Click flag to contact Sam Reed, WA State Sec. of State


It is being reported that representatives from the UN (United Nations) are going to be monitoring voting/polling locations through-out the country and I would like to know if any are going to be monitoring our vote by mail process here in Washington State?  If so, the citizens of this state have a right to know if this in fact is going to happen.  Please reply as soon as possible as we are only 15 days out from the election date.

 Thank You

Good evening,

I checked with our co-directors of elections and they have not heard of any international representatives coming to Washington State to monitor our elections processes.  That being said, however, it is not uncommon for international representatives to visit American states to observe elections, with the purpose of learning techniques that may be beneficial to emerging new democracies.


Best wishes to you,




Carolyn Berger

Elections Division

Office of the Secretary of State

Phone:  360.902.4180





1 Comment



He sent me a “Legislative update” and I felt compelled to reply:

This is my rebuttal to your Legislative update:

I did not see any references to HR 2044 in this update.  Why are you allowing this bill to languish int he legislature when if passed, would bring the following as outlined by the financial notes:  $3.0 million (2%) will be split equally (for fiscal note purposes) between Lottery Commission and Gambling Commission for expenses. Each Commission would be responsible to cover any additional expenses.

$755 thousand (0.5%) for problem gambling, $7.55 million (5.0%) to local governments (to be distributed proportionally to those local governments in which a house-banked card room is located, based on the total net win attributable to any card room within the

local government’s boundaries). Lottery assumes that if the card room is within a city, the local government proceeds will go to the city. If the card room is in an un-incorporated area, the local government proceeds will go to the county. The remaining amounts will be distributed as follows: $69.8 million (50%) to K-12 Education, $41.9 million (30%) for health and human services programs, and $27.9 million (20%) for public safety programs.  So, as you can see, the financial benefits gained by the passage of these Bills are enormous.  Why aren’t you pushing this Bill?  This moneys would go a long way in reducing and in some cases, alleviating the financial crunch in many state agencies.  Your non-support of this HR will not go un-noticed by the citizens of this state.  Should this HR and its accompanying Senate Bill 5918 not be passed, we voters will know without a shadow of a doubt that you are more willing to cut state vital services and raise taxes, than do the right thing and bring this legislation into fruition, saving services and not burdening the citizenry with more taxes.  If passed, the states expense on implementation of this legislation would be minimal, but could provide a couple more people with jobs within the WSGC as the only function the state would have would be one of oversight.  A few more Agents may me employed to inspect the gaming facilities, that’s it.  So as you can see, this is a win-win for the state.  You need to do the right thing and push this legislation for passage.


Thank you for your email in response to my legislative update.  I completely agree with you on the importance of HB 2044, concerning equity and fairness through the creation and regulation of electronic scratch ticket machines for nontribal gambling establishments. I am pushing for this bill, however we choose to focus the subject of this last update as a recap of the special session.  I am glad you show strong interest in this bill, because as you noted this will have a significant impact fiscally for the State.  I will have more updates in the future and will be sure to talk about HB 2044, but rest assured I am VERY supportive of the bill.

Again, thank you for your email.  If my office can be of any service, please feel free to contact us in the future.

Representative Paul Harris

17th Legislative District



Leave a comment



As this article outlines, this bill is so draconian you might as well tear up the Bill of Rights.  I am appalled that Congress would do such a thing.  It is now legal to use the might of the United States military against its own citizens in the USA.  All the government needs to do is use the laws and guidelines, the very same ones I have been highlighting on this web site, determine that whatever you are doing falls within the “you might be a terrorist if” guidelines published by the DHA, and the next thing you know, you have the DOD breaking down your door at 3am and hauling you off to jail because simply, they can….  That IS where we are now thanks to the very people who we sent to DC to protect our rights and I am so very disappointed in my Rep.  She is a Freshman and was specifically sent to NOT do what she just did.  Check the list below to see how your Rep voted.  It is truly a bleak and black day in and for America………………

Votes by Representative

Name Voted
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D, NY-5] Aye
Rep. Sandy Adams [R, FL-24] Aye
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4] Aye
Rep. Todd Akin [R, MO-2] Aye
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5] Aye
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4] Aye
Rep. Justin Amash [R, MI-3] Nay
Rep. Mark Amodei [R, NV-2] Aye
Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1] Aye
Rep. Steve Austria [R, OH-7] Aye
Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43] Aye
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6] Abstain
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6] Aye
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2] Nay
Rep. Lou Barletta [R, PA-11] Aye
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12] Aye
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6] Aye
Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6] Aye
Rep. Karen Bass [D, CA-33] Nay
Rep. Charles Bass [R, NH-2] Aye
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D, CA-31] Nay
Rep. Dan Benishek [R, MI-1] Aye
Rep. Rick Berg [R, ND-0] Aye
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1] Aye
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] Aye
Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13] Aye
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50] Aye
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9] Aye
Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2] Aye
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1] Aye
Rep. Rob Bishop [R, UT-1] Aye
Rep. Diane Black [R, TN-6] Aye
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7] Aye
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3] Nay
Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1] Aye
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45] Aye
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2] Aye
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3] Aye
Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7] Aye
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8] Aye
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1] Aye
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1] Nay
Rep. Mo Brooks [R, AL-5] Aye
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10] Aye
Rep. Corrine Brown [D, FL-3] Aye
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13] Aye
Rep. Larry Bucshon [R, IN-8] Nay
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle [R, NY-25] Aye
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26] Nay
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5] Nay
Rep. George Butterfield [D, NC-1] Aye
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44] Aye
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4] Aye
Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48] Nay
Rep. Francisco Canseco [R, TX-23] Aye
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] Aye
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2] Aye
Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23] Aye
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8] Nay
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D, CA-18] Aye
Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3] Aye
Rep. John Carney [D, DE-0] Aye
Rep. André Carson [D, IN-7] Nay
Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31] Aye
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6] Aye
Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11] Aye
Rep. Steven Chabot [R, OH-1] Aye
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3] Nay
Rep. Ben Chandler [D, KY-6] Aye
Rep. Judy Chu [D, CA-32] Nay
Rep. David Cicilline [D, RI-1] Aye
Rep. Hansen Clarke [D, MI-13] Nay
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11] Nay
Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1] Nay
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D, MO-5] Nay
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] Nay
Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6] Abstain
Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6] Nay
Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9] Nay
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4] Aye
Rep. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11] Aye
Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11] Aye
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14] Nay
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5] Aye
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20] Aye
Rep. Jerry Costello [D, IL-12] Nay
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2] Aye
Rep. Chip Cravaack [R, MN-8] Aye
Rep. Rick Crawford [R, AR-1] Aye
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4] Aye
Rep. Mark Critz [D, PA-12] Aye
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D, NY-7] Aye
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28] Aye
Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7] Aye
Rep. Elijah Cummings [D, MD-7] Nay
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4] Aye
Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53] Aye
Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7] Nay
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4] Nay
Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1] Nay
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3] Nay
Rep. Jeff Denham [R, CA-19] Aye
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15] Aye
Rep. Scott DesJarlais [R, TN-4] Nay
Rep. Ted Deutch [D, FL-19] Aye
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21] Abstain
Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6] Aye
Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15] Aye
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D, TX-25] Aye
Rep. Bob Dold [R, IL-10] Aye
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2] Aye
Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14] Nay
Rep. David Dreier [R, CA-26] Aye
Rep. Sean Duffy [R, WI-7] Aye
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R, SC-3] Nay
Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2] Nay
Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4] Nay
Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5] Nay
Rep. Renee Ellmers [R, NC-2] Aye
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8] Aye
Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17] Aye
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14] Nay
Rep. Blake Farenthold [R, TX-27] Aye
Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17] Nay
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D, PA-2] Nay
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51] Abstain
Rep. Stephen Fincher [R, TN-8] Aye
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick [R, PA-8] Aye
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6] Nay
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R, TN-3] Aye
Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4] Aye
Rep. Bill Flores [R, TX-17] Aye
Rep. Randy Forbes [R, VA-4] Nay
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1] Aye
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5] Aye
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4] Nay
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2] Aye
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11] Aye
Rep. Marcia Fudge [D, OH-11] Nay
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24] Aye
Rep. John Garamendi [D, CA-10] Aye
Rep. Cory Gardner [R, CO-4] Aye
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5] Nay
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6] Aye
Rep. Bob Gibbs [R, OH-18] Aye
Rep. Chris Gibson [R, NY-20] Aye
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8] Abstain
Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11] Aye
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1] Aye
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20] Aye
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6] Nay
Rep. Paul Gosar [R, AZ-1] Nay
Rep. Trey Gowdy [R, SC-4] Nay
Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12] Aye
Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9] Nay
Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6] Aye
Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9] Aye
Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29] Aye
Rep. Tim Griffin [R, AR-2] Aye
Rep. Morgan Griffith [R, VA-9] Nay
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7] Nay
Rep. Michael Grimm [R, NY-13] Aye
Rep. Frank Guinta [R, NH-1] Aye
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2] Aye
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D, IL-4] Abstain
Rep. Janice Hahn [D, CA-36] Nay
Rep. Ralph Hall [R, TX-4] Aye
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa [D, HI-1] Aye
Rep. Richard Hanna [R, NY-24] Aye
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3] Aye
Rep. Andy Harris [R, MD-1] Nay
Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R, MO-4] Aye
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23] Nay
Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4] Aye
Rep. Nan Hayworth [R, NY-19] Aye
Rep. Joe Heck [R, NV-3] Aye
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1] Nay
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5] Aye
Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2] Aye
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler [R, WA-3] Aye
Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27] Aye
Rep. James Himes [D, CT-4] Aye
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22] Nay
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa [D, TX-15] Nay
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2] Aye
Rep. Kathleen Hochul [D, NY-26] Aye
Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17] Aye
Rep. Rush Holt [D, NJ-12] Nay
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15] Nay
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5] Aye
Rep. Tim Huelskamp [R, KS-1] Nay
Rep. Bill Huizenga [R, MI-2] Nay
Rep. Randy Hultgren [R, IL-14] Aye
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52] Aye
Rep. Robert Hurt [R, VA-5] Nay
Rep. Jay Inslee [D, WA-1] Aye
Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2] Aye
Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49] Aye
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2] Nay
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18] Aye
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2] Aye
Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30] Abstain
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3] Aye
Rep. Bill Johnson [R, OH-6] Aye
Rep. Henry Johnson [D, GA-4] Nay
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15] Nay
Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3] Nay
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4] Aye
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9] Nay
Rep. William Keating [D, MA-10] Aye
Rep. Mike Kelly [R, PA-3] Aye
Rep. Dale Kildee [D, MI-5] Aye
Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3] Aye
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5] Aye
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3] Aye
Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1] Aye
Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R, IL-11] Aye
Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8] Aye
Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2] Aye
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] Nay
Rep. Raúl Labrador [R, ID-1] Nay
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5] Aye
Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7] Aye
Rep. Jeff Landry [R, LA-3] Aye
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2] Aye
Rep. James Lankford [R, OK-5] Aye
Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2] Aye
Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1] Aye
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4] Aye
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14] Abstain
Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5] Aye
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9] Nay
Rep. Sander Levin [D, MI-12] Aye
Rep. John Lewis [D, GA-5] Nay
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41] Aye
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3] Aye
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2] Aye
Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2] Aye
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16] Nay
Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7] Aye
Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18] Aye
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3] Aye
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R, MO-9] Aye
Rep. Ben Luján [D, NM-3] Nay
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0] Nay
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3] Aye
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D, MA-9] Abstain
Rep. Connie Mack [R, FL-14] Nay
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14] Nay
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16] Aye
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24] Aye
Rep. Thomas Marino [R, PA-10] Aye
Rep. Edward Markey [D, MA-7] Nay
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2] Aye
Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5] Nay
Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R, CA-22] Aye
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4] Aye
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10] Aye
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4] Nay
Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4] Nay
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11] Aye
Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7] Nay
Rep. James McGovern [D, MA-3] Nay
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R, NC-10] Aye
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7] Aye
Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25] Aye
Rep. David McKinley [R, WV-1] Aye
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5] Aye
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11] Aye
Rep. Patrick Meehan [R, PA-7] Aye
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D, NY-6] Nay
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7] Aye
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2] Nay
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10] Aye
Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7] Nay
Rep. Bradley Miller [D, NC-13] Nay
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42] Aye
Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1] Aye
Rep. Gwen Moore [D, WI-4] Nay
Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8] Nay
Rep. Mick Mulvaney [R, SC-5] Nay
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5] Nay
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18] Aye
Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9] Abstain
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8] Nay
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38] Nay
Rep. Richard Neal [D, MA-2] Nay
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19] Aye
Rep. Kristi Noem [R, SD-0] Aye
Rep. Richard Nugent [R, FL-5] Aye
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21] Aye
Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R, MS-1] Aye
Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22] Aye
Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1] Nay
Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23] Aye
Rep. Steven Palazzo [R, MS-4] Aye
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6] Nay
Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8] Aye
Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4] Aye
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14] Abstain
Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3] Aye
Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10] Nay
Rep. Steven Pearce [R, NM-2] Aye
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] Aye
Rep. Mike Pence [R, IN-6] Nay
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7] Aye
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9] Nay
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] Aye
Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6] Aye
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1] Nay
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16] Abstain
Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19] Aye
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2] Aye
Rep. Jared Polis [D, CO-2] Nay
Rep. Mike Pompeo [R, KS-4] Aye
Rep. Bill Posey [R, FL-15] Nay
Rep. David Price [D, NC-4] Nay
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6] Aye
Rep. Ben Quayle [R, AZ-3] Aye
Rep. Mike Quigley [D, IL-5] Nay
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3] Aye
Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15] Nay
Rep. Tom Reed [R, NY-29] Aye
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0] Aye
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8] Aye
Rep. Jim Renacci [R, OH-16] Aye
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D, TX-16] Aye
Rep. Reid Ribble [R, WI-8] Nay
Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37] Aye
Rep. Cedric Richmond [D, LA-2] Nay
Rep. Scott Rigell [R, VA-2] Aye
Rep. David Rivera [R, FL-25] Aye
Rep. Martha Roby [R, AL-2] Aye
Rep. Phil Roe [R, TN-1] Nay
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8] Aye
Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5] Aye
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3] Aye
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46] Nay
Rep. Todd Rokita [R, IN-4] Nay
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16] Aye
Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6] Aye
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18] Aye
Rep. Dennis Ross [R, FL-12] Aye
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4] Aye
Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9] Aye
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34] Nay
Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40] Nay
Rep. Jon Runyan [R, NJ-3] Aye
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D, MD-2] Aye
Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1] Nay
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17] Nay
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1] Aye
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47] Abstain
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39] Aye
Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3] Nay
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1] Aye
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9] Nay
Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29] Aye
Rep. Robert Schilling [R, IL-17] Aye
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2] Aye
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18] Aye
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5] Aye
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13] Aye
Rep. David Schweikert [R, AZ-5] Nay
Rep. Tim Scott [R, SC-1] Aye
Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13] Aye
Rep. Robert Scott [D, VA-3] Nay
Rep. Austin Scott [R, GA-8] Aye
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5] Aye
Rep. José Serrano [D, NY-16] Nay
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32] Aye
Rep. Terri Sewell [D, AL-7] Aye
Rep. Brad Sherman [D, CA-27] Aye
Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19] Aye
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11] Aye
Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9] Aye
Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2] Nay
Rep. Albio Sires [D, NJ-13] Aye
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28] Nay
Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4] Aye
Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3] Aye
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9] Aye
Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21] Aye
Rep. Steve Southerland [R, FL-2] Aye
Rep. Jackie Speier [D, CA-12] Nay
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13] Nay
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6] Aye
Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15] Aye
Rep. Marlin Stutzman [R, IN-3] Nay
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1] Aye
Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13] Aye
Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2] Aye
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2] Nay
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5] Aye
Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1] Nay
Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13] Aye
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12] Aye
Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6] Nay
Rep. Scott Tipton [R, CO-3] Nay
Rep. Paul Tonko [D, NY-21] Nay
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10] Nay
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5] Aye
Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9] Aye
Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3] Aye
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6] Aye
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D, MD-8] Nay
Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D, NY-12] Nay
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1] Aye
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7] Nay
Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2] Aye
Rep. Joe Walsh [R, IL-8] Nay
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1] Aye
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20] Aye
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35] Nay
Rep. Melvin Watt [D, NC-12] Nay
Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30] Aye
Rep. Daniel Webster [R, FL-8] Aye
Rep. Peter Welch [D, VT-0] Nay
Rep. Allen West [R, FL-22] Aye
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3] Aye
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1] Aye
Rep. Frederica Wilson [D, FL-17] Aye
Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2] Aye
Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1] Aye
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10] Aye
Rep. Steve Womack [R, AR-3] Aye
Rep. Rob Woodall [R, GA-7] Nay
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6] Nay
Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3] Nay
Rep. Kevin Yoder [R, KS-3] Aye
Rep. Bill Young [R, FL-10] Abstain
Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0] Aye
Rep. Todd Young [R, IN-9]

I am writing you to express my dismay at your vote concerning The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012.  Your main purpose in Congress, as stated by your Oath of Office was to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of this nation.  Your AYE vote on this Bill is blatantly just the exact opposite.  While the poorly crafted language is seemingly aimed at persons inside the United States who are aiding identified terrorist organizations, the language is purposely vague so that it could be interpreted in very broad terms and conditions which can be “cherry picked” and used against the citizenry in most draconian ways.  This Bill effectively tears up the intent of The Bill of Rights as written by our Founding Fathers.  You know this and you still voted in favor of passage of this Constitution crushing legislation.  In my opinion, you are unfit to serve because you willingly violated your oath of office and violated the rights of the citizens of Washington State.  I will not in any way shape or form, support you in your upcoming election.  In fact I think you should be recalled immediately.  I anticipate that your response to this letter will include your rational for this betrayal to your oath and to the citizens you were supposed to represent.  In that light, it will be shallow and not acceptable as usual.



Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding military detention.  It is good to hear from you.  As you know, in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration devised a new detention system outside of established legal structures of the U.S. criminal justice system and military courts-martial. Through legislation and a series of high-profile Supreme Court rulings, both Congress and the federal judiciary took action to clarify and limit parts of the Bush administration’s detention programs.  Although President Obama has taken some important steps toward the fair and humane treatment of detainees, I believe much more work has yet to be done. I continue to support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the ability of the Administration to try terror suspects in the U.S. federal court system.  The federal courts are well-equipped to handle these complex and difficult cases—since 2006, federal courts have successfully tried over 300 terrorism suspects while military commissions have tried only three.  I strongly support giving our military and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our nation and our service members. I understand some evidence against detainees may be too sensitive to national security to be presented in civilian court or may be tainted due to harsh interrogation techniques.  Right now, the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General can decide whether to use a military tribunal or a federal court.  I believe the Obama administration should continue to have the flexibility to decide on a case-by-case basis, and I opposed Republican amendments during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act that would strip the President of this authority.

Please be assured that I will keep your views on this important topic in mind during the 112th Congress. If you would like to know more about my work in the United States Senate, please feel free to sign up for my weekly updates at Thank you again for contacting me and please keep in touch.

Patty Murray
United States Senator

(my comment; You see, she does not care about the Bill of Rights)

UPDATED 121911

Lawmaker obtains commitment to revisit detainee language


February 14, 2012

Thank you for contacting me about Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  It is an honor to represent the people of Southwest Washington, and it is important for me to hear from folks in our region.

I certainly understand your concerns about Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA and how these sections impact our civil liberties and Constitutional rights.  I am a firm believer that your federal representative should take a proactive role in preserving your Constitutional rights.

I have not and will not support any legislation that would limit your Constitutional rights or allow American citizens to be detained under military authority and held without due process.  Please let me share with you why I believe the NDAA takes the proper steps to preserve your Constitutional rights and provide the President and our military with the tools they need to combat terrorism.

The NDAA reaffirms that the President may use “all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)” against al Qaeda and the Taliban.  The AUMF was authorized following the September 11th terrorist attacks and had not been updated since it was originally sanctioned in 2001.  It is important to provide the President and our military with the resources they need to combat al Qaeda and the Taliban, and this bill accomplishes this goal by reaffirming current laws and without expanding presidential authority.

People had very valid and legitimate concerns about Section 1021 of the NDAA as it relates to the use of force.  Before voting for the NDAA I checked to make sure this legislation will not take away from or infringe upon your Constitutional rights.  The use of force does not apply to U.S. Citizens, in fact Section 1021, Subsection E which explicitly exempts U.S. citizens reads: (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Section 1022 of the NDAA clarifies procedures for how non-U.S. citizens linked to al Qaeda or the Taliban are to be detained.  Evidence must be presented that demonstrates a foreign national’s link to al Qaeda or the Taliban in order for the detainment to be legal. This section clarifies that terrorists apprehended by law enforcement agencies must be held under military custody.  However, Section 1022, Subsection B explicitly exempts U.S. citizens and legal residents.  It reads:(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT       ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. 

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Our country continues to be under the very real threat of terrorism, and it is important to make sure our military is proper equipped to protect our citizens.  It is equally important for us to take steps to preserve and uphold our Constitutional rights.  The NDAA accomplish both of these goals.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. I invite you to visit my website at for additional information or to sign up to be kept up to date on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance.


Jaime Herrera Beutler
Member of Congress

Leave a comment




I am reading increasing reports that the Dems are going to force the GOP to blink first, knuckle under and allow higher tax rates. This would be a bad move for the GOP. The GOP is not winning the PR campaign at all and that in itself is shameful.  The GOP is allowing the Dems to lie and bad mouth the GOP to the public and the GOP’ers just sit on their hands and allow it.  It’s no wonder the Dems are winning in the court of public opinion.  The GOP needs to get out front and tell the American Public what exactly they are doing to remedy the budget problems.  All we hear is that the GOP is the party of NO and are obstructionists. We Conservatives sent you and the other GOP Freshmen to DC to make sure the Dems do not get a free reign on this issue.  The GOP must hold the line against higher taxes and gutting the military.  I have a prediction; If the GOP does not hold the line, those that “blink” will be sent packing come their next election cycle.  I’m pretty sure about this one.  I urge you to do everything you can to prop-up your fellow GOPers and make sure they hold the line.  Do not allow the GOP to be brow-beaten into submission when the voters want them to save this nation, not be part of the problem.  The Speaker must not cave and he must hold the rest of the GOP in the House accountable. I do not write my Senators anymore because they do not listen and are not respondent to the conservative constituents.  I hope the GOP does not go down the same path.

REPLY 111711

Thank you for contacting me regarding raising taxes.  It is an honor to represent the people of Southwest Washingtonand I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Getting our economy moving again is the best way to balance our budget and the way the federal government helps is to create an environment where jobs can grow.  Fair taxation, modest regulation and less government spending create that environment.  Raising taxes in the middle of a recession will harm job growth and ensure more family providers, recent graduates and near-retirees remain jobless.  Over 50 percent of “$250,000 and above” who are looked at for increased tax rates are small business owners and investors. Attempts to tax the rich are often misaligned, because what it ends up doing is hitting our small business owners – the mom and pop shops.

For example, the common misconception is that higher tax brackets only affect wealthy individuals.  But the higher tax brackets also include “pass through entities”.  Small businesses must be part of the debate on tax reform – the majority of them do not pay corporate taxes, but they pay taxes on their firm’s “pass through” income on their individual return.  “Pass-through” entities are businesses whose taxes are passed through to the owners, who report the income or loss on their own personal income tax returns.

When more people are working, they are paying more in taxes, which will reduce the federal deficit.  Creating private sector – not government sector – jobs is one of my top priorities, and keeping taxes low to help employers create them is a great start.  Government should let entrepreneurs and investors do what they do best and grow businesses.  This is a terrible time to raise taxes on job-creators.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. I invite you to visit my website at for additional information or to sign up to be kept up to date on these issues. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.


Jaime Herrera Beutler
Member of Congress

Leave a comment




November 2, 2011


Thank you for contacting me regarding the Postal Reform Act.  It is an honor to represent the people of Southwest Washingtonand I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

The United States Postal Service (USPS) continues to provide Americans with an invaluable service obligation to homes and businesses across the country, ensuring that mail is delivered in an affordable and timely manner.  The Postal Service faces significant, long-term financial pressures and budget shortfalls caused by reduced mail volume, revenues, and the burden of prefunding retiree health benefits.  It is important to note that the USPS is subject to federal government oversight, but the USPS supports itself through the sales of postal services and does not receive taxpayer dollars.

The Postal Reform Act would create the Postal Service Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority to restructure the USPS and reduce its costs.  It would also create the Commission on Postal Reorganization to review the USPS network and infrastructure and recommend closures and consolidations, which would go into effect unless rejected by Congress.  The goal of this legislation is to provide structural and financial reforms to the USPS to cut costs.

The Act would be the most fundamental reform of the USPS since it was created from the former Post Office Department in 1971.  As introduced, I do have several concerns .  For example, one of the provisions authorizes an additional $10 billion in borrowing authority from the U.S. Treasury.  Another concern is the Act does not address some core issues necessary to return the Postal Service to financial stability, including the need to decrease or suspend the current mandates requiring retiree health benefit pre-payments, which costs the Postal Service $5.5 billion annually until 2016.

While I recognize the need to preserve services that many Americans consider essential, such as six-day delivery and universal postal coverage, we must make sure the USPS makes the changes necessary to survive.  I am committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to ensure that the Postal Service fulfills its obligation as well as to help improve the Postal Service’s efficiency.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. I invite you to visit my website at for additional information or to sign up to be kept up to date on these issues. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.
Jaime Herrera Beutler
Member of Congress

(NOTE: The correspondence I sent her on this issue was through a website where you fill in the blocks and input the letter.  I did not save the information and that is why the original letter is not shown here.  Anyone who knows my positions on these issues can easily fill in the blanks and figure out what I would have said….)

Leave a comment




” I am appalled by the fact that Congress is looking to balance the federal budget on the backs of the very people who make and keep this country strong.  I initially VOLUNTEERED for military service back in 1975.  At that time the Federal Government had a contract with me stating that if I hung in for at least 20 years, I would have free medical and a retirement check to count on.  Since then the Federal Government has “re-written” this contract many times, always at the expense of the GI’s.  This habit of always sticking it to the military people who are career oriented and working for at least 20 years to be eligible for benefits when Congress has to only serve 5 years in order to become vested is outrageous.  You sit in your office every day while me and tens of thousands like me, strapped a weapon on every day, willingly putting themselves in harm’s way every working day of our career and stood the line between the USA and the people who wish to do it harm. I did this as a Police Officer in the Air Force for 20+ years and now Congress is looking to cut my benefits and/or increase my premiums.  Couple this and the unbelievably high taxes I pay and this will just about put me at the poverty level.  I vehemently oppose any change in military retiree or future retiree’s benefits.  It is my prediction that if Congress guts the military retirement benefits, you will be placing the United States Military and the DOD as a whole on the path to ruin.  If cuts to retirement benefits are going to happen, then by reason, all monetary enlistment enticements must be cut also. These acts alone will cause the retention rates and enlistment rates to plummet.  After all, who would volunteer to do a job that you could easily get killed doing, for little or no benefits or security for your family?  I sure wouldn’t, and neither will anyone else.  There are plenty of areas within the DOD that can be trimmed that are incredibly wasteful.  I suggest starting there and other bloated federal offices that are in need of going on a diet, such as the IRS, the Post office, TSA and other incredibly wasteful departments before you bring the axe down on the very people who make your job possible.  In conclusion, you need to be aware of the fact that there will be electoral repercussions if you pursue this course. I for one will work tirelessly for your opponent during your next election cycle.  I will tirelessly inform your constituents of your actions against the veterans and retired military community.  Your actions will not go un-noticed. I will post each and every vote you cast on this subject and I will endeavor to teach your constituents how to follow your votes via the several watch dog web sites at our disposal.  It doesn’t matter if you are a Liberal Democrat of a Conservative Republican, if you turn your back on the vets, we will reciprocate in-kind.  You will not have our support or votes. ”


Thank you for contacting me regarding the recently created Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, of which I am a co-chair.  I appreciate hearing from you about your priorities for this process. As you may know, on August 2, 2011, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law after its bipartisan passage through Congress. Following an initial down payment of almost $1 trillion in deficit reduction through cuts to discretionary spending, this legislation created a Joint Select Committee tasked with identifying further deficit reduction of approximately $1.5 trillion.  In the event the Committee is unable to produce a plan to meet that amount, immediate across-the-board cuts will be enacted that will come from both defense and non-defense spending. In accordance with the legislation, Committee members were to be appointed by Majority and Minority Leaders in each chamber of Congress. On August 10, 2011, I was asked by Senate Majority Leader Reid to co-chair the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. I agreed to accept this role because I take the goals of this Committee seriously and because I believe that it is time for members of both parties to work together to improve our nation’s financial future.  Currently, I am working with my House and Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle to address our national debt and deficit in a balanced and bipartisan manner.  I know we need to make the tough choices that put our country on a more sustainable fiscal track but I also know that we must protect the middle class, seniors, and the most vulnerable who are struggling mightily in today’s economy. I do not want to pass an unsustainable debt along to my own grandchildren and will be working tirelessly toward a bipartisan plan that reduces our deficit without neglecting the need for investment in areas that help to spur economic growth, create jobs, and promote our country’s long-term competitiveness. I appreciate hearing from you about your priorities for the Joint Select Committee and I will certainly keep the suggestions of Washingtonians in mind as I work with my colleagues to address our fiscal situation. Please continue to pass on your thoughts, as they will help me and my fellow Committee members as we take on this challenge.  You can also visit for further information about the work of the Joint Select Committee, and if you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please sign up for my weekly updates at

Patty Murray
United States Senator

MY COMMENT ON THIS RESPONSE:  I am sick and tired of this drivel from this poor excuse of a Senator.  It is evident in this letter she cares not about the GI’s and will do whatever she wants irregardless of what her Conservative Constituents/Retired GI’s think.  She is every bit as bad as ex-Congressman Brian Baird was.  She had got to go.  She must be fired…….


Dear Mr. Usaf Retired:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S.724, the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011 , which is currently pending in the United States Senate. I appreciate knowing your views on this matter. In the Senate, this legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. As a member of this Committee, I want to assure you that I will be following the progress of this bill and will keep your views in mind if this or related legislation comes before the full Senate for consideration. If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my weekly updates at Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Patty Murray
United States Senator

MY COMMENT ON THIS REPLY:  Who is Mr. Usaf Retired?  That is what I put after my last name….  This is direct evidence that she does not even really reply to letters from her Constituents.  I realize that these people most likely get hundreds if not thousands of letters, but it is truly evident that our message is not getting through as demonstrated by this pitiful reply………

Leave a comment



Before you and the rest of the Washington State Legislature think about raising taxes and cutting services, you need to pass HR2044.  I know how much money this HR would bring into the state coffers and your action or inaction on this Bill will prove to your constituency whether you are serious about reducing the deficit, or just punishing your constituents with your shortsightedness on this issue by raising taxes and cutting essential services.  If you do not act to get this Bill passed, you will not have my support during your next election cycle.

UPDATE 102711


Thank you for taking the time to send me this note.

HB 2044 was introduced in the 2011 session, and would allow electronic scratch ticket machines in nontribal gambling establishments.  It was introduced very late in the legislative session, and did not move out of the State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee.

I do not have a problem with this bill — I think that it would be perfectly fine to allow these machines in nontribal gambling establishments.  However, I do not sit on any of the committees that this bill will go through, and so I will not have a hand in the process unless and until the bill reaches the House floor.  In the event that the bill does reach the floor in 2012, I will keep your thoughts in mind as I vote.

You can track the bill’s progress here:

Thanks again for your note; please keep in touch.  As you know, our nation is in its worst economic emergency since the Great Depression.  We all need to look out for one another during these tough economic times.  Please do whatever you can to look out for your neighbors, and please feel free to contact me anytime.


State Government & Tribal Affairs contact info;

113 Joel M. Pritchard Bldg., P.O. Box 40600, Olympia, WA 98504-0600
Committee Hearings & Bill Information: (360) 786-7126
Legislative Hotline Operators: 1-800-562-6000
Committee Members

Representative Room Phone
Hunt, Sam (D) Chair LEG 438B (360) 786-7992
Appleton, Sherry (D) Vice Chair LEG 132F (360) 786-7934
Taylor, David (R) * MOD A 205 (360) 786-7874
Overstreet, Jason (R) ** MOD A 102 (360) 786-7980
Alexander, Gary (R) LEG 426B (360) 786-7990
Condotta, Cary (R) LEG 122B (360) 786-7954
Darneille, Jeannie (D) LEG 436B (360) 786-7974
Dunshee, Hans (D) (360) 786-7804
Hurst, Christopher (D) LEG 132D (360) 786-7866
McCoy, John (D) LEG 132A (360) 786-7864
Miloscia, Mark (D) LEG 437A (360) 786-7898


(UPDATED 101112 WITH REPLIES) S.968 PROTECT IP Act of 2011

My letter to Senator Cantwell:

I am writing as your constituent in the 3rd Congressional district of Washington. I oppose S.968 – PROTECT IP Act of 2011, and am tracking it using, the free public resource website for government transparency and accountability. This is nothing more than a maneuver to silence the dissenting voices of your constituency.


This letter was a reply from the office of Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA] on September 14, 2011.

From the Office of Senator Cantwell


Thank you for contacting me about the internet streaming of copyrighted material. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue, and sincerely regret the delayed response.
On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. Under current federal law, U.S. law enforcement officials and holders of copyrights, trademarks, and patents, have limited legal remedies available to combat internet websites that are registered in foreign countries but operate in the United States by selling products, services, and/or content that violates U.S. intellectual property law. If enacted, the proposed legislation would create an expedited process for the Department of Justice and intellectual property rights holders to shut down through a court order these websites by targeting, the owners and operators of the Internet site, if known, or the domain name registrant associated with the Internet site.  The proposed legislation would require the Department of Justice to demonstrate to the Court that the Internet site accessed by the domain name is “dedicated to infringing activities.” Such a website would have no other significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating infringing activities. Once a court order is issued,domestic operators of domain name servers would be required to effectively prevent online users from accessing the infringing Internet site. Providers of online information location tools would be required to take technically feasible and reasonable measures to remove or disable access to such an Internet site, including not providing a hypertext link. Finally, financial institutions involved in online transactions and Internet advertising companies would be prohibited from doing business with any Internet site subject to a Court order under the
legislation. Intellectual property rights holders can take Internet payment and advertising companies to court if they believe these
companies are not complying with the law. This legislation was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on July 22, 2011, and is awaiting action by the full Senate. While I am supportive of the goals of the bill, I am deeply concerned that the definitions and the means by which the legislation seeks to accomplish these goals will hurt innovation and threaten online speech. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on this or similar legislation regarding intellectual property rights.  Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Maria Cantwell
United States Senator
For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at

MY COMMENT:  I was trying to remember when was the last time I heard a DemocRAT speak the truth……..Well, its been a very long time and I don’t think that this is the truth either……..




Thank you for writing me regarding restrictions on the internet. It is
an honor to represent the people of Southwest Washington, and I
appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

I want to be clear that I support a hands-off approach to the internet.
I am concerned that burdensome regulations will slow down economic
growth. The internet has led to vast improvements for American
businesses and day-to-day life, and I want to see the internet continue
to flourish and create opportunities for all Americans.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. I invite
you to visit my website at
for additional information or to
sign up to be kept up to date on these issues. Please do not hesitate
to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

Jaime Herrera Beutler
Member of Congress

Leave a comment



I am writing you as a concerned citizen regarding the recent announcement from The Department of Homeland Security stating that illegal aliens will no longer be deported simply due to their undocumented status.  While DHS was careful to state that illegal’s who have committed some sort of crime (other than entering this country illegally) will be processed as usual, illegal aliens who are guilty of nothing more than just being here in the United States, will not be deported.  With all this being said, I am very concerned over the possibility that illegal aliens may be able to cast ballots in the next general election cycle in 2012.  I would like to ask you, as Washington State is a vote by mail state, how is the Office of Secretary of State going to ensure that only ballots from bonified US Citizens are counted and what safeguards are going to be in place at the locations where the Washington State ballots are going to be counted that would prevent the possibility of fraudulent ballots being counted?

Thank you for whatever information you could provide that would help ease the minds of the citizens of this state.

REPLY 082311:

“Thank you for taking the time to contact Secretary Reed regarding your concerns about illegal aliens casting ballots.  Secretary Reed asked me to respond to you on his behalf.  In a vote by mail system like outs, a person only receives a ballot if he or she is registered to vote.  As such, I think the root of your question is really about protecting the integrity of voter registration.  Secretary Reed strongly believes that only eligible citizens should register to vote and participate in our elections.  This idea is fundamental to protecting the integrity of our elections system and ensuring fair elections for all.  Here are few points to keep in mind with regard to voter registration and citizenship:

  • There is no list of citizens.  The federal government nor any other agency does not maintain a list of citizens, so we cannot screen the list of voters against a list of citizens.  If there was a list of citizens, then Washington likely would be confirming citizenship already.
  • Only one state in the country, Arizona, requires proof of citizenship in order to register.  Arizona has been requiring proof of citizenship in order to obtain a driver’s license since 1996.  And even Arizona is required to accept federal voter registration forms, which do not require proof of citizenship.
  • Regardless of whether a person registers using a paper application, using the online application, or at DOL, the application is the same, the questions are the same, the criteria for registering are the same.
  • The first question on a voter registration application specifically asks, “I am a citizen of the United States of America,” and the person must affirmatively answer Yes or No.  If the application is online or at DOL and the applicant answers “No” to that question, the application cannot go forward.  If the answer on a paper application is no, the application is not processed.
  • The voter registration application includes an oath, “I am a citizen of the United States,” which the person must sign.
  • Providing false information on a voter registration application is a felony.
  • The ballot declaration that a voter must sign when voting includes the oath, “I do solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that I am a citizen of the United States.”  Signing a false declaration is a felony.
  • If a person believes that a voter is not eligible to vote, he or she can file a voter registration challenge against that person to challenge their voter registration.  Since voting is a civil right, the person filing the challenge has to prove that the registered voter is not eligible.
  • Over the past few years, the Legislature has reviewed bills that require proof of citizenship in order to register.  So far, the Legislature has not enacted such legislation because many people do not have a passport or a copy of their birth certificate and therefore would be unable to register to vote and exercise a fundamental civil right.

Although there is no list of citizens to compare against the voter rolls, Secretary Reed has sought access to federal databases that have information about legal aliens.  Two requests were made to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2006 and both were denied.  Additionally, Secretary Reed asked the Consulate General of Mexico for a list of all individuals living in Washington state that have been issued a Matricula Consular card.  Citing privacy protections in the Geneva Convention, the Consul General informed the Secretary that he cannot fulfill the request.

I hope this information helps you understand the protections in place to prevent noncitizens from registering, and thus receiving a ballot.   I also hope you have a better understanding of the challenges in screening the voter rolls for noncitizens who register to vote despite the oath and warning statements included in the registration process.

Thank you,

Shane Hamlin


Shane Hamlin

Co-Director of Elections

Office of the Secretary of State

Telephone: 360-725-5781

Mobile: 360-789-0786


1 Comment