Thread: Woman whose dog 'voted' pleads not guilty

Woman whose dog 'voted' pleads not guilty
June 29, 2007

SEATTLE --Duncan the dog is still registered to vote, and his owner isn't pleased.

Jane Balogh signed up the dog in protest of a 2005 state voter-registration law she thinks makes it too easy for noncitizens to vote. She used a paw print to mark ballots on Duncan's behalf.

At first, Balogh said she wouldn't contest a misdemeanor charge of making false statements on a voter registration form. But on Thursday, she pleaded not guilty to the charge that is punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

She said she changed her mind when election officials claimed her efforts showed the system worked.

"She's just kind of annoyed because Duncan's still on the voting rolls," said her lawyer, Kristen Anderson. "Somebody is clearly not getting the message."

Laura Lockard, King County's acting election program manager for voter services, said there is "an arduous process" to have someone, even if it's a dog, taken off the voter rolls.

Balogh put her phone bill in the Australian shepherd-terrier mix's full name -- Duncan MacDonald -- then used it as identification to register him as a voter. 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.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... ot_guilty/

Jane is right about the vulnerability of the voter registration process. In my state the registrars are not allowed to inquire about citizenship, nor can they ask for documentation if they suspect the registrant is not a citizen.

Jane has provided a valuable service in exposing this flaw in the system. Let's support her.

in re: Jane Balogh
attorney.prosecuting@metrokc.gov

NORM MALENG
King County Prosecuting Attorney
W554 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: 206-296-9000
FAX: 206-296-9013
TDD: 206-296-0100

Originally Posted by Nouveauxpoor

Jane is right about the vulnerability of the voter registration process. In my state the registrars are not allowed to inquire about citizenship, nor can they ask for documentation if they suspect the registrant is not a citizen.

Jane has provided a valuable service in exposing this flaw in the system. Let's support her.

in re: Jane Balogh
attorney.prosecuting@metrokc.gov

NORM MALENG
King County Prosecuting Attorney
W554 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: 206-296-9000
FAX: 206-296-9013
TDD: 206-296-0100

Thanks for the contact information...I did call. She clearly was only trying to make a point here.

[quote="abigale"][quote="Nouveauxpoor"]Jane is right about the vulnerability of the voter registration process. In my state the registrars are not allowed to inquire about citizenship, nor can they ask for documentation if they suspect the registrant is not a citizen.

I wish the registrars would worry more about all the illegals who actually do cast votes and affect election outcomes.
My state does require citizenship and is supposed to check IDs (ID meaning stuff anyone, legal or not, can get like a cell phone bill and a bank statement from Bank of America or Wells Fargo who give accounts to illegals) as long as the person voting stated they are an American citizen, because we all know illegals will not lie about that in order to vote. Just to get a job. Or support their family. Or make more $. Or get free benefits they aren't legally entitled to unless they are a citizen. But they won't lie to vote on whether or not illegals should show ID at the polls, or should get above benefits, or be allowed to go to college for the same price as Americans, or receive scholarships. No, they don't lie to vote. Never.
They are probably upset that she proved her point, and want to make an example out of her. But if she is jailed, who will take care of the dog? Maybe they will let her off if she says she is the sole caretaker?

They are probably upset that she proved her point, and want to make an example out of her. But if she is jailed, who will take care of the dog? Maybe they will let her off if she says she is the sole caretaker?

Maybe they should prosecute the dog?? Or perhaps she should subpoena him as a witness.

Originally Posted by Nouveauxpoor

They are probably upset that she proved her point, and want to make an example out of her. But if she is jailed, who will take care of the dog? Maybe they will let her off if she says she is the sole caretaker?

Maybe they should prosecute the dog?? Or perhaps she should subpoena him as a witness.

Yes, but if they prosecute the dog wouldn't that make him deportable back to Australia and cause a heart wrenching separation from his family?

Well he could probably invoke some sort of privilege and avoid giving testimony. That might save him. I think we are experiencing some well-deserved giddiness after such a long, hard-fought battle, ...er victory.

Originally Posted by Nouveauxpoor

Well he could probably invoke some sort of privilege and avoid giving testimony. That might save him. I think we are experiencing some well-deserved giddiness after such a long, hard-fought battle, ...er victory.

.........or he could take sanctuary in the chapel at the nearest pet memorial park!!!!



Yep....I agree. We do deserve some giddiness after our victory, don't we?

They can't take her away! Who'll care for her poor inncocent "US Citizen" dog? She doesn't know anyone else who can care for it, and the dog needs a special medication only she knows how to adminsiter. Its an anchor dog.

Originally Posted by ICEChargerRT

They can't take her away! Who'll care for her poor inncocent "US Citizen" dog? She doesn't know anyone else who can care for it, and the dog needs a special medication only she knows how to adminsiter. Its an anchor dog.

No, no.....he's an Australian. She's the anchor human