effort... and consistently ignored, belittled, or covered up by the local version of Pravda Izvestiya until they were forced to concede the truth that *I* provided.... SIX YEARS AFTER IT HAPPENED... ) or downplay it or turn it into some sort of leftist victimhood.

Who can forget their so-called endorsement of a guy who didn't even live in the 17th District but who had a D after his name and who was running against hated CRC Scam opponent and conservative Don Benton, then state Senator:

“...although sincere and well-intentioned, lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the important policy questions for Southwest Washington and the state. About the only attribute in his favor is the fact that he’s not Don Benton. And on that admittedly flimsy basis, we endorse Peterson.”

Yes, these things happened a LOOOONG time ago (The anti-endorsement endorsement of a Benton opponent merely because he wasn't Benton was 2000, and the Jim Jacks cover-up started with his forced resignation in 2011) that merely sets the table as cornerstone examples of the fringe-left hatred The Cancer on Clark County has expressed for decades, dozens of other examples notwithstanding.

So, it was no real surprise that the Democratian's local version of Goebbels would use terminology like this in trashing both David Madore (An institutional icon for leftist hatred generally and Democratian hatred particularly) and Joe Kent.

"But mostly, judging by her first week as a candidate, she is focused on defeating “progressive Perez.” That, of course, is the goal of all area Republicans, even if it requires labeling one of the most centrist Democrats in the House with an oxymoron."

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to label a fringe-left #antifa supporting thug as "centrist."

"So Jared, Mary, and I (Perez) actually just took over the Blue Dogs," Gluesenkamp Perez said during the July 31 event, which was hosted by the Downtown Nasty Women Social Group, a group of so-called progressive activists in New York City, and Markers for Democracy. "They basically lost some of their membership before we came in, and we are sort of rebuilding it into – Mary, Jared, and I – are rebuilding it into this sort of antifascist rural [group]."

The Democratian, BEING the Democratian, made no mention of this fact that I can find, because, well, that just blows their meme of a fake centrist democrat (hopefully) flying under the radar.

Leftist newsletter masquerading as a newspaper will, of course, do all they can to get Perez reelected. That's what they've always done when it comes to democrats, real or fake (For example, RINO Jaime Herrera)

And to do it, they'll be selective with facts:

"Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez was the winner of the 3rd Congressional District race last year; Republican Joe Kent was the loser. With both in the race for next year, the general election match up for 2024 has been considered a fait accompli."

A minor detail, deliberately left out?

Kent lost because of the RINO vote, since RINOs despise conservatives as much as the Democratian, by around 2700 votes or so. He also failed to mention that right around $4 million was dropped on the election attacking Kent by outside interests.

Take a moment and ask yourself: had Kent won, does anyone reading the Democratian's tripe believe for one second that Goebbels would have written this about Perez?

And far be it for the Lazy D to miss an opportunity to backhand David Madore, who they hate like few others (And do you note that those they DO hate all seem to have an "R" after their names? Why would an "unbiased" rag not be just a touch more even-handed in their horrific approach to local politics):

"During her 2021 campaign for Camas City Council, Lewallen’s biggest financial supporters (aside from herself) were David Madore and his wife. As a Clark County councilor from 2013-16, Madore embodied the worst traits of the modern Republican Party, seeking to break government to prove that government is broken."

Not unlike the leftist scum at the Democratian embody the "worst traits" of journalism? The kind of thing that makes rags like this one among the least trusted forms of media in the country?

And this beaut:

"And all of which makes a serious Republican challenger to Kent (Lewallen already has the backing of former Secretary of State Sam Reed) a most welcome addition."

This, of course, is a major reason to OPPOSE Lewallen, not to support her... and where, for example does Sam Reed happen to reside?

Not in the 3rd District.

It's easy for others who don't suffer the effects of representation from those they want to ignore the best interests of those they would try to impress.

So, he just another establishment RINO who see's what he wants as important somehow. Just look at how many candidates he's endorsed who, well, actually won.

Generally speaking, time has repeatedly told us that it's always better to oppose the Democratian in every respect. From the CRC/Loot Rail Scam, both a decade ago and now, to the Ballpark rip-off propaganda scam they ran, to bogus, completely biased endorsements, to obvious fringe-left, DNC-style hatred of the GOP, we're all much better off then we ignore Clark County's Carbuncle than we are when we allow them to tell us what to think.. and do.

Sam "The Scumbag" Reed: let's work to hurt democracy.

.
Unfortunately, this state is cursed with arguably the worst Secretary of State in the United States today: Sam Reed.

Reed, an utter embarrassment as Secretary of State, has done nothing to increase the security of our elections.

He has done nothing to make sure that those who register to vote are citizens.

He has done nothing to make sure that the votes come in actually belong to the voter named.

What he HAS done is whine and snivel about how "hard" it is to keep convicted felons from voting, so instead of doing his damned job, he worked to increase the leftist vote by allowing felons to vote before they have completed their sentences.

There was a crock of crap about how that somehow aids in the rehabilitation process, as if someone knocking over a 7-11 gives a rat's ass about their voting rights, but in the end, it's all about making it easier on HIM.

Search this blog under "Reed" and a large number of posts detailing his incompetence will pop up.

This lowlife moron had EIGHT YEARS to get a system in place to keep track of felon voters, and did not one damned thing to make that happen.

Well, except to SEND over 20,000 felon voters VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS before the last election in 2008.

He damned sure did THAT.

And now this scumbag is down here shilling yet another of his whiny little "I'm working too hard" proposals: No votes counted after Election Day.

That this clown doesn't understand that people deserve the right to make sure their vote counts FAR more than they deserve some esoteric, not necessary right to know who won on election night (and where the hell does it say THAT in the Constitution?) is the thing.

As moronically clueless now as he has been throughout his despicable tenure, Reed seems to think that making it easier on Reed trumps making every conceivable effort to get every legal vote counted, even if that is days after the official election date, as long as it takes place before the elections are certified.

So, in Reed's twisted world, if the Post Office screws up and mishandles your vote, well, that's just too damned bad.

One has to wonder what this empty suit would think if it was HIS vote that got trashed because someone ELSE screwed up. Would that be OK with you, Mr. Secretary?

Reed babbled:

But Reed, a Republican, said that every time he introduces legislation to move up the state's deadline for ballot returns, he runs into a brick wall.

Each time, "It's virtually DOA," he said. "Incumbents seem to think (the current system) works fine.

Maybe, that's because it DOES work fine, you blithering idiot!

No one else listens to Reed, so his nonsense about "regional primaries" is just as dead as his politics.

Reed needs to start focusing on the issues that really matter: proving eligibility to vote, proving identity to vote, completing your sentence to vote... and stop worrying about finding ways to keep those whose votes SHOULD count from actually doing so. Because, frankly, you clueless moron, if the job's too damned tough, then resign and let somebody else handle it.

Meanwhile, stop sniveling, you wretch. It just reminds me why I will never support your election to anything, ever.
.

The Idiocy of Sam Reed, our state's Secretary of State, continues.

.
It was primarily because Sam Reed, our Secretary of State, is an incompetent moron.

I've hammered Reed many times over his idiocy on this and other matters. He accomplished his goal with this vote, he thinks, which is to eliminate his sworn duty to enforce all of the laws... including those pertaining to felon voters (He doesn't happen to think that much about identification or citizenship requirements, either) but because it's too "hard," he doesn't want to do it any more... not that he ever did it in the first place.

The idiocy of this bill is that with a dolt for Secretary of State who didn't want to deal with the administration of the felon voting requirements, who has no system in place nor the intelligence to figure one out (after all, he's only wasted NINE years ignoring this problem) will simply ignore the requirement that felons make their payments on time to keep their eligibility, and just make sure that all felons can vote.

He can't and won't monitor felons WITHOUT this program... who really expects him to do it WITH this program?

That's EASIER, you see, and Reed is only concerned about reducing his responsibilities. Not what's right. Not what's ethical... and given his abysmal enforcement of the felon voter laws (Essentially non-existent) not what's legally required.

If you Republicans want him, you can have him. But I would vote for a fire hydrant before I would ever vote for him.



Lawmakers OK bill to restore voting for felons

Story Published: Apr 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM PDT

Story Updated: Apr 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM PDT

By Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The Washington state Legislature has approved a measure that lets convicted felons get their voting rights back once they're no longer in state custody.

The House, on a 52-44 vote Wednesday, concurred with changes made in the Senate. The measure now goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire.

Under current law, felons can't vote until they have served their sentences and are no longer under state custody, including any parole or probation, and have paid all restitution and other court fees.

Under the bill that passed Wednesday, felons could register to vote once they're no longer under parole or probation. But those rights could be revoked if a felon fails to make regular payments on financial obligations, including court fees or restitution. not what's legal, either.

.

The Idiocy of Sam Reed and The Columbian never ceases to amaze - In our view April 16: Progress for Felons

.
As stated here, here, here and here, the sheer unadulterated idiocy of restoring voting privileges before the completion of a sentence, with it's decreased likelihood of the payment of restitution to a criminal's victims or government, is obvious.

The leftist moron who wrote this editorial supporting this bizarre nonsense fails to address, in his haste to restore the felon's "rights," that the felon violated the victim's rights without a second thought.

We're lied to:

First, regaining the right to vote could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.

Utter nonsense. They provide not one shred of proof that recidivism is influenced in any way by voting rights. Not one. It sounds good, so they print it.

But I just can't feature any of these clowns going, "Gee, if I rob this 7-11, I won't be able to vote in the upcoming school bond levy."

Second, it would encourage participation in the democratic process. After being under government's thumb (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to vote a way to help elect those who serve in that same government.

This non sequitur is a right they voluntarily gave up by violating the rights of their victim. And who would they vote for? A candidate more likely to get tough on crime? Or a candidate more likely to be lenient while the public gets caught in the middle and screwed?

Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of voting by felons after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a poll tax, denying to poor felons the right to vote that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot vote until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to vote as long as they stay current on payments.

I'm touched by the concern expressed here for the criminal. But when it comes to the victim?

Not so much. What this law "signals" to a criminal is that when you shoot someone, either killing them or crippling them, this newspaper is going to be far more concerned about your right to vote then it is your requirement to pay your restitution.

They falsely equate restitution, which is, after all, an effort to at least partially make your victim whole, with a bogus poll tax. That is a crock of pure, grade A BS.

When the "new law" fails because felons WILL NOT "stay current" on their restitution payments, how long will it be before this newspaper leads the charge to remove even THAT requirement?

And what mechanism has that waste of skin Sam Reed implemented to enforce any of these requirements?

Reed will make sure that all felons are registered as a part of their release program, and then do absolutely nothing to make sure that they ARE current. If he couldn't set up a program that would keep track of convicted felons that haven't had their rights restored, how can anyone expect this incompetent boob to set up a program to keep track of these felon's payments?

This bill is sheer idiocy. I wonder when we're going to see this rag write an editorial demanding that convicted felon's gun rights be restored?

After all, the Second Amendment isn't the second suggestion, and all these arguments for restoring felon voting rights can certainly be applied to restoring felon gun rights.

In fact, substitute the word "gun," for the word "vote," and you come up with a pretty persuasive argument... right?

First, regaining the right to possess guns could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.

Second, it would encourage participation in firearms training. After being under government's thumb unarmed for so many years (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to own firearms to help protect others from criminals.

Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of denying felons the right to possess or own firearms after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a requirement for felons to remain helpless and unarmed, denying to poor felons the right to self defense that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot own or possess firearms until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to own or possess firearms as long as they stay current on payments.

That, of course, is "different" somehow. Right?

But is it?

A "right" is a "right." Voting is a "right," and so is owning or possessing a firearm. How can anyone supporting this bill oppose the restriction of ANY "right" by these people?

The fact is that the primary driver for this bill, our utterly worthless leftist-masquerading as a Republican Secretary of State, Sam Reed, has shown a monumental level of incompetence when it comes to administering the issue of keeping felon voters of the rolls.

Of course, that incompetence is, in part, driven by his agenda which has included the elimination of the felon voter rules for years now. To that end, Reed has done absolutely nothing to set up a system to identify felon voters to keep them from voting.

Well, he HAS whined, repeatedly, about how HARD it is to do that particular task, but besides that, he's done absolutely nothing to implement that requirement, and in the last election, he was directly responsible for sending out 10's of thousands of ballots to felon voters disqualified from voting by their felony conviction.

And now, we expect this clown to implement a far more exacting, far more complicated and cumbersome system than a blanket prohibition?

Ohhh. I'm really confident. Aren't you?

The leftist rag sickeningly claims racism as the basis for the opposition to this issue, contending that because of the "disproportionately" high percentage (I guess the idea that a "disproportionately" high percentage of people committing crimes just happen to be "of color" doesn't enter in to their world) of criminals are "of color," that could "conceivably" ("Conceivably?" Is this guy smoking crack? What was the minority vote in the last election?) favor Democrats.

I oppose this bill ONLY because those who will benefit from it are those who cheerfully and willingly violated the rights of their victims without concern to voting rights.

The ONLY question to consider is this: Will this bill make it MORE likely... or LESS likely that restitution will be paid?

The restoration of rights should ONLY be granted after the COMPLETION of ALL of a sentence. To complete incarceration... mandatory... required incarceration because YOU have VOLUNTARILY committed a crime or crimes, EARNS you nothing.

Again, I seriously doubt that any of the morons supporting this travesty face the possibility of restitution from a convicted felon. I seriously doubt that any of the women who had voted for this had been rape victims. I seriously doubt that any man who voted for this had a murdered wife or child. I seriously doubt that any of these people have had a knife held to their throat, had their house burned down or have been robbed at gun point.

Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't about race. This is about holding those who would victimize us fully accountable for their actions... not scamming the system with $5 per month payments so we can get more criminals voting.

And this newspaper presents NOTHING... and those supporting this garbage present NOTHING that eliminates the need for accountability... and to make the victims whole.

You want to crank this up?

Then put these people on a repayment schedule and LOCK THEM BACK UP WHEN THEY FAIL TO STICK TO IT.

But don't even think they'll give a damn enough about this precious right to avoid recidivism just because a bunch of liberals got together and decided to remove yet another layer of accountability.



In our view April 16: Progress for Felons
Those who have completed incarceration are one step closer to regaining right to vote

Thursday, April 16 1:00 a.m.

State senators correctly voted on Wednesday to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons once they complete their incarceration. The decision was as decisive as it was logical. The vote was 29-19, basically along party lines, with Vancouver Democrat Craig Pridemore wisely voting for the measure and local Republican senators Joe Zarelli and Don Benton opposing it.

The bill returns to the House, where it passed last month, for a vote on an amended version. Senators on Wednesday approved an amendment that would allow voting rights to be revoked again if a felon intentionally fails to comply with legal financial obligations. We're not sure that amendment contributes much to the bill. It would seem to place on felons who no longer are incarcerated an additional financial requirement to vote that nonfelons do not face. Even so, the imperfect bill would be an improvement over the status quo. We hope it is approved by the House, where its sponsors include Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver.

Arguments both for and against felons regaining voting rights (after incarceration) are rational and reasonable. Two opposing views are presented in capsulized forms accompanying this editorial.

If this change occurs, Washington will become the 14th state (joining Oregon) to restore voting rights to felons who complete their incarceration. Two states — Vermont and Maine — allow even incarcerated felons to vote. That's too lenient, in our view, but once a felon comes out from behind bars, regaining the right to vote could accomplish three things.

More:
.

More on my disgust for Sam Reed... And Rep. Jeannie Darnielle: WA bill would smooth voting restoration for felons.

.
Once you've read the story, you notice how completely bizarre the headline for this story is:

WA bill would smooth voting restoration for felons

.

Apparently, those leftist supporting this bill seem to view the mere act of release from custody as something of a "restoration process" for convicted felons.

.

Something that happens "automatically" has nothing to do with "restoration."

.

Even the definition of the word "restoration" refers to the concept of making whole... or returning to a prior state:

re⋅store

   /rɪˈstɔr, -ˈstoʊr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-stawr, -stohr] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -stored, -stor⋅ing.

1.	to bring back into existence, use, or the like; reestablish: to restore order.

2.	to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting.

3.	to bring back to a state of health, soundness, or vigor.

4.	to put back to a former place, or to a former position, rank, etc.: to restore the king to his throne.

5.	to give back; make return or restitution of (anything taken away or lost).

6.	to reproduce or reconstruct (an ancient building, extinct animal, etc.) in the original state.

.

In this particular instance, the democrats and our colossal waste of skin are MUCH more concerned over "restoring" the felon than they are "restoring" the victim.

.

Only in a democrat controlled state can up become down and right become left like this; where the victims, once again, are relegated to second place.

.

I would personally love to hold a poll of everyone supporting this bill. For everyone of the leftist scum shilling it or voting for it.

.

When were you victims of a felony? If, for example, you female representatives sponsoring or voting for this garbage... if one of these felons that you're so concerned about had raped and murdered your 13 year old daughter, like the murder that just happened around here...

.

... would you be so hot about "restoring THAT felon voter rights?"

.

What if one of these felons had held a blade up against your throat... and then slowly stripped you clothes off before he raped you... repeatedly... deaf to your screams (if he allowed you to scream) deaf to your pleas... deaf to your shattered humanity, your pain, your horror...

.

... would you be so hot about "restoring THAT felon voter rights?"

.

Somehow, I believe that few have experienced that peculiar agony.

.

Now, I get why Darnielle is doing this. When she says:

"The basic unfairness is that our system is currently based on someone paying off their legal obligations," said Rep. Jeannie Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure. "If you have money, you can get your rights restored, and if you don't have money, you won't."

Where, in that babble, does the good representative express ANY concern for the VICTIM?

She doesn't... because she has none.

What this is about is much like the other democrat concerns. They see ripe pickings for the illegal alien vote... and now, they see the opportunity to get another voting block... the convicted felon voting block.

I can see the democrats doing what our waste-of-skin Secretary of State deems to be impossible: identifying convicted felons and focusing on them as a voter block. You know, convicted felon mailers and the like, pointing out that CRIMINAL voters certainly wouldn't want to support REPUBLICANS... would they?

The rest of Darnielle's swill is eyewash to cover the true goal: opening up additional thousands of democrats to vote legally... no matter what they've done... or haven't done... to complete the court-ordered process to restore the felon's victims.

Another neo-communist legislator, Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Wells (From Seattle, stunningly enough) babbles more of the same:

"It's more an issue of fairness," she said. "I don't think the right to vote should be based on one's income."

Apparently, the good senator also lacks any concern for the victim.

Now, the total moron behind this bill, our complete waste-of-skin Secretary of State, Sam Reed, tells us this utter crap:

"When people have served their time and are out of prison, we want them to get involved in their community and get connected," said Reed, a Republican.

This is the usual kind of bureaucratic bullshit double-speak that paper-shufflers engage in to justify there crapping on us.

I can just envision with ease these civic-minded convicted felons... rapists, murderers, robber, drug dealers... being let out, met at the gate by the local democrat county party chair and being personally guided through the voter registration process.

That, of course, would include the imprisoned illegal aliens, as well, because our erstwhile embarrassment of a Secretary of State has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to insure that ONLY eligible American citizens vote. I could be asking too much, however... after all, HE'S ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE EIGHT FRICKING YEARS WHILE HE"S DONE NOTHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AT ALL.

I will give Reed SOME credit for at least a glancing reference to the TRUE reason he has for being a rabid supporter of this bill... it's to make it easier... ON HIM!

Equally important, Reed said, the measure would help reduce the bureaucratic challenges in determining who is a legal voter.

The state's voter database is able to track people who are currently in prison, or who are still under supervision by the state Department of Corrections. More than 12,000 felons have been removed from the rolls since the database went online in 2006. But people who haven't yet had their rights restored, often because of unpaid court-ordered fines, are harder to track.

"It continues to be a problem," Reed said. "We really need a bright line."

"It continues to be a problem," Reed said. Unfortunately, the Times didn't ask... and Reed didn't offer, the reasons WHY it continues to be a problem... and how they all revolve around HIS failure to do absolutely anything about it.

WHEN YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM... WHEN YOU AVOID TAKING ANY ACTION TO FIX THE PROBLEM... THE PROBLEM AIN'T GONNA FIX ITSELF.

AND IN THE ENTIRETY OF HIS EIGHT YEARS IN OFFICE, SAM REED HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO FIX THIS ISSUE.

NOTHING.

And now, like his fellow leftists, he throws the victims of these criminals under a bus.

Because the one issue NEVER talked about by these morons is what I call the "Rule of Likely."

If Government acts, is the outcome likely to be GOOD? Or is the outcome likely to be BAD?

So, to APPLY the "Rule of Likely," I ask these idiots this:

When these oh-so-civic-minded felons are GIVEN (Not "restored," but GIVEN) their "rights back... is it MORE likely or LESS likely that the non-existent incentive of the vote will INCREASE the payment of restitution to the victims?

Or DECREASE that likelihood?

Sam Reed's life will become easier... not that he's done a damned thing in this arena ANYWAY. But the lives of the VICTIMS, who SHOULD be the paramount concern of all these weasels supporting this bill will not be made better by one wit.

But then, I doubt that Reed or anyone in his family has been raped, robbed or murdered... like I doubt that very many of this bill's supporters have undergone that particular agony.

And oh, how easy it is for those who have not to ignore those who have.

Because political expedience and political advantage at the expense of the forgotten victims is the order of the day.

It just makes me proud to be an American.

Also, this quote in the article is inaccurate:

Secretary of State Sam Reed, the state's top elections officer, had not taken a position on the measure in the past, but this year he publicly supports it, saying the bill could foster greater civic engagement.

I don't know if the reporter just didn't check, or if Reed just lied outright... but making his own life easier has been Reed's mantra for years... and he has CLEARLY been taking this position for AT LEAST almost four years.

State czar for voting: Let felons cast ballots

Wednesday, June 8, 2005
By DON JENKINS, Columbian staff writer

Felons cast most of the illegal votes that clouded Washington's gubernatorial election, and the state's chief elections official Tuesday proposed a way to prevent it from happening again: legalize those voters.

Talking to reporters at the Clark County auditor's office, Secretary of State Sam Reed for the first time came out solidly in support of letting freed felons vote, regardless of their court-imposed debts.

Felons currently must pay off fines and make restitution to victims before they can apply to have their voting rights restored.But keeping disenfranchised felons off voter rolls has proven difficult for county auditors.Felons accounted for 1,401 of the 1,678 illegal votes cast in the 2004 election. Fifty-nine felons voted in Clark County. Election officials plead that they may never learn about the conviction.

Here, a bit more of the truth comes out... and Reed doesn't seem to say a whole lot about "fostering greater civic engagement" back THEN.... just now.

Gee. I wonder why.

Originally published March 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM Page modified March 21, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Comments (53) E-mail article Print view Share
WA bill would smooth voting restoration for felons
For tens of thousands of convicted felons in Washington state, only one thing stands between them and the ballot box: debt.

By RACHEL LA CORTE
Associated Press Writer

Related
State-by-state look at felon voting restoration
OLYMPIA, Wash. —

For tens of thousands of convicted felons in Washington state, only one thing stands between them and the ballot box: debt.

Under current law, felons can't vote until they have served their sentences, including the completion of any parole or probation, and paid all restitution and other court fees.

A measure to remove that payment requirement - opponents say it's akin to a modern-day "poll tax" - has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. If it becomes law, felons could simply re-register to vote once they're no longer in state custody, including any parole or probation.

"The basic unfairness is that our system is currently based on someone paying off their legal obligations," said Rep. Jeannie Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure. "If you have money, you can get your rights restored, and if you don't have money, you won't."

Washington's neighbor, Oregon, automatically restores voting rights to felons once they're released from prison. Nearly 40 other states and the District of Columbia also have less onerous restrictions on restoring voting rights to felons.

But others argue Washington state is obligated to make sure felons complete all of their sentence, including all monetary obligations.

"Until they pay their fines and restitution, to me, they haven't carried out their entire sentence," said Rep. Ed Orcutt, a Kalama Republican who opposes the bill. "So their voting rights shouldn't be restored."

More:

The Seattle Times and Sam Reed blow it: The worst Secretary of State in the country?

.
I've made no secret of my utter contempt for our waste-of-skin Secretary of State, and his most recent efforts have, if anything, deepened those feelings of disdain for him as arguably the worst Secretary of State in the country, if not the worst elected official currently serving.

His tenure has been an abysmal failure, where he has ignored the frantic efforts to get his attention focused on the most important aspect of his job: election security.

The legendary election debacle of 2004, which should have resulted in major revamping of our election system concerning requiring proof of both citizenship and identification, has resulted in neither. Further, our moron Secretary has been a staunch supporter of the bizarre concept that convicted felons, who automatically lose their right to vote with their convictions, should automatically regain that right the moment they're released from confinement, even before or without fulfilling all of the requirements of their sentences, most importantly, paying back their victims for the damage they caused.

In this most recent election, 24,000 felons received ballots who were not eligible to vote.

Beyond the costs involved in that fiasco (Far north of $100,000 wasted taxpayer dollars for which he was not held accountable) is the fact that Reed has had 8 fricking years to fix this nonsense... and the outcome is obvious.

Reed has done nothing to fix that issue; has done nothing to address either the citizenship or identification issues... and now he is screwing us up even more because of yet another misguided effort to screw with the voters by demanding that all ballots be turned in by close-of-business, election day.

The article below describes it far better than I could, but the crux of the matter is that this moron will keep thousands of citizens from voting in this state because he seems to believe that the post office is incapable of making a mistake... and God help our military voters or other citizens overseas.

I voted democrat for this position in the last election and I will vote democrat in that position no matter who runs against Reed, an embarrassment of an elected official.

That kind of incompetence and failure to adhere to the law he is sworn to uphold simply cannot be an acceptable way for any elected official to comport themselves. It is my earnest hope that Reed resigns. And the sooner, the better.

Make Washington ballots due by Election Day

Washington state's embrace of mail voting has created a problem of not knowing election results, especially in tight elections, for days. Secretary of State Sam Reed has a worthy proposal to require ballots to be received in local election offices by Election Day — the same as Oregon's law. Now, ballots are required only to be postmarked by Election Day.

WASHINGTON voters are no strangers to suspenseful elections — but our state has a habit of dragging the suspense out for way too long.

Secretary of State Sam Reed wants to bring elections to more decisive ends sooner. His proposal would require ballots be received in election offices by Election Day. Now, the ballots need only be postmarked by Election Day. That means ballots straggle in throughout election week, often putting off the decisive conclusion for days — given Washington's propensity for razor-thin margins.

On Election Night in November, Democratic challenger Darcy Burner was leading in her bid to unseat incumbent Republican Dave Reichert for the 8th Congressional District seat. But Reichert pulled comfortably ahead over several King County and Pierce County ballot counts by Friday to win re-election.

With 38 of 39 counties now conducting mail elections, the problem of interminable elections has grown only worse. Reed's proposal follows the lead of Oregon, a veteran vote-by-mail state that requires ballots in by Election Day. The change would not disenfranchise voters who, Reed argues, would quickly adapt.

More:
.

The utter cluelessness of Sam Reed.

.
Lew Waters over at Clark County Conservative gives us his take on the moronic disaster that is our Washington State Secretary of State, Sam Reed.

Lew tears into Reed in a variety of ways. I leave it to the reader to go over to his blog and check out his take. I mention Lew here essentially to give credit for reminding me about this issue, since I, too, read Reed's garbage in the LTE section of the Columbian, but failed to address his self-delusion essentially because out here in the hinterland, Qwest (aka the Prince of Deafness) decided to have an unspecified internet outage for unknown reasons for an unspecified duration and it just slipped my mind.

Lew's gentle slap at the moronic political protestation of Mr. Reed, which I discovered yesterday, reminded me to take my Fulda Tanker's Boot out and bury it in the Secretary's political butt.

Here it goes.

Reed is arguably the worst elected official in government today, and that's saying something.

In the most important elements of the domain of the Secretary of State, those elements concerning our election system, he is an utter, abysmal, failure.

Reed's failures make electoral fraud a fact of life in Washington State today. His failure to reform the state electoral system combined with his staunch support of the democrat position of giving convicted felons the vote while they encourage every other form of illegal voting since they know they, the left, benefit from the fraud vote.

The drive for reform stems from the disaster that is the 2004 election. Reed, caught in the glare of examination much like a deer caught in the headlights of a semi, has never adequately explained how it is, for example, that there could be 100's more votes then voters who cast them in King County.

The steps to reform the system are straightforward and simple: pick a date far away from the next general election.... say, February 1. On that date, invalidate every voter's registration in this state.

Require everyone to re-register USING PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO PROVE THEY ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS. Democrats hate this idea because they know of the thousands of people illegally registered because they don't HAVE to prove citizenship, they directly benefit and most of those illegal votes go to their candidates.

Require everyone applying for mail-in or absentee ballots to show, in addition to their proof of citizenship, PROOF OF THEIR RESIDENCY. We all saw that nonsense in Ohio and all the ACORN fraud that so helped democrats in the last election.

Continue the requirements of keeping felons from voting and restoring their right to vote WHEN THEY HAVE COMPLETED EVERY ELEMENT, INCLUDING RESTITUTION AND PROBATION, OF THEIR SENTENCE.

These are, as I said, simple and straightforward steps. Secretary Reed heard these demands over, and over, and over again at the 4 or 5 bogus dog and pony shows they put on around the state after the debacle that was the 04 cycle.

Reed has ignored all of it. In fact, even though this waste of skin has held the office for 8 years, he deliberately continues to violate the law by sending out ballots to 24,000 convicted felons.

And what do we get from this election disaster of a Secretary of State? It's too hard to separate felons out. Our computers don't talk to Department of Correction's computers. It's too complex. The weather's wrong. My pony has a loose shoe.

That this idiot has had 8 years to FIX all this and has done NOTHING to accomplish that task seems to have fallen through the cracks.

And now... now, who does he think he is? Why, he thinks because HE won statewide, that HE actually knows something about politics and how Republicans, apparently, can regain political prominence.

So, to show his high level of political ability, he reminds us that he "is one of two Republicans left standing state wide." Big whoop.

To set the table, here's his spew on the LTE front:

Put party division aside

In the aftermath of the Barack Obama tsunami, Republicans are correctly analyzing what appened. As secretary of state and one of two statewide Republican elected officials left standing (the estimable Attorney General Rob McKenna is the other), I hope party leaders will resist the self-defeating instinct to move toward ideological dogma, negativism and government-is-bad rhetoric.

I hope the party will increasingly be the idea-rich home of pragmatism and reform, inclusion and problem-solvers. We are, after all, the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dan Evans.

We have thrived for 148 years by championing individual freedom and responsibility, equal rights, fiscal conservatism, strong local and state governments, free enterprise, conservation of natural resources, and a strong national defense. To move away from the practical, common-sense middle is the wrong impulse.Yes, Democrats have won the White House, the governor’s mansion and legislative majorities, but we must put division aside and get on with collaborative governing. Voters want results.

Sam Reed
Olympia

First of all, the main purpose of this is not to set Republicans straight.

The main purpose is so Reed can brag, period. "Egomaniacal" doesn't begin to cover it. But what Mr. Reed seems incapable of grasping is this: nobody cares.

Nobody cares that he won. Our local county commissioner races resulted in $460,000 spent... just in one county.

The statewide costs for Reed's election?

$186,000.

All of 14,162 people didn't bother to vote in this particular county for this statewide race.

The low amount of money goes to the utter lack of importance of this office and the fact that Reed's positions on electoral reform come straight out of the democrat playbook. Why take this idiot out when he's doing what the democrats want? And in the critical area of election reform, Reed acts like he's taking his marching orders from Comrade Dwight Pelz, chair of the Washington State Democrat Party.

That said, Reed is a member of a democrat front group known as the Mainstream Republicans. Essentially, Mainstreamers are democrats who, for some unfathomable reason, want to have an "R" appended after their name.

The irony and hypocrisy of Mr. Reed's letter cannot be overstated.

The first paragraph of Mr. Reed's letter is this:

"In the aftermath of the Barack Obama tsunami, Republicans are correctlyanalyzing what happened. As secretary of state and one of two statewideRepublican elected officials left standing (the estimable Attorney General Rob McKenna is the other), I hope party leaders will resist the self-defeatinginstinct to move toward ideological dogma, negativism and government-is-badrhetoric."

First of all, the so-called "tsunami" was, like Mr. Reed, a lot of hot air.

Here in Clark County, we gained Republican control of the County Commission and lost but one of 12 legislative seats, where Republicans now hold 7 positions. The legislature as a whole gained both one House and one Senate seat.

Yes... we lost the governor's race, but then, I predicted Rossi's loss from the moment he came out in favor of a taxpayer-funded bailout of the Sonics... for only $75 million taxpayer dollars.

So, Reed, in an effort to exaggerate his own success, exaggerates the climate within which that success took place. That is defined as "self-aggrandizement."

Government IS "bad." As the multi-hundred billion dollar bailouts continue, it can only get worse. But at the state level, there are PARTS of government that are "bad," such as the moronic and worthless Secretary of State's office. And as a party, Republicans shouldn't ignore that. And that he would claim that government ISN'T bad shows how dramatically out of touch and moronic his perspectives are.

Next, he spews:

I hope the party will increasingly be the idea-rich home of pragmatism and reform, inclusion and problem-solvers. We are, after all, the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dan Evans.

Let's see.... Evans endorsed and did ads for Rossi.

And how'd that work out for him?

If pragmatism as practiced by Mr. Reed means the abandonment of Republican principles, then I say "screw pragmatism."

I would rather lose each and every year standing up for something then to cave into the politics of expediency and wimp out by adopting democrat party positions as a tool to become re-elected. And THAT is the recipe for Mr. Reed's success.

"We have thrived for 148 years by championing individual freedom and responsibility, equal rights, fiscal conservatism, strong local and state governments, free enterprise, conservation of natural resources, and a strong national defense. To move away from the practical, common-sensemiddle is the wrong impulse."

Again, cluelessly, Reed would have us believe that conservative principles include these tenets. Just for one example, the Soviet Union used to have the strongest imaginable "state government."

And how do these massive and moronic bailouts equate to "free enterprise?"

Rossi OWNED the "common sense middle." What good did that do him in a state so blue it borders on black?

None.

"Yes, Democrats have won the White House, the governor’s mansion and legislative majorities, but we must put division aside and get on with collaborative governing. Voters want results."

If "results" got people elected... or unelected... then Reed would be long gone and Gregoire with him, given their disastrous tenures in office.

Mr. Reed is so dangerously ignorant, so politically inept, so moronically guilty of misfeasance and so unqualified to hold elective office that his election is proof that you can, in fact, fool all of the people, all of the time.

And it certainly does NOT give Mr. Reed the gravitas that he thinks it does with his blown up sense of self-importance.

I look forward to actually watching Mr. Reed ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING.

But I'm not holding my breath.