King County didn't certify their returns

Having now seen a copy of a certificate signed in December 2000 by the King County canvassing board, I see that the language used by Logan and the board in November 2004 isn’t evidence of guilty knowledge. (Thanks to Stefan Sharkansky of Sound Politics for finding that old document.)

The deficient certificate of King County’s canvassing board is instead evidence of a complete lack of knowledge of the legal duty of the canvassing board.

Rather than verify that the abstract of votes was a “full, true, and correct representation of the votes cast” as the law required of them, they simply stated that the abstract was a true copy of itself.

Here is the language used after the mandatory recount in 2000, when Robert Bruce held the office now occupied by Dean Logan:

The undersigned officers...hereby certify that this is a full, true and correct copy of the Mandatory Recount of votes cast.... Witness our hands and official seal this 1st Day of December, 2000.

Here is the virtually identical language used after the mandatory recount in 2004, with Dean Logan at the helm:

The undersigned officers...hereby certify that this is a full, true and correct copy of the Mandatory Recount for the office of Governor.... Witness our hands and official seal this 24th day of November, 2004.

Except for the omission of the words “of votes cast” they are essentially the same.

Probably, the initial purported certification of the general election returns in 2000 was also virtually identical to the language of the non-certification on November 17, 2004.

King County simply did what they’ve “always” done – and it was always done wrong before, as is usually the case with bureaucrats who copy what they see others do rather than read the laws that they are supposed to implement.

So, does it matter that the King County canvassing board (and probably others, too) didn’t certify that the abstract prepared by their chief election officer was a full, true and correct representation of the votes cast? Probably not, since the legislature accepted their deficient election returns and issued the certificate of election to the Pretender anyway.

It might make for an interesting few moments of argument at the trial – when someone asserts that the court should presume that the canvassing board performed its legal duties properly. Since they didn’t state in their certificate that they performed the duty required of them, their own deficient certificate rebuts the presumption.