In defense of Sam Reed
Originally, I was going to call this post “A half-hearted defense of Sam Reed,” as I was not particularly thrilled with many of the things he said leading up to the certification of the election, though I didn’t think he deserved the flak he was getting from many of my Republican compatriots. Since then, though, my support for him has firmed up a bit. A more accurate title for this post might be “A three-quarters-hearted defense of Sam Reed,” but that would just be silly.
My criticisms of Sam Reed has almost everything to do with what he said, and not with what he did. I sympathize with his fear of becoming the next Kathrine Harris–here in Washington, she wouldn’t have been elected to Congress. He has won two elections running as a fair-minded, nonpartisan sort who is more concerned with getting the job done than with partisan politics. Whether fair or not, if he had done everything Republicans would have liked him to do–especially refusing to certify the election–he would have completely lost that image. In Washington, the Secretary of State’s position is not one of authority or of confrontation, but of oversight (which is essentially very slow, bureaucratic confrontation). If the position were a more confrontational one, I don’t think Reed would have sought it. He’s just not that sort of person.
Additionally, those who are annoyed with him for certifying the election should be thankful he did so. His action would likely have been nothing but a symbolic gesture, and it would have lost him a great deal of standing that he now has–standing that Republicans may`be very thankful for in the coming weeks. But I’ll get to that.
Some Republican criticisms of Reed’s actions may have been valid, but they are moot now. When this article on Republican discontent with Reed came out, the big issue was that he refused to reopen the vote tallies and allow other counties to add new votes in the manner that King County did. Do you hear anyone talking about that problem now? Nope. There are bigger fish to fry.
The real problem with Reed through the recount process was what he said, not what he did. His constant assertions that everything was going fine and dandy grated on the ears of all Republicans (this one included), because it was pretty clear that things were not going as smoothly as he claimed. His statement as recently as January 7 in which he declared “I have expressed my confidence in the election officers all across the state, and I retain that confidence fully,” was an example of this. It was pretty clear then, and has become very clear now, that some election officers have not exactly performed stellarly.
But that’s where the good news is–Sam Reed has now acknowledged that. His interview on the John Carlson show last night made that very clear. (I have emailed the producer to see if they are going to make that interview available as audio or a transcript, but have heard nothing back yet–so I have no exact quotes.)
Reed was very blunt, saying that the problems uncovered in King County were “unacceptable,” and that he could not be sure of the results. He also said that, though he is named as a defendant in the Republican suit, he would not be approaching the case as a typical defendant, but would “work to uncover the truth.” He wouldn’t go so far as to tell the court what its decision ought to be, but he made no bones that the problems in this election went beyond the typical, unremarkable election errors that Democrats assert they were.
If Reed says the same things in court that he said on KVI, the chances for a revote go up immensely. The Supreme Court has, both times that election issues have reached them, acted with great deference towards Sam Reed. I’m guessing they will do so again, largely because of how careful he was to appear nonpartisan. The Democrats are likely to argue, as they already have, that the only problem with this election was that it was close, which hardly warrants a revote. Reed obviously disagrees. If Reed’s testimony helps the Rossi team convince the court to order a revote, then quite a few Republicans will owe him, if not an apology, than at least a small debt of gratitude.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
January 19th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
thank you for the article. Although I still disagree with the choice he made as the attorney to represent this state during the state supreme court hearings. But, I appreciate the explainations you’ve given-softens my outlook on him a bit.
January 19th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
I suppose I left out the bit about the attorney stuff, which I don’t know what, exactly to think of it. Fortunately, that’s largely not an issue anymore, as McKenna is taking things over. From what Reed said yesterday, it sounds like he’s pretty easily lead by lawyers (most of us are, really). Hopefully McKenna will be a bit more evenhanded, which may also encourage Reed to be the same.
January 19th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Timothy, I too heard the Carlson show interview with Reed last night and my impression was that he had really done an about face on his stance toward the validity of the election. I too felt that he seemed to be coming around to the accurate assesment of the election as that sham that it was. I’ve heard similar comments from Dean Logan, so it’s pretty clear that they are laying the groundwork for what is to come, and also trying to appear objective and non-partisan enough to keep their jobs.
I too retract some of what I have commented at SP regarding Reed. I still feel that he should have started speaking about the flaws much sooner, but I’m willing to accept that mistake if he’s willing to back up what he said on the Carlson show in court and really expose this election for all of its problems.
January 20th, 2005 at 1:43 am
Timothy,
I respectfully disagree with your defense of Sam Reed. I believe he full well knew of the problems uncovered and that they were indeed “unacceptable” at the time that he certified the election.
He hoped that by certifying the mess, the “problems” would just go away as most of the problems were caused by him in the first place by not doing his job well.
He has no defense and I hope he will be recalled for his irresponsiblity.
FYI: From David Boze
Looks like the Secretary of State really blew it on certifying the
recount. By law he cannot certify the recount unless he receives a
county’s certified copy of the abstract of the voters containing
specific information. 24 out of the 39 counties failed to provided
the
required information. BUT Sam CERTIFIED THE RECOUNT IN VIOLATION OF
STATE LAW! WHAT NEXT?
1. WAC 434-262-090 states, “no county’s certified copy of the
abstract
of votes shall be considered complete for acceptance by the secretary
of
state until all of the material required by statute or regulation has
been received by the Secretary of State.” 24 out of the 39 counties
did
not provide all of the material required!!! Yet the Secretary of
State
certified the recount.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/WAC/index.cfm?section=434-262-090&fuseaction=section
2.WAC 434-262-100 states, that the Secretary of State needs to wait
until he gets “a complete certified copy”…before he shall use that
counties canvass in the official canvass!
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wac/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=434-262-100
Looks like Sam, missed a lot of counties. His office either gave me
incomplete information or his staff failed to check the records vs.
the
law.
On January 5, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed a public records
request for a copy of each county’s certified abstract of the recount
in
accordance with WAC 434-262-080. Today we got the documents in
response
to our request. We were supposed to receive this material on Friday
but
were told that an attorney had to review it; yesterday we got the same
excuse; today we were told there was a meeting with the Attorneys at
3pm
and then we could probably get it. Looks to me that they didn’t want
me
to see this prior to the Legislature certifying the election.
However, we noticed some serious discrepancies.
1. Clark County - There is no sworn affidavit and they did not provide
the total number of active registered voters in all precincts; total
of
inactive; total number of all registered voters and the total votes
cast.
2. Garfield County -There is no sworn affidavit and they did not
provide
the total number of active registered voters in all precincts; total
of
inactive; total number of all registered voters and the total votes
cast.
3. King County -There is no sworn affidavit and they did not provide
the
total number of active registered voters in all precincts; total of
inactive; total number of all registered voters and the total votes
cast.
The following returns did not contain the county seal as required by
WAC
434-262-080.
1. Adams
2. Asotin
3. Benton
4. Chelan
5. Columbia
6. Douglas
7. Grant
8. Grays Harbor
9.Island
10. Kittitas
11. Klickitat
12. Lewis
13. Mason
14. Okanogan
15. Pacific
16. Pend Oreille
17. Skagit
18. Snohomish
19. Wahkiakum
20.Walla Walla
January 20th, 2005 at 8:39 am
I’d bet you dollars to donuts that those regulations are always ignored, and have been for 25 years. It was not a unique event designed to scuttle Rossi. It’s just the way people do things around here. That may not make it ok, but it does make it understandable.
January 20th, 2005 at 8:48 am
I think you’re right, Timothy. We Republicans have been awfully hard on the Secretary of State, and some of that has been well deserved, but I don’t think he has done as poorly as we’ve made out. I’m all in favor of giving him a metaphorical whack, but I’d also support him for reelection.
January 20th, 2005 at 9:01 am
I was more-or-less where you are until Reed said this: “There are some people who have been dismayed that I wasn’t a Katherine Harris who took the position, ‘I’m a Republican, and by God that comes first.’ ”
With this statement, Reed not only attacked Katherine Harris (though without ever bothering to say precisely how he thinks she acted wrongly), but has joined with the loony left in denying the legitimacy of the President’s 2000 election.
I still don’t favor a recall, but I will under no circumstances support Reed for re-election.
January 20th, 2005 at 9:56 am
Timothy,
Regulations were ignored, commonplace or not, but Sam Reed still *knew* that it was fraught with so many errors that there was *no way* to tell who won. He certified anyway. It would not have matterd if Gregoire or Rossi were ahead by one vote, he simply wanted the mess to “go away.”
I cannot forgive him his cowardice. Sorry.
January 20th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Timothy;
As a friendly FYI - your favorite Dinocrat posted at http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/2005/01/total-mockery-part-02.html about Secretary of State (SecState) Sam Reed situation and I weaved in your well-written post towards the end.
After you read what I posted, could you try to answer these questions: Is SecState Reed a flip-flopper? And why do you think he certified the election in light of that rule - or did I read the rule wrong?
Josef
P.S. I am neutral (for now) on the recall effort. Reasons why are at http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/2005/01/recall-secstate-sam-reed-answer-these.html and Gov’r-ELECT Rossi’s denial of support is blogged at http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/2005/01/govr-elect-rossi-does-not-support.html
January 20th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Tim- Your cowtow to Sam Reed is both unwarranted and unbecoming. I will concede to you the fact that the State Court’s deference to him may be of some benefit to our efforts.
However, you avoided any mention of the two most glaring demonstrations of his 1) incompetence, or 2) complicity:
a) 2 years ago King County was found to be grossly in violation of election laws and procedures as discovered in a full-up audit. The results of the audit and a formal communique from the Sec. of State’s office advising KC of their need to implement specific changes to prevent the contestation of an election in the future were sent to KC Elections Board. My point? They were never implemented and, this is where Mr. Reed comes in, THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE NEVER CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP AUDIT TO ENSURE THAT THE CHANGES GOT PUT INTO PLACE; b) On John Carlson’s KVI show, the week after Jan. 1, he interviewed the author of the book, “Stolen Elections”. The author stated that early in 2004, the Federal Government (U.S. Sec of State I would presume) sent to the states (including Washington-Sam Reed) some 52 mandates regarding the implementation of elections process changes required for all 50 states (presumably as a result of Florida 2000?). I also heard that author state on John’s show that not one of the 52 mandates were implemented prior to this, now the nation’s most visible and shameful display of electoral buffoonery. My point here? This: Sam Reed, if he can not be impeached or recalled for his blithe incompetence, should resign his post in shame.
‘Nuf said!
January 20th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Here’s a quick question, which I think I know the answer to. Who is Dean Logan’s boss? Is it Sam Reed, as Doug appears to believe, or is it Ron Sims? I’m pretty sure it’s Ron Sims–and if so, then Sims was to blame for not following up, not Sam Reed.
Second, the fact that government mandates made in early 2004 were not implemented by late 2004 is not exactly an earthshaking revelation. The horror! Government is slow and inefficient! Stop the presses! I’m willing to bet that Washington is not the only place where that has happened. Should every SecState across the country who hasn’t implemented them also resign in shame?
Honestly, my “unbecoming kowtow” had nothing to do with these issues, but with how he has handled the post-election situation. As far as what happened before any of us were paying attention, I prefer not to play Monday morning quarterback–if Rossi had won by a couple thousand more votes, none of these problems would have been noticed, and no one would be calling for Reed’s head.
January 20th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Hopefully McKenna will be a bit more evenhanded, which may also encourage Reed to be the same
Maybe. But this isn’t a case where KcKenna is representing the “People of Washington.” He is charged with representing the Secretary of State. Sam’s position is still that there isn’t anything sufficient to overturn the election and he s running a pretty tight ship. I doubt is position will change much with McKenna representing him
January 20th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
Erik, you obviously didn’t a) hear Reed on the radio the other day, or b) read the entire post. He has made very clear that the incidents in King County are beyond the pale, that Rossi is fully justified in seeking to overturn the election, and that he doesn’t know what the court will decide one way or the other. McKenna is representing Reed, but, as I noted, Reed has said that he is not approaching this as a typical defendant, but wants to “discover the truth.” His position is most certainly not “that there isn’t anything sufficient to overturn the election.”
January 20th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
He has made very clear that the incidents in King County are beyond the pale, that Rossi is fully justified in seeking to overturn the election
I agree. I think he’s been consistant in that throughout the election.
January 20th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
“There are some people who have been dismayed that I wasn’t a Katherine Harris who took the position, ‘I’m a Republican, and by God that comes first.’ ”
Yes, he’s been consistent in this too. I don’t think the partisons of either side are not very happy with Reed.
However, Reed’s position is designed to be different that the average elected official. He was elected in a generally blue state based on his statements that he would act as a non-partison and instead just implement the law.
January 20th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
Why not make the secretary of state and county auditor positions non partisan, and attempt to remove all the suspicions of political bias on both sides? The U.S. is one of the few countries that leave the voting process in completely partisan hands.
January 21st, 2005 at 9:45 am
“Second, the fact that government mandates made in early 2004 were not implemented by late 2004 is not exactly an earthshaking revelation. The horror! Government is slow and inefficient! Stop the presses! I’m willing to bet that Washington is not the only place where that has happened. Should every SecState across the country who hasn’t implemented them also resign in shame?”
YES!
January 21st, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Timothy,
“Who is Dean Logan’s boss? Is it Sam Reed, as Doug appears to believe, or is it Ron Sims? I’m pretty sure it’s Ron Sims–and if so, then Sims was to blame for not following up, not Sam Reed.”
Is it not Reed’s job to oversee all of it? Reed failed to hold them accountable and moreover, knew that his certification was bogus. I blame him for certifying *in the first place* and if that is not an indication that Mr. Reed was hoping to make the fatal errors disappear and cover his own you-know-what, I will apologize.
Take another look at Mr. Reed Timothy.
Regards,
January 21st, 2005 at 6:03 pm
I’m not clear on what exact powers the secretary of state has. I’m pretty sure their much more minimal than you are making them out to be. Reed couldn’t barge in and overturn tables, demanding that they fix their problems–his job, as I read it, was more of an advisor, warning them that their system was wonky. And what did he way would be the consequence of a wonky system? It wasn’t “Sam Reed’s gonna unload a dumpster-full of hurt on your butt!” It was “hey, you’re cruising for a successfully contested election.” And look where we are!
The failsafe for this sort of thing is not the Secretary of State pimp-slapping county officials or refusing to certify their numbers, it’s an election contest. Which is what we have.
January 22nd, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Hey, Timothy, still care to defend him?
Advisory Board to meet this week on election reform
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has appointed the following members to the Advisory Board:
Thad Duvall – Douglass County Auditor
Kris Swanson – Cowlitz County Auditor
Dean Logan – King County Director of Records, Elections and Licensing
Nick Handy – Representing the Office of the Secretary of State
Doug Cocheran – Former Yakima County Auditor – Member at large
January 23rd, 2005 at 10:24 am
Unles you can tell me what that has to do with the election contest which is what my post is about), sure.
January 23rd, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Timothy-
I suppose ScottM’s comments have some regards to SOS’s ability to recognize that we have problems and some of those problems came from the same county as did Dean Logan-who appears to make excuses for the lack of accountability in regards to the problems in KC-that he was supposedly brought in to fix. SOS has appeared, all along,-with comments-that he doesnt feel it was DL fault in this mess- “there are loopholes”. Well then tell me something, who’s fault is it…..again I go back to the basic analogy of…….. “a computer and program is only as dumb as the people who run/write them”. So, again, who’s fault is it????
Is Dean Logan competent???????
I agree, Ron Sims is to blame for KC mess!!! You are right-he’s the one in charge……. and look at this:
July 28, 2003
Council Acts to Upgrade King County Election System
“The Metropolitan King County Council today appropriated $1,267,237 toward improving the operation of the county’s Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division. ”
“Following the late mailing of absentee ballots in three elections, the Council’s elections consultant and the Washington Secretary of State made a series of recommendations to upgrade the election process and improve the operation of the division. The majority of funds approved by the Council will be used to strengthen efforts to get absentee ballots out on time for the 2003 primary and general election. At the same time, the Executive and the Council have agreed on initial funding to begin an expedited process to upgrade the voter registration system in preparation for the general election in 2004″
This was suppose to be fixed-I know government “fixes” take a long time-I was in the military for 16+years…….moves at a snails pace. But, when the election for the governor ended this way ………2 wins for rossi and then ooopppps-guess gregoire wins on the 3rd and final count by……..what?? oh, that’s right 129 votes……. this is not ok, nor acceptable to continue to ride the fence on this problem..
SOS Reed needs some testosterone and take charge and stop being so passive aggressive………
January 28th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
[…] to say I told you so…
Who am I kidding? Yes, I really do. Last week I asserted: If Reed says the same things in court that he said on KVI, the chances for a revote […]