recallreed blog

This blog is established to recall Washington State Secretary of State Sam Reed for failure to perform his duty. You may comment and submit information on-line. If you would like to help, contact Linda Jordan, State Coordinator, at People are encouraged to download, print and share the petition text with others but petitions for signature gathering can not be printed until the Attorney General writes the ballot synopsis and the sufficiency of the charges are upheld in Court.

Thursday, February 17, 2005


PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release

Contact: Linda Jordan
The Recall of Sam Reed
Phone: (206) 723-6471


Media reports that an effort to recall Secretary of State Sam Reed cannot move forward is misleading.

Judge Chris Wickham ruled that he did not think the recall should go forward but that decision can and will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Wickham's role was to determine whether the charges were "legally and factually sufficient" enough to move forward to a signature gathering stage. Reed failed to uphold election law in several ways. One example: Secretary Reed is not allowed to accept incomplete certifications of vote tallies from counties. He did. Could you imagine being able to tell the bank that you have $3,000 in your account when your deposit records show you only have $1,200? And then demanding that they count that phantom $1,800 as if it were real? Do you think the Bank President is just going to give you that phantom $1,800 dollars even though you cannot explain how, where or when you deposited it?

King County forwarded to the Secretary of State 1,800 more votes than they had voters. They did not and still cannot reconcile that difference. By law the Secretary should have rejected that vote tally until all votes they submitted could be tied to a voter. Talk about stuffing the ballot box.
Here is part of what Judge Chris Wickham ruled:

Recall Charges: 1 through 6: Reed ignored numerous voting irregularities and discrepancies, particularly in King County.

Wickham ruled: that petitioners failed to make any specific allegations as to facts, failed to show wrongful conduct on the part of the Secretary of State, and found charges 1 through 6 to be factually insufficient. (He did not find they were legally insufficient)

Petitioners disagree with the courts opinion. Petitioners provided sufficient supporting evidence that Secretary Sam Reed failed to enforce uniform election laws, failed to enforce his own emergency rules, and by ignoring these he indeed acted in a manner which clearly exceeds discretion and actually knowingly violated election laws.

Note: Judge Wickham did not find charges 1 through 6 to be legally insufficient. (He did not find them factually insufficient)

Recall Charge 7: Reed "accepted, as complete, the abstract of votes from 24 counties even though they did not provide all the material required by statute and regulations," Wickham ruled: there is no evidence that these irregularities are substantial enough to have made a difference in actions taken by the Secretary, accordingly the court found charge 7 both factually and legally insufficient.

Petitioners disagree with the courts opinion. Petitioners provided ample sufficient supporting evidence that Secretary Sam Reed was required not to certify the election results and does not have the discretion to accept, as complete, the abstract of votes from counties which came to Secretary Reed without all the material required by statute and regulations. Reed does not have the discretion to accept incomplete results from the counties as complete. We believe Charge 7 is factually and legally sufficient

Recall Charge 8: Reed failed to enforce standards for the proper and uniform running of elections in the various counties. The essence of the allegation is that the Secretary failed to effectively oversee the voting procedures of the 39 counties.

Wickham ruled: the allegations are legally insufficient. (He did not find that it was factually insufficient)

Recall Charge 9: Reed wrongfully certified the final count in the November 2, 2004 Governor's race despite his knowledge of various irregularities and violations. Wickham ruled: that Charge 9 is legally insufficient. (He did not find that it was factually insufficient.)

Petitioners believe we provided ample evidence of numerous and substantial violations in the election process in various counties and that;

[1] Secretary Reed had substantial knowledge of those violations.
[2] Secretary Reed’s duty to certify the results from the various counties is not ministerial and is not discretionary.

Petitioners believe we provided sufficient evidence and factual data. Enough to make our case to the voters, to be able to convince them that Sam Reed neglected to perform his duties imposed by law and failed to uphold election law. Petitioners did show sufficiently that Reed unreasonably carried out his duties (or failed to carry them out) in such a way as to constitute misfeasance, malfeasance, and / or the violation of his oath of office.In the 2004 Online Voters' Guide, Secretary of State pledged: “My office is replacing hanging chads and punch cards with safe and secure voting equipment. Together, we've registered nearly 300,000 new voters. Following the Florida debacle in 2000 and new federal mandates, experience is more critical than ever for the Secretary of State". Sam Reed said, “My 20-plus years of knowledge and expertise will ensure that every vote is counted correctly.”

“Correctly” is the operative word here. Counting illegal votes, allowing new votes and "lost" ballots to be added in during the second and third count, is illegal. It is INCORRECT. The chief election officer of our state, Secretary Reed, has a responsibility to uphold election laws. It's that simple.

Currently, Reed is on the trail conducting public meetings about how he's going to clean things up in the future, how’s he's going to make new election laws for the future elections. "Look at what I'm going to do in the future but forget about what I just did during the last three and a half months."

Folks, we have laws on the books right now governing our election process, Mr. Reed just didn't follow them.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter