Jeff this blatant act of fraud is a clear example of the lefts win at all cost. Power is addictive to the people currently running our county. The premise of once the socialists win you CANT go back to throw them out because they make the new rules to eliminate competition is shown here. Corruption seems to run rampant in CC. I hope we can stop this machine of dems from the permanent structure they are building. Thanks Jeff for making clear our road ahead and what we have to overcome.
There’s a lot of folks and we’re gaining momentum that we are sick and tired of being hosed and robbed and taxed out of our homes. We can do this if we all stick together to do whatever we possibly can. Even if it’s just something small it all counts.
The integrity of the latest CCD election was in question right from the beginning.Savvy people could sniff out problems as soon as it was announced that the LWV was going to be in charge.And then there was illegal shenanigans orchestrated at the end of election to make sure outcome was in favor of radical liberals.Just shows the integrity of the liberal party that is willing to disgrace itself in order to win.
In my opinion, the fish stinks from the head down! It’s Blatantly obvious that our election and or elections have been rigged for quite some time. I noticed yesterday that there was someone who gave us information to possibly be watchers when the votes are being counted. I’m going to check it out.
The commissioners did not respond to questions about the possibility that human trafficking is occurring in unsanctioned homeless camps here, as was recently discovered in Olympia. Here is today's email sent to all three county commissioners:
Dear Commissioners,
The Board of County Commissioners chose to impose the Conservation District parcel fee without a vote of the people, requiring Clallam County property owners to fund the district through approximately $2 million in new revenue.
A recent release of public documents has raised serious questions about the Conservation District's election process and the changing explanations surrounding it. Taxpayers who are now required to fund the district deserve confidence that its elections are fair and transparent.
Do you intend to engage with Conservation District leadership on behalf of the taxpayers you required to fund this agency? If so, what actions will you take to ensure future Conservation District elections are conducted fairly and restore public confidence?
The only optic that matters is that the CCD has broken trust with the people it's supposed to serve.
Intentional acts by publicly elected officials deserve the highest level of scrutiny. More so than baseless aspersions because you don't like someone. Are the reasons not obvious?
The BOCC supported the CCD's per parcel fee increase.
What does the BOCC have to say now?
A letter? A public proclamation? A call for an investigation?
This is what happens when the incestuous network can't remove itself from the hard decisions that it should make, if it cares about everyone in the county.
I'm voting for Jake because he's not a part of this network. He's the best example of the diversity the citizens need to represent everyone.
Good article, thank you CCWD. Didn't the CCD already get sued for election fraud the last time? Apparently the court didn't make it painful enough. This really shouldn't surprise anyone, look who observed ballot counting, how they advertised the election and how it was run. The general public had no clue the election was taking place. It is sad that not every voter in Clallam County did not get to vote, especially those that own property and are paying for the $2 million in extra taxes for the next 10 years? They can't manage their money, and run a secret election with only partisan groups organizing it. The whole thing stunk from the beginning, now it should have an investigation done on it.
In Washington State, Conservation Districts (CDs) operate under a unique legal framework. Unlike standard city or county elections, CD elections are explicitly exempted from regular state election laws (Title 29A RCW). Instead, their procedures are governed by Chapter 89.08 RCW and rules established by the Washington State Conservation Commission (SCC) under Chapter 135-110 WAC.
Because CDs have the authority to establish localized "time, place, and manner" rules via local board resolutions, altering those rules mid-cycle—specifically expanding a ballot list to non-requestors right before an election—presents a serious procedural violation of both their local resolution and the state administrative code requiring fairness and strict compliance.
If you are dealing with a situation where a district changed its mail-in rules and merged voter lists at the last minute, citizens have several specific avenues for legal and administrative recourse.
1. File a Formal Election Complaint with the SCC
The Washington State Conservation Commission is the primary oversight body. They have explicit rules for handling election irregularities and determining "significant noncompliance"—defined as a failure to follow procedures that may affect the outcome of an election or deny voters their rights.
* Action: File a formal administrative complaint directly with the SCC Elections Officer.
* The Standard: The SCC will review whether the district "substantially followed" the rules. If they find significant noncompliance (e.g., expanding the voting pool via unauthorized lists in violation of the original board resolution), the Commission has the authority to refuse to certify the election.
* Contact: Complaints are typically directed to the SCC's policy or election coordination team (such as the Special Projects/Elections Coordinator in Olympia).
2. Judicial Review via Superior Court
Because CD elections sit outside the normal county auditor canvassing process, the ultimate check on a rogue election process is the court system.
* Filing a Lawsuit: Citizens and disenfranchised candidates can file a lawsuit in the local County Superior Court seeking a writ of mandamus (forcing the district to follow its original rules) or an injunction to stop the certification of the election.
* Precedent: There is direct legal precedent for this in Washington. For example, when a Conservation District previously handed out unrequested ballots or violated its own election resolutions, the superior court stepped in and entirely threw out the election results, forcing a reset.
* Legal Basis: A suit would argue that the sudden change violated the "due notice" requirements of RCW 89.08.190, breached the binding nature of the local board's adopted election resolution, and resulted in unlawful vote dilution.
3. Demanding an Explicit Local Canvassing Challenge
Before the local district board can submit the results to the state for final approval, they must review the election report.
* Action: Citizens can submit formal written challenges to the local CD board and the appointed Election Supervisor demanding that any ballots sent to individuals who did not legally request them by the established deadline be separated and challenged.
* Public Comment: Use the district’s next open public meeting to place the specific facts—such as dates of list merges and the exact number of excess ballots mailed—directly into the official public record.
4. Report to State Oversight Agencies
If there is evidence that the rule change was done intentionally to benefit an incumbent or a specific political faction (and kept hidden from the general public while being shared with select groups), it crosses from a procedural mistake into a violation of public trust.
* State Auditor’s Office (SAO): You can file a report through the SAO Whistleblower Program or citizen hotline regarding the misuse of public funds (taxpayer money used to print and mail unauthorized ballots outside the scope of the legally approved election resolution).
* Public Records Requests (PRA): Immediately submit a Chapter 42.56 RCW request to the Conservation District for all communications (emails, text messages, meeting minutes) regarding the "merging" of the voter lists, the decision to mail extra ballots, and any communications with outside political groups. This evidence is critical for both an SCC complaint and a court case.
Summary of Best Strategy
The most effective path is a dual track: file an immediate, detailed administrative complaint with the Washington State Conservation Commission to stall certification, while simultaneously consulting with an election attorney to prepare a challenge in Superior Court, using the Public Records Act to force the district to hand over the data behind the list merge.
Jeff this blatant act of fraud is a clear example of the lefts win at all cost. Power is addictive to the people currently running our county. The premise of once the socialists win you CANT go back to throw them out because they make the new rules to eliminate competition is shown here. Corruption seems to run rampant in CC. I hope we can stop this machine of dems from the permanent structure they are building. Thanks Jeff for making clear our road ahead and what we have to overcome.
Good morning Patriot Jed,
There’s a lot of folks and we’re gaining momentum that we are sick and tired of being hosed and robbed and taxed out of our homes. We can do this if we all stick together to do whatever we possibly can. Even if it’s just something small it all counts.
You are right on Evrita! I am even more determined to get more people on board.
Go Jake!
The integrity of the latest CCD election was in question right from the beginning.Savvy people could sniff out problems as soon as it was announced that the LWV was going to be in charge.And then there was illegal shenanigans orchestrated at the end of election to make sure outcome was in favor of radical liberals.Just shows the integrity of the liberal party that is willing to disgrace itself in order to win.
Good morning fellow Patriots,
In my opinion, the fish stinks from the head down! It’s Blatantly obvious that our election and or elections have been rigged for quite some time. I noticed yesterday that there was someone who gave us information to possibly be watchers when the votes are being counted. I’m going to check it out.
The commissioners did not respond to questions about the possibility that human trafficking is occurring in unsanctioned homeless camps here, as was recently discovered in Olympia. Here is today's email sent to all three county commissioners:
Dear Commissioners,
The Board of County Commissioners chose to impose the Conservation District parcel fee without a vote of the people, requiring Clallam County property owners to fund the district through approximately $2 million in new revenue.
A recent release of public documents has raised serious questions about the Conservation District's election process and the changing explanations surrounding it. Taxpayers who are now required to fund the district deserve confidence that its elections are fair and transparent.
Do you intend to engage with Conservation District leadership on behalf of the taxpayers you required to fund this agency? If so, what actions will you take to ensure future Conservation District elections are conducted fairly and restore public confidence?
Thank you for your time.
Jeff Tozzer
I'm sure those stickers and posters in the county urinals takes care of this concern.
The only optic that matters is that the CCD has broken trust with the people it's supposed to serve.
Intentional acts by publicly elected officials deserve the highest level of scrutiny. More so than baseless aspersions because you don't like someone. Are the reasons not obvious?
The BOCC supported the CCD's per parcel fee increase.
What does the BOCC have to say now?
A letter? A public proclamation? A call for an investigation?
This is what happens when the incestuous network can't remove itself from the hard decisions that it should make, if it cares about everyone in the county.
I'm voting for Jake because he's not a part of this network. He's the best example of the diversity the citizens need to represent everyone.
Is SKJ requires to “pay $5 for each parcel” in Clallam County? I doubt it. The tribe has got the taxpayers fooled. Again.
No, the tribe is exempt.
Good article, thank you CCWD. Didn't the CCD already get sued for election fraud the last time? Apparently the court didn't make it painful enough. This really shouldn't surprise anyone, look who observed ballot counting, how they advertised the election and how it was run. The general public had no clue the election was taking place. It is sad that not every voter in Clallam County did not get to vote, especially those that own property and are paying for the $2 million in extra taxes for the next 10 years? They can't manage their money, and run a secret election with only partisan groups organizing it. The whole thing stunk from the beginning, now it should have an investigation done on it.
*** AI **"
In Washington State, Conservation Districts (CDs) operate under a unique legal framework. Unlike standard city or county elections, CD elections are explicitly exempted from regular state election laws (Title 29A RCW). Instead, their procedures are governed by Chapter 89.08 RCW and rules established by the Washington State Conservation Commission (SCC) under Chapter 135-110 WAC.
Because CDs have the authority to establish localized "time, place, and manner" rules via local board resolutions, altering those rules mid-cycle—specifically expanding a ballot list to non-requestors right before an election—presents a serious procedural violation of both their local resolution and the state administrative code requiring fairness and strict compliance.
If you are dealing with a situation where a district changed its mail-in rules and merged voter lists at the last minute, citizens have several specific avenues for legal and administrative recourse.
1. File a Formal Election Complaint with the SCC
The Washington State Conservation Commission is the primary oversight body. They have explicit rules for handling election irregularities and determining "significant noncompliance"—defined as a failure to follow procedures that may affect the outcome of an election or deny voters their rights.
* Action: File a formal administrative complaint directly with the SCC Elections Officer.
* The Standard: The SCC will review whether the district "substantially followed" the rules. If they find significant noncompliance (e.g., expanding the voting pool via unauthorized lists in violation of the original board resolution), the Commission has the authority to refuse to certify the election.
* Contact: Complaints are typically directed to the SCC's policy or election coordination team (such as the Special Projects/Elections Coordinator in Olympia).
2. Judicial Review via Superior Court
Because CD elections sit outside the normal county auditor canvassing process, the ultimate check on a rogue election process is the court system.
* Filing a Lawsuit: Citizens and disenfranchised candidates can file a lawsuit in the local County Superior Court seeking a writ of mandamus (forcing the district to follow its original rules) or an injunction to stop the certification of the election.
* Precedent: There is direct legal precedent for this in Washington. For example, when a Conservation District previously handed out unrequested ballots or violated its own election resolutions, the superior court stepped in and entirely threw out the election results, forcing a reset.
* Legal Basis: A suit would argue that the sudden change violated the "due notice" requirements of RCW 89.08.190, breached the binding nature of the local board's adopted election resolution, and resulted in unlawful vote dilution.
3. Demanding an Explicit Local Canvassing Challenge
Before the local district board can submit the results to the state for final approval, they must review the election report.
* Action: Citizens can submit formal written challenges to the local CD board and the appointed Election Supervisor demanding that any ballots sent to individuals who did not legally request them by the established deadline be separated and challenged.
* Public Comment: Use the district’s next open public meeting to place the specific facts—such as dates of list merges and the exact number of excess ballots mailed—directly into the official public record.
4. Report to State Oversight Agencies
If there is evidence that the rule change was done intentionally to benefit an incumbent or a specific political faction (and kept hidden from the general public while being shared with select groups), it crosses from a procedural mistake into a violation of public trust.
* State Auditor’s Office (SAO): You can file a report through the SAO Whistleblower Program or citizen hotline regarding the misuse of public funds (taxpayer money used to print and mail unauthorized ballots outside the scope of the legally approved election resolution).
* Public Records Requests (PRA): Immediately submit a Chapter 42.56 RCW request to the Conservation District for all communications (emails, text messages, meeting minutes) regarding the "merging" of the voter lists, the decision to mail extra ballots, and any communications with outside political groups. This evidence is critical for both an SCC complaint and a court case.
Summary of Best Strategy
The most effective path is a dual track: file an immediate, detailed administrative complaint with the Washington State Conservation Commission to stall certification, while simultaneously consulting with an election attorney to prepare a challenge in Superior Court, using the Public Records Act to force the district to hand over the data behind the list merge.