Posted on 06/22/2007 3:25:00 PM PDT by bahblahbah
The second time Duncan M. MacDonald sent in an absentee ballot, an election worker in Federal Way called to ask about the paw print on the envelope. But it took three ballots before the prosecutor contacted the voting dog's owner.
Jane Balogh said she registered the Australian shepherd-terrier mix to vote in protest of a 2005 state voter-registration law that she says makes it too easy for noncitizens to vote.
She put her phone bill in Duncan's name, then used the phone bill as identification to register him as a voter.
"I wasn't trying to do anything fraudulent. I was trying to prove that our system is flawed. So I got myself in trouble," she says.
Prosecutors have offered the grandmother and Army veteran a deal: plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of making a false statement to a public official and they will not file a felony charge of providing false information on a voter-registration application.
Balogh said she doesn't plan to contest the charge because "I know I'm guilty." She said she submitted ballots in the dog's name in the September and November 2006 and May 2007 elections. She wrote "VOID" on the ballots and didn't cast any votes.
Prosecutors said they would recommend she be sentenced to 10 hours of community service, pay a $250 fine and commit no other crimes for a year. Balogh is scheduled to be arraigned in King County Superior Court on Tuesday.
Acting Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg says his office "can't simply look the other way. They say you should let sleeping dogs lie, but you can't let voting dogs vote."
Shoot, they could do most anything better than *certain* elected officials...
I think a good lawyer could get her off if she contested it, since there was no intention to influence the election.
It's disgusting that they are prosecuting this one case, while they ignore thousands of known ballots that were cast by dead people or people supposedly living at false addresses.
It sounds as if she is a conservative and a patriot, from what little we are told.
I once sent to the White House for a b-day card for my cat who turned 90 (in human-years). The cat received a very nice card from President Reagan.
No offense to Washington State FReepers, but the sad thing is, MsBalogh’s dog would probably be a more intelligent voter than the average Washingtonian.
You did notice that she was not charged with vote fraud, didn’t you?
She thought she’d better get it done now or she’d have to wait in line behind 12 to 20 million FORMER illegals.
Ms. Balogh was trying to prove the system was flawed. I’d say she made her point. If the paw print were not on the envelope, I have to wonder if the election workers would ever have figured it out?
I don’t know what the big deal is she should move to California and let her dog vote there, a Boxer is one of our Senators....
Too bad Washington doesn’t have a Governor that would be inclined to pardon her . . . Governor could get good press.
She should ask to be a poll-watcher in the next election.
-PJ
Sure, she was charge with making a false statement, which very easily could have been pursued as a felony.
All I’m saying is that she crossed a line into an unknown which could have gotten her into serious trouble.
I’m not questioning her motive but it would be a shame if she was saddled with the burden of having to explain a criminal conviction for the rest of her life because of an act of protest.
Yea, I was about to say the same thing. Exactly what law did she break? What lie did she tell?
As far as I can tell, she told no lie to some public official. The public officials were too stupid to read what she submitted on the form.
It’s OK, the dog has a better grasp of the issues than the owner.
“She was right but she shouldn’t jepordize her own right to vote. Sounds like a smart woman otherwise.”
I think she felt her right to vote was already compromised by the law. She had little to lose.
In filing the original voter registration card, and on the return envelope for absentee ballots here in WA, you have to sign to attest that you are who you say you are, and are eligible to vote where you are voting. She certainly violated those oaths.
Actually, she may just think she is guilty. She just may not be aware of all the defenses available. Do you think a jury would actually convict her?
A dog, the dead, illegals - it’s all the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.