Fighting words

It’s beginning to piss me off! So just a quick reminder to my friends in the media as you prepare to report on today’s hearings in Chelan County:

Dino Rossi is not asking for a “re-vote.” He is asking for a “new election.”

This is not a subtle distinction. A “re-vote” is evocative of a “recount;” it implies that we just need to vote again to make sure we got it right.

But what we really would get is an entirely new election… new year, new campaign, new voters… new issues. It would come months into a Gregoire administration, after an unprecedented and virtually unopposed paid media and PR assault designed to undermine public trust in Christine Gregoire, the Democratic Party, and government in general.

There would be absolutely nothing “re” about this election… it would be entirely different.

In the unlikely event the GOP manages to meet the high standards of the contest provision, and the court orders a new election, well… we’ll just have to live with the dramatic and incredibly disruptive aftermath. But the public should not be lulled by carelessly repeated partisan PR fluff, into believing that a new election is — in and of itself — a good thing, regardless of the legal grounds.

The shamelessly partisan liars at the BIAW are free to call it whatever they want, but you in the media are not. Call it a “re-vote” and you are promoting their cause. But if you want to be accurate and neutral, you will call it what it is: a “new election.”

Comments

  1. 1

    Doug spews:

    Actually you are both wrong. Officially, Rossi is asking that the results of the election be invalidated.

  2. 2

    Chuck spews:

    It’s beginning to piss me off! So just a quick reminder to my friends in the media as you prepare to report on today’s hearings in Chelan County:

    Dino Rossi is not asking for a “re-vote.” He is asking for a “new election.”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Wrong Goldy, if you are going to play word semantics use the right term. He is not asking for a new election, simply a runoff. As much as it bothers you do not tag it wrong.

  3. 3

    Rick spews:

    “Re-vote versus new election” is a distinction without a difference. Whatever you want to call it, the process will need to be “re-done” if the true winner, either Dino or Chrissy, is to have a shred of legitimacy in governing this state.

  4. 5

    Goldy spews:

    All the paid media says “re-vote”… the posters, yard signs, post cards and broadcast ads. So don’t give me that crap that Rossi isn’t using that term.

    So… are you now all going to argue that “new election” is somehow pejoriative or inaccurate? Gimme a break.

  5. 7

    Josef spews:

    Goldy’s right – new election is what Battlestar Rossifaria, under the fearless leadership of Commander Mary “Marummy” Lane, is fighting for.

  6. 9

    Christine G spews:

    I don’t know what Rossi is asking the court for. He is asking for invalidation of the election, but then something else would need to be done. I think it would be a special election, which is a recognized concept. I don’t think “runoff election” is a proper term, and “re-vote” is inane.

  7. 10

    Doug spews:

    Okay, this is probably just splitting hairs, but both the terms “re-vote” and “new election” are slightly inaccurate (and “runoff” is way off base, sorry Chuck). In the court of public opinion Rossi is using the term “re-vote” because it is easier to understand than the real situation. However, if you go check the court documents they are requesting that the election be invalidated. That would leave us in a situation similar to after a marriage has been anulled (as opposed to a divorce), i.e. legally the marriage never took place in the first place. If the election is thrown out then from the eyes of the law the election never took place in the first place. If that happens then the only logical course of action would be to have what from the electorate’s standpoint would seem like a “new election”, but legally it would not be a “new election” or a “re-vote” or a “runoff” it would be THE election.

  8. 11

    Jim King spews:

    Sorry Goldy- revote is the correct terminology, if what is being requested is a replay of the general election, with the same three candidates. A new election would involve opening it up to a completely new start, with filing open to anyone, a primary, and a general election, which may or may not have the same three candidates.

    It is a shame you do not care for accurate terminology, but you are as wrong here as you are with your tax “thingies”…

  9. 12

    Chuck spews:

    That would leave us in a situation similar to after a marriage has been anulled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Actually if the same couple married again the following week I would refer to them as having re-married or married again…

  10. 13

    Dean Nielsen spews:

    The electorate has changed since 11/04. There are new people who have registered, different people have moved here, and others who have died or left.

    For example, I wouldn’t want to disenfrancise Sgt. Jay Anthony Blessing, from Tacoma, who died in Afganistan on Nov. 14th, Spc. Harley Miller, of Spokane, who died Nov. 27 also in Afganistan, Staff Sgt. Kyle Eggers of Yakima, killed Dec. 4 in Iraq (and the son-in law of Yakima City COuncil member Susan Whitman), Spc. Blain Ebert, of Washtucna, who died Nov. 22 from injuries suffered in Iraq, Marine Staff Sgt. David Ries of Vancouver, WA, who was killed Nov. 8 in Iraq, pfc. Andrew Ward, of Kirkland, who was killed Dec. 5 in Iraq, Marine Lance Cpl. Nathan Wood, also of Kirkland, who was killed Nov. 9 in Iraq, or Pfc. Curtis Wooten III, of Spanaway, who was killed Jan 4 in Iraq.

    You sure don’t see the Republicans standing up for the rights of these troops to have their votes counted in their phony “Re-Vote” scheme.

  11. 14

    Goldy spews:

    Sorry Goldy- revote is the correct terminology, if what is being requested is a replay of the general election, with the same three candidates.

    Jim… you know I respect you… but in that’s simply a load of crap. As Dean points out, you can’t have a re-vote, re-play, re-anything with a different electorate. I also wouldn’t necessarily assume that Bennett will be on the ballot. She shouldn’t have been on the ballot the first time, and if you’re going to fix the other errors, we certainly should fix the one that perhaps had the largest impact on the results.

    “New election” is an accurate and neutral term. And any attempt to argue otherwise is, in my opinion, pure partisan spin.

  12. 15

    jcricket spews:

    The latest article detailing the Chelan case gets it pretty much right:

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....20Governor

    The heart of the Republicans’ challenge is that mistakes during the vote-counting forever obscured the true results of the November 2004 election, and the only just remedy is another vote that might place Republican Dino Rossi in the governor’s mansion, ousting Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. (emphasis mine)

    “Another vote” is an accurate colloquial term, but not one that has legal significance. There’s no such thing in our election law as a re-vote, and Republicans are calling for another vote because they fear losing the election contest in court. Republicans carefully crafted their wording to say the “only just remedy” is another vote (or in their terms, a re-vote). But the election law is clear. That isn’t the only remedy.

    Republicans are currently contesting the election under “Chapter 29A.68 of the RCW”. Sam Reed, our SOS, put together the following FAQ on what can happen after an election contest:

    “RW 29A.68.050 provides that a court has the following remedies in an election contest:

    1) Dismiss the proceedings if the statement of the cause or causes of contest is insufficient, or for lack of prosecution
    2) Confirm the election
    3) Annul and set aside the election; and/or
    4) If in any such case it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes, the court shall declare such person duly elected.”

    If the court rules #1 or #2 Gregoire wins, no more voting.

    If the court rules #4 then Rossi’s Governor, no more voting.

    If the election is annulled (#3), like a marriage, it never happened. You’re not getting “re-married” if you marry again after an annulment, at least not in a legal sense. I’m not clear on exactly what would happen in this case, but my guess is that the legislature would probably have to draft a resolution calling for a “special election” just for the Governor’s race – similar to what they do in other “special” circumstances.

    If you want to recall an elected official, that’s another process (see RCW 29A.56). I expect Republicans to start down that road after they lose this court case and/or the appeal to the Supreme Court.

  13. 16

    jim spews:

    All he wants is to win. He lost and can’t get over it. He’ll say anything, do anything — change anything to make that happens.

    The terminology isn’t relevant.

    The fact that only Rossi taking the governor’s seat will soothe him is.

    That’s why he’s going for the mother of all changes–new election, revote, whatever. Only if he wins, of course. Otherwise, more challenges.

  14. 17

    Josef spews:

    Comment by Jim King— 1/20/05 @ 12:04 pm

    Right and wrong, this time, Mr. Wise Man of the Blogs :-) (Respect NOT sarcasm intended).

    Right: “what is being requested is a replay of the general election, with the same three candidates. A new election would involve opening it up to a completely new start, with filing open to anyone, a primary, and a general election, which may or may not have the same three candidates.”

    Wrong: The electorate will change. Good catch, Goldy, for as he said, “You can’t have a re-vote, re-play, re-anything with a different electorate. I also wouldn’t necessarily assume that Bennett will be on the ballot. She shouldn’t have been on the ballot the first time, and if you’re going to fix the other errors, we certainly should fix the one that perhaps had the largest impact on the results.”

    I may disagree w/ Goldy on some areas, but he’s right and yours truly was wrong. NEW GENERAL ELECTION!

  15. 18

    RDC spews:

    …If what is being requested is a replay of the general election>>>>>Jim King comment.

    That is a very big IF. If that is not what is being requested, the rest of the comment is invalidated. I think Doug comes closest to the mark in his comment.

  16. 19

    jcricket spews:

    To clarify what Goldy wrote

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sea.....ily22.html

    “Libertarian candidates J. Mills and Ruth Bennett will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot, despite not getting 1 percent of the total ballots cast in the state primary election in September as state law requires.”

    A Thurston county judge declared the old rule unconstitutional in light of the new type of primary and Sam Reed’s office didn’t appeal. Wouldn’t surprise if this became an issue if we were to have a special election.

    Imagine the chaos if our legislature decided they couldn’t legally restrict the new election to just the top two candidates. Maybe we’d get to pick between Kenny G and Tom Skerrit in addition to Gregoire, Rossi and Bennett.

  17. 20

    jcricket spews:

    Dean – great comments. I wonder if we’re going to arrest that guy who voted “Rossi” for his dead wife. Since he’s a felon now, he shouldn’t be allowed to vote again, following the Republican’s logic.

  18. 21

    TEK spews:

    Has anyone bothered to check section VII of the election contest petition?

    “VII. RELIEF REQUESTED…

    “…(4) directing that a new election be conducted as soon as practicable…”

  19. 22

    Chuck spews:

    Dean – great comments. I wonder if we’re going to arrest that guy who voted “Rossi” for his dead wife. Since he’s a felon now, he shouldn’t be allowed to vote again, following the Republican’s logic.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    A law broken is a law broken…

  20. 23

    Josef spews:

    Comment by jcricket — 1/20/05 @ 12:38 pm

    Better ideas: Kristin Brost versus Mary “Marummy” Lane! Or Josef vs. Goldy. Or Talmadge v. Rossi!

  21. 24

    George spews:

    I don’t see why a new election couldn’t be referred to as a “revote,” even though it included new votes. We had two counts that everyone referred to as “recounts,” even though they included additional ballots, and an ever changing cast of voters.

  22. 25

    Jim King spews:

    George- you’ve got it. Goldy doesn’t like the spin, so he’s spinning it the other way. The problem is, he’s demanding that we ignore that he’s on spin cycle…

  23. 26

    Chuck spews:

    Damn, George you just hit the nail right on the head! Absolutly, it is a revote going by those terms! There you are Goldy, your “new election” definition shot squarely in the foot!

  24. 27

    Dean Nielsen spews:

    It may have included new votes, but all of the voters cast their ballots at the proper times.

  25. 28

    G Davis spews:

    How could the Reps possibly exclude Bennett or MiketheMover if they are asking for a revote?

    Wouldn’t that invalidate their contention that all the voters votes should be respected to the highest degree? Wouldn’t that completely disenfranchise those thousands of voters that really detest the entire system and chose a 3rd party as their choice?

    This whole thing is nonsense. And I, as a taxpayer, truly resent the resources being spent.