Nope. I just can't let this one go.

To: King County Elections
Attn: Julie Wise, Director of Elections

Dear Julie,

I am a former temporary elections worker, most recently stationed in ballot review / scan.

I have communicated with you before regarding my belief that King County voters are being systematically disenfranchised via improper interpretation of the state voter intent guide.

This is a very big deal in my opinion and something that could come back to haunt King County if it is not remedied. I know I am not alone in my belief that many valid votes are being tagged as overvotes, and that the procedure in place ("over ¼ of a bubble is a vote" ) is not consistent with the spirit of the Washington State Voter Intent Manual.

https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/administrators/2018_voter-intent_web.pdf

Specifically, on page 15, two examples are shown of a voter beginning to vote for one candidate and then changing their mind and completely blacking in a bubble for a different candidate. The manual makes clear that this is NOT an overvote. Then on page 51 there is a single example of an overvote where most of one bubble is filled in, as well as a complete second bubble. There is not a clear choice made and this is an overvote.

In case after case, King County has been making the decision that when a voter begins to fill in a bubble from the center as opposed to a corner, this should be treated differently than the case on page 15. In case after case, even though there is really no way to truly discern what ¼ of a bubble really means, even in fact in cases where the machine originally COUNTS something as a vote and not an overvote, King County employees are being forced to reverse this and declare something an overvote even though as per page 15 there is a clear vote for one candidate - i.e., one bubble is completely darkened and the other bubble is considerably less darkened.

I have constantly objected to this. When I last reached out to you, the result was a meeting between the STT's and [Ballot Review / Scan lead] which changed nothing.

Aside from this issue and what one might term whistleblowing on the issue, I believe I did a good job in Ballot Review and Scan -- attendance was good, I got along with co-workers and management, and did competent work wherever I was placed.

I understatnd that there is no guarantee of employment as a temporary worker - but, at the same time, we are told that retaliation is not tolerated at King County. So, the decision not to offer me a position during the last primary election came as a surprise. It made me think back on things that might have caused it, and I can only pinpoint a single thing: My insistence that King County is misinterpreting the State Voter Intent Manual with regard to overvotes.

I reached out to [union representative] after not being selected last time around (I did not even receive a survey until I specifically requested one) and I just contacted her again. I also called [Ballot review & Scan lead] since he is a shop steward; he said that he would pass my concern on to someone else in the union (I forget the name) and that it would be a conflict of interest for him to represent me since his work group is where I was last stationed.

This time I wanted to bring you in on the conversation as well. My fiance has recently received an offer letter for the same group, and once again I have not. I can handle not being selected if it's for good cause, but not if it's retaliation for protected whistleblower activities. I was told that if we didn't care whether people's votes were counted, we shouldn't be working for elections. Well, I do care -- and it seems to me that ironically, this may be why I'm not being selected.

I am considering further action including speaking out to the press, but at the current time I am still hoping to work things out more quietly, possibly with your help and the help of the Union.

Thank you