Our Oregon files election initiative fraud complaint with SOS office
Carla Axtman
Our Oregon announced yesterday that they are filing a complaint with the Elections Division of the Secretary of State, following up on the signature fraud discovered last week.
From yesterday's press release:
The complaint centers on statements from four Oregon voters who are certain their names were forged onto petitions they did not sign. The four fraud victims were found after a limited examination of the signatures by Our Oregon, which turned up numerous examples of suspicious signature activity within even a relatively small sample of signature sheets.The complaint also includes written testimony from a Bend resident who encountered a signature gatherer who was impersonating a registered petition circulator, apparently as part of a signature gathering crew, in violation of state law.
Our Oregon is asking the Elections Division and the Secretary of State to refer the case to the Department of Justice for investigation and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.
All we've really managed out of Secretary of State Bill Bradbury so far is some we-don't-think-there's-a-criminal-thing-here drivel.
That's a big pile of bull frankly. Since when is forgery not a crime in Oregon?
Bradbury needs to step up here. Its absolutely unacceptable to allow this kind of fraud to continue to be perpetuated against Oregonians.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 16, '08
Am I detecting a bit of dissatisfaction with Sweet William from the left? Oh my.....Ya know, As an Oregonian I don't feel the least bit "perpetuated" upon in this instance. See ya over at RW tomorrow Carla.....
Jul 16, '08
All the more reason to vote NO on EVERYTHING.
2:20 p.m.
Jul 16, '08
Why are you beating on on Bill Bradbury? His job is to verify ballot signatures. Throwing ballot petition felons in jail is Hardy Meyers' job.
Insofar as his comments, I will say that Bradbury is being far too generous. But I can understand why he's saying what he's saying, given how many times Republicans have smeared him over imaginary bias - and how often the Oregonian has cut and pasted those factually unfounded smears onto their editorial page.
It's made him gun shy, which is a shame.
Jul 16, '08
Why so hard on Bill? Jeff Duyck has been a registered voter (and has voted) in House District 29 since 2001, when the district was originally drawn. He filed for office in HD 29, and was determined by Washington County and the Secretary of State to be qualified for the office. When he filed a Statement of Organization with the Secretary of State, his candidacy was certified and he was placed on the May 20 primary ballot. He won that primary; the county elections office's official results determined him to be the winner and the Secretary of State certified the results and declared him the nominee. Now, four months from the election, he has been disqualfied."
Jul 16, '08
Meg:
To quote your own playbook: YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.
Jul 16, '08
RinoWatch, what is wrong with you? If there's evidence of fraud, that should make you angry, whether or not you agree with the measure. Or do you think it's okay to commit fraud if that's what it takes to advance your policies?
This is one reason I'm optimistic about John Kroger. One of his campaign promises was to crack down on initiative fraud. Signature-gatherers who commit this type of blatant fraud should be prosecuted.
9:11 p.m.
Jul 16, '08
meg: Why so hard on Bill? Jeff Duyck...
Again, you've got the wrong guy, Meg. It's not the Secretary of State's job to determine county residence. His office only acts as a bookkeeper for such matters. It's the local County Clerk you should be mad at.
Jul 16, '08
It's frustrating to hear the continual smearing of Bill Bradbury. Bill is somebody who had great relationships with both sides of the aisle when he was in the Legislature, and he held onto a pretty conservative district. He's no lefty, and he's done a great job as SOS.
So I've got an idea I've been mulling over: Since the Republicans don't have a real candidate (cardboard cutouts don't count), how about you recruit Katherine Harris to move here and run? She's available, and if she won I don't think she'd have the slightest hesitation letting anybody run anyplace they feel like running --provided they're a Republican.
John
10:42 p.m.
Jul 16, '08
Sure sign Conservatism is dead! My old High School Football Coach used to say "when your opponent stoops to illegal dirty play it means you've won. If he thought he could beat you straight up he wouldn't have to stoop to dirty play."
However, I believe the only way to stop Bill Sizemore is to put him jail or somehow make it so he cam never be allowed to play in the initiative game ever again.
Jul 17, '08
RinoWatch, what is wrong with you? If there's evidence of fraud, that should make you angry, whether or not you agree with the measure.
It took me quite awhile to figure this out: conservatives have no principles. Fraud is okay, if it's done by a conservative. Adultry is okay, if it's done by a conservative. Ballooning deficits are okay, if they're caused by conservatives. Big government is okay, if it's a conservative government. Flip-flopping on public campaign financing is okay, if you're a conservative.
Conservatives are moral relativists. To them, an action is neither right nor wrong in itself. They judge purely on whether it will help their team or our team.
Jul 17, '08
Fraud? You folks think I approve of "fraud"? Where were you guys when I was among a group who dared to mention this fraud, Eh?
You've fallen for the hyprocisy I pointed out above. When you think I approve of fraud, by agreeing with the SOS you wonder what's wrong with me.
8:31 a.m.
Jul 17, '08
Where were we?
That was in 1998. BlueOregon had yet to be founded. Hell, dailykos had yet to be founded.
And while it's clearly illegal to violate process and sign a form pretending you've witnessed voters signing their names to ballots when you haven't, that process violation is absolutely nothing compared to fraudulently writing and copying thousands of signatures, which is what Sizemore, et. al, pay their signature gatherers to do.
Jul 17, '08
Yeah and RW wasn't yet "founded" in '98 either but nonetheless "fraud" was recognized. So What's your point?
Jul 17, '08
Hey Admiral
To quote your own playbook: YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.
wanna bet?
1:49 p.m.
Jul 17, '08
My point, RW, is that it's stupid to pretend that Democrats don't care about ballot fraud by asking "where were we" (in blogging about) some obscure 11 year old claim, when no one blogging then. Or are you stupidly asking a bunch of people, none of whom are DAs, "where we were" on prosecuting?
And regardless, dredging up this 11 year old infraction only serves to highlight your lack of ethics. You're doing the equivalent of justifying a bank robbery, by saying you once heard that somebody you don't like exaggerated slightly on a home loan application, 11 years ago. You have yet to say, unequivocally, that what Sizemore and Trickey did was wrong.
That kind of argument may work among people with the emotional maturity of five year olds, but it doesn't work here among the grownups.
So let me give you a metaphorical pat on the head, RW, and send you back to your little toddler screamfest.
Jul 17, '08
I think RW is trying to assert that because he was outraged about an incident of fraud 11 years ago, he no longer has to be outraged about current frauds, as he is clearly on record as being against fraud. Conversely, our current outrage about fraud is suspect because we weren't outraged 11 years ago.
It's really quite simple.
Of course, he forgets that I was outraged about this 132 years ago, so his Johnny-come-lately condemnation of fraud does not impress me at all.
Jul 17, '08
RinoWatch, if that article is accurate, you were right to be outraged by the actions described. And if you build a time machine, track me down in 1998, and show me that article, my 1998-self will be outraged with you.
That's because I disagree with any attempt to break election rules, whether it helps advance my polices or not, and whether I feel my opponents are similarly principled or not. "They did it too!" is a justification we chastise small children for using.
9:17 a.m.
Jul 18, '08
You've fallen for the hyprocisy I pointed out above. When you think I approve of fraud, by agreeing with the SOS you wonder what's wrong with me.
If you don't approve of fraud--then take the same stand against Sizemore, Trickey and Mannix that you say you took in previous years. You're either against fraud/forgery or you're not.
Calling "hypocrisy" is a double-edged sword when you're unwilling to cut your own political ideological side. In fact, it tars you with the very label you're trying to stick to others.
Jul 18, '08
If the three men you cite are indeed guilty of fraud, not just by accusations, I'd say throw the book at 'em.
If Sir William says he cannot find criminality in the (y)Our Oregon complaint, your beef is with him, not me.
BTW, in 1998 when we sought to obtain the evidence required for the lawsuit, that was filed against then SOS Keisling, who was also on the steering committee of the Vote by Mail initiative, the 30 day clock was running on to file suit, or as it happened, Judge Girmond dismissed the case because the suit was filed a day or two after the 30th day.
I'm not whining about that, only to say that we had to pay @$750 for the petition sheets, go through each one VERY carefully and that takes time, decide if we had the case, we did, have the briefs prepared, file, Bam!, too late.
The SOS knew the clock was running and how it would work against us.
<h2>Fraud is NOT right no matter who or what party is involved. OK?</h2>