Once again Forthright Ranconteur, you have nailed it with your clear, concise, logical answer. My hat is off to you!

Perhaps Darlene’s time would be better used actually doing through research and following directions according to the law before writing inflammatory letters like the one above.

Being “nice” doesn’t mean being correct, Myrna Leija. Quite wasting my money on poorly researched crap.

Great thought out and well researched reply.

It’s not election interference. Turns out you don’t need to wear a hat to be able to vote, Kimberlee.

RCW 29A.84.510 is not “propaganda” – it’s the law of the State of Washington. Specifically, the section of the law that prohibits anyone who would:

“Suggest or persuade or attempt to suggest or persuade any voter to vote for or against any candidate or ballot measure”

Whether it be hats, t-shirts, signs, or megaphones – no political activities are allowed within 100 feet of a polling place or 25 feet of a drop box. The law applies to everyone equally and we are all bound by it – even you.

There are clear reasons why Greg Kimsey typically runs unopposed in elections for county auditor. His record of accuracy, openness, fairness and integrity is immaculate. WAGOP, apparently lacking any real accomplishments to spend its time on, needs to find another windmill to assail.

–Eight had already been cancelled or made inactive prior to the hearing (in other words, the system correctly removed them without your “help”).

–Two actively confirmed their registration in response to your challenge. Fortunately, your actions did not disenfranchise them.

That left a total of four potential challenges that rightly be subject to further review. Fortunately, all of your challenge forms are published online, so we can check them out for ourselves. Three critical problems are immediately apparent:

First, you did not follow the directions for a challenge as laid out in Washington State Law (specifically, RCW 29A.08.810-850). Your own documents suggest that two of the four remaining challenged voters still live in Clark County. The challenge instructions clearly require that you send a return-service letter “to all known addresses” for the voter, which you failed to do, despite your own evidence showing that they still live here.

Second, your understanding of what constitutes valid evidence is apparently quite poor. The second two of those four claims are accompanied by an affidavit indicating that you spoke with (I wish I were making this up), “someone.” It should surprise absolutely nobody that “someone” cannot possibly serve as a credible witness for a sworn declaration – especially not one that would serve to disenfranchise a person.

Third, it is clear that your basic research skills are severely flawed. For example, at least one of your challenged voters is, in fact, the listed owner of the property at their registered address per Clark County GIS – despite your report to the contrary in your sworn challenge.

In summary, based on the documents that you yourself submitted, Mr. Kimsey appears to have been acting appropriately and in a manner entirely consistent with Washington State law in dismissing your challenges. Your failure to follow directions, to submit affidavits with actual witnesses, or to meaningfully verify your own “research” in no way impeaches his character or performance. If anything, they bring your own motives and character into question.

“We the people” would appreciate it if you and the WAGOP could stop insulting our duly elected public servants without cause, undermining trust in our public institutions with deceptive claims, and wasting our taxpayer dollars on spurious lawsuits.