OLYMPIAAt today’s public hearing conducted by the office of the Secretary of State (SOS) on changes to Washington’s provisional ballot rules, Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) President Bob Williams testified that the lack of uniform standards in processing provisional ballots has seriously damaged the credibility of Washington’s elections process. According to Williams, this is a problem that is not addressed by the current Washington Administrative Code (WACs) changes currently under consideration.
“Validation rates have varied from 41% to 92% in the counties. Some counties did not verify signatures as required by state law,” said Williams, who oversees EFF’s Voter Integrity Project and its citizen action wing, Grassroots Washington. “On November 24, Secretary Reed said he would use his rule making authority to ensure absentee ballots and provisional ballots are treated the same across the state. These eleven rules changes do not do that!”
Williams called on the SOS to adopt WACs that would require reconciliation between the number of ballots and the number of eligible voters; more security measures at the polls; a color coded system for ballots; and an end to political parties being given access to the names of provisional voters.
Williams also noted that all eleven proposed rules fail to cite the current law (RCW 29A). Many of the changes suggested by EFF are required by law under the 2003 election reform package, yet the SOS apparently views them as optional.
According to SOS representative Sheryl Moss, who manages the Certification and Training Program in the State Elections Division, SOS was told by its attorneys that ‘shall’ really doesn’t mean ‘shall.’” Moss permitted “limited testimony” from Mr. Williams, but appeared not to recognize the urgency in making any real changes immediately. “I anticipate there will be proposed legislation on the subject, so we [SOS] will be waiting to see what the legislature enacts,” she said.
Williams disagrees: “With spring elections rapidly approaching and the possibility of a recount still at hand, these changes need to made now!”
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"