Letters to the editor

Discounting votes

Felon ballots don't help Gregoire in a court of law

Editor, The Times:

The Times' premise for deducing that Christine Gregoire would still win [the 2004 governor's election] is nuts ["Bad judgment, errors in county elections," editorial, May 21]. It assumes that a large number of felons would vote for a Democrat, illegally. Perfectly acceptable premise. They no doubt would.

However, they can then be questioned in court, and no amount of "taking the Fifth" to avoid admitting that they broke the law will help, as it will already have been proven that they did indeed break the law. Their votes will be "nullified," as they should be. And to whatever degree they helped Gregoire, they will no longer.

Using a proportional method of deduction regarding the votes of felons is ludicrous. Why would a felon vote for a party that would make their life tougher (there are those who believe that if you can't do the time, you should not do the crime). The GOP clearly stands for laws and punishments that will be commensurate with the crime, while the Dems are far more likely to want to heal "the inner child." All the more loss of votes for Gregoire.

I think you should redo your math. Wait! Don't bother. In just a few short weeks, the court will determine the real outcome. Better them than you or me.

— Spencer Lehmann, Seattle

"Fraud" is not flawed

The Times editorial missed a central point. The bogus validation of the election, based on bogus reports, knowingly falsified by King County elections officials during an election of such slim margins, is fraud. Open up a dictionary. The intent of this particular fraud might not be completely transparent, but fraud it remains.

One can infer from the selective way King County has treated absentee ballots what the intent was. It is no surprise that each misstep and lie revealed somehow conveniently works out to have favored Christine Gregoire. What a coincidence.

— Dan Edwards, Seattle

"To err" defined

Without any proof of any official trying to skew the gubernatorial election toward Christine Gregoire, the Republicans have begun shouting "fraud, fraud, fraud." The centerpiece of their case is their now-discredited theory of felon fraud. To bolster their shaky case, they've taken every opportunity to point the accusatory finger of incompetence at King County Elections. I find this utterly ironic.

If you take all the ballots that the Republicans are disputing, and attribute them to King County (to be generous), you arrive at an error rate of about .2 percent. To be clear, that's not 2 percent but point 2 percent.

I find it utterly ironic that the "felon list" the Republicans compiled was determined by The Seattle Times to be a whopping 11 percent incorrect! ["Toss out felon vote, Gregoire still wins," page one, May 22].

For the "hopelessly incompetent" King County to have erred at that rate, Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance would be contesting almost 100,000 ballots, or over 50 times what he's contesting! I have to ask, who's the real incompetent here?

— Susan Gibson, Seattle

Circumstantial avoidance

What would it take for The Times to suspect fraud? A video showing someone marking the ballots? In court cases there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence. In fact, several years ago, a defendant was convicted of murder without a body.

— Wilda Heard, Seattle

Ignorance is no excuse

What a sad piece ["Bad judgment, errors in county elections"]. Fraud or almost criminal stupidity? Either way, the voters in Washington have been "disenfranchised" (to use a new platitude). We have a governor as a result of a margin of votes that is less than the margin of error in this mess.

I think it says a lot about Christine Gregoire and the state Democratic Party that they kept counting until they came up with enough votes to win. Who cares about the number of votes cast by felons, people who live in city buildings, etc.?

Well, I care. I care a lot! I'm a new citizen. I moved from Bellevue to Richland during the election period and yet I still managed to re-register to vote in order to cast a legitimate vote (or I thought I did).

It would appear that the whole King County election staff, including Elections Director Dean Logan, still have their jobs. Why? Given that their carelessness and stupidity (or worse) caused this mess, why are they still employed? Surely King County could find people with the intelligence or the integrity to admit they need help and get it.

Pathetic.

— Meredith Farris, Richland

Range war

Follow the Oregon trial

In "Preserve land-use standards that protect our families" [guest commentary, May 13], authors Nina Carter and Greg Smith misconstrue Oregon's Measure 37.

Measure 37 does not prevent governments from regulating property, it provides a choice: pay "just compensation" to property owners for the diminished value of their property caused by regulation, or waive the regulation. It, in essence, codifies what the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantees: "... nor shall government take private property for public use, without just compensation."

Measure 37 is a people's measure, passed by more than 60 percent of Oregonians. It is the response of people fed up with having their property taken from them in a state that, for 30 years, has had the nation's most stringent land-use laws.

To dissuade Washington from following Oregon's lead, the authors cite a poll showing 71 percent of Washingtonians "do not believe that government is unfairly restricting their use of their property." Have they forgotten the legions of outraged citizens who have stood up against King County's Critical Areas Ordinance preventing rural landowners from using up to 65 percent of their property?

Governments must respect our constitutional rights. That's why PLF [Pacific Legal Foundation] is defending Measure 37 in court and fighting to invalidate the CAO.

— Leslie L. Lewallen (lead attorney in PLF's lawsuit challenging King County's CAO), Bellevue

Evolving thought

Use the brains God gave you

In "The evolution of creationism" [syndicated column, May 13], Ellen Goodman has unwittingly characterized the worst attitude of the debate. Like the evolutionists who want only their denomination of science taught in schools, Goodman first failed to acknowledge the basis of the creation/intelligent-design argument; then she quoted only an evolutionist to support her position.

What creationists are trying to get across, to closed-minded evolutionists, is simply this: If you find a mousetrap that has only five essential parts, you would recognize that it is the product of intelligent design. Only a simpleton would think that any amount of time, energy and trash from a local junkyard could put these five parts together by blind accident into a working mousetrap.

And yet schools all over the country expect children to accept unquestioningly that a human cell, which is exponentially more complicated than a mousetrap, actually is the product of time, energy and a prehistoric junkyard.

Goodman would have done well to interview a few of the former evolutionists who have switched to creation/intelligent design. But then, those who push their evolution religion know their faith won't stand up to science in open debate.

— Peter Thalhofer, Vashon Island

Split mentality

I like bananas; this is all the proof of evolution I need. I reserve the right to change my mind after death though, in case I was wrong.

— Doug Karlberg, Bellingham