Fell says Huennekens knew
Pages 239 – 241 of Garth Fell’s deposition contain Fell’s statement that his immediate superior – King County’s Superintendent of Elections, Bill Huennekens – knew of the faked “mail ballot report.” (Hat tip and thanks to Stefan Sharkansky for posting the transcript at Sound Politics.)
It probably shouldn’t be surprising that Fell didn’t actually say it was “faked.” Note the part at the end of page 240 and beginning of 241 – the mail ballot report was an accurate “snapshot,” according to Fell.
At page 242, Fell agreed that the way the report was written meant that discrepancies in the ballot count wouldn’t be revealed. He was asked about the 95 valid but uncounted absentee ballots that were discovered in March 2005, but some day someone may finally ask them how many more absentee ballots were in their GEMS ballot count compared to the number of credited voters in DIMS. I believe that the absence of those 95 ballots from the count wasn’t their problem. The presence of hundreds of extra ballots in the GEMS vote tabulation was their problem.
^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^
[Page 239] Q. Contained in the exhibit is a Mail Ballot Report for the November 2004 election; is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Do you know who created the Mail Ballot Report?
A. Yes. This report was created by the Mail Ballot Operations Satellite supervisor.
Q. Nicole Way.
A. Nicole Way. In conjunction with myself and additional workings with the superintendent of Elections, Bill Huennekens. The actual document was created by [Page 240] Nicole Way, I believe, and the understanding of what went into the document was shared to my knowledge, between the three of us.
Q. What was your role in creating the Mail Ballot Report?
A. Simply as an advisory role on what the numbers were and what the numbers represent and how the numbers were derived.
Q. Prior to the Mail Ballot Report being given to the canvassing board, did you understand that the total number of ballots returned on the Mail Ballot Report was derived simply by adding the total number of ballots accepted as ballots, and counted, and total number of ballots rejected?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you tell Bill Huennekens that is how the total number of ballots returned was derived?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you know whether anyone told the canvassing board that that is how the total number of ballots returned was derived?
A. I do not.
Q. Is the Mail Ballot Report accurate?
A. The Mail Ballot Report was accurate at the time of its creation based on hand counts and tabulation [Page 241] counts.
Q. Is it no longer accurate?
A. The data associated with some of these categories has changed, and so it is a snapshot at that particular time, at the time of certification. So I imagine that we have received more ballots back from the United States Postal Service. That’s the certification of election. There’s a potential for that. So I don’t know if that number is correct.
###
[Page 242] Q. If the total number of ballots returned was not derived simply by adding the total number of ballot hand counted and the total number rejected but was in fact an accounting by the actual number of ballots that were returned, wouldn’t the 95 have been accounted for in the total number of ballots returned?
A. If the total number of ballots returned was derived based on an independent count of all ballots returned, you would likely see a discrepancy of some sort, certainly.
It probably shouldn’t be surprising that Fell didn’t actually say it was “faked.” Note the part at the end of page 240 and beginning of 241 – the mail ballot report was an accurate “snapshot,” according to Fell.
At page 242, Fell agreed that the way the report was written meant that discrepancies in the ballot count wouldn’t be revealed. He was asked about the 95 valid but uncounted absentee ballots that were discovered in March 2005, but some day someone may finally ask them how many more absentee ballots were in their GEMS ballot count compared to the number of credited voters in DIMS. I believe that the absence of those 95 ballots from the count wasn’t their problem. The presence of hundreds of extra ballots in the GEMS vote tabulation was their problem.
^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^
[Page 239] Q. Contained in the exhibit is a Mail Ballot Report for the November 2004 election; is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Do you know who created the Mail Ballot Report?
A. Yes. This report was created by the Mail Ballot Operations Satellite supervisor.
Q. Nicole Way.
A. Nicole Way. In conjunction with myself and additional workings with the superintendent of Elections, Bill Huennekens. The actual document was created by [Page 240] Nicole Way, I believe, and the understanding of what went into the document was shared to my knowledge, between the three of us.
Q. What was your role in creating the Mail Ballot Report?
A. Simply as an advisory role on what the numbers were and what the numbers represent and how the numbers were derived.
Q. Prior to the Mail Ballot Report being given to the canvassing board, did you understand that the total number of ballots returned on the Mail Ballot Report was derived simply by adding the total number of ballots accepted as ballots, and counted, and total number of ballots rejected?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you tell Bill Huennekens that is how the total number of ballots returned was derived?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you know whether anyone told the canvassing board that that is how the total number of ballots returned was derived?
A. I do not.
Q. Is the Mail Ballot Report accurate?
A. The Mail Ballot Report was accurate at the time of its creation based on hand counts and tabulation [Page 241] counts.
Q. Is it no longer accurate?
A. The data associated with some of these categories has changed, and so it is a snapshot at that particular time, at the time of certification. So I imagine that we have received more ballots back from the United States Postal Service. That’s the certification of election. There’s a potential for that. So I don’t know if that number is correct.
###
[Page 242] Q. If the total number of ballots returned was not derived simply by adding the total number of ballot hand counted and the total number rejected but was in fact an accounting by the actual number of ballots that were returned, wouldn’t the 95 have been accounted for in the total number of ballots returned?
A. If the total number of ballots returned was derived based on an independent count of all ballots returned, you would likely see a discrepancy of some sort, certainly.
posted by Micajah | 12:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home