David Postman of The Seattle Times had originally reported that Judge Bridges ruled that in order to set aside the election, Republicans must show that illegal votes were cast for Gregoire over Rossi in numbers sufficient to erase the 129-vote margin. But in the updated article that appears in today’s paper, he seems to have somewhat backed away, instead leaving it to interpretation:
Bridges said that at least at this point in the case, it is “sufficient to state generally” that there are enough illegal votes to cast doubt on the true outcome of the election.
But the judge cited a 1912 state Supreme Court case often mentioned by Democrats. In that case, the court found that if it is unknown which candidate received an illegal vote, “it must be treated as a legitimate vote.”
Bridges also said it “may be problematical for petitioners to ultimately prevail on a theory or a cause of illegal votes.”
Not having watched the hearing myself, and not having a transcript available, I asked Lawyer X for his interpretation, and what this meant for the Democrats.
It was a substantial victory and he did so rule. He referred to Foulkes a number of times during the decisions in terms of whether their allegations stated a cause for contest but he viewed his ability to set aside an election as limited to circumstances in which Rossi first proved that Rossi won the vote.
I think what a lot of people are missing is the statutory distinction between the grounds for proceeding with an election contest, and the grounds for setting one aside. The statute clearly states that to bring a contest it is merely sufficient to show that there were enough illegal votes to have changed the outcome. But the statute is equally clear that a higher standard must be reached in order to set aside an election: it must appear that the irregularities actually changed the outcome.
According to The News Tribune, Judge Bridges specifically said “I’m not ruling on burden of proof,” though it certainly sounds to me like he’s leaning towards a narrow interpretation of the statutory standard. But what seems absolutely clear is that his rulings cannot be understood at this time as supporting the Republican position that they need merely prove the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory in order to prevail.
The blogosphere, the MSM, and even the Republican and Democratic attorneys are also arguing over the practical result of Judge Bridges’ ruling that he did not have the power to order a new election. Democrats contend this means the only remedy available would be to declare Rossi the winner, while Republicans say the judge could still set aside the election, and leave it to the Legislature to order a special election. Judge Bridges seemed to interpret the state Constitution as saying the soonest a special election could be held is November of 2006, leaving Lt. Gov. Brad Owen to serve in the meanwhile.
This should be a huge PR blow to Rossi’s disingenuous “re-vote” campaign, as the judge clearly stated that he could not order a new election. What seems to have gone over everybody’s heads is what this ruling means in terms of the precedent set by Foulkes v. Hays.
In Foulkes, the Supreme Court cited its “general equity jurisdiction” in upholding the lower court’s decision to order a new election:
Where appropriate, these necessary and proper powers would include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect.
The Republicans have heavily relied on Foulkes to provide the precedent for setting aside an election on the basis of irregularities alone, but in ruling that he does not have the power to order a new election, Judge Bridges clearly indicates that, at least on this one major point, Foulkes does not apply. Whether this lack of general equity jurisdiction is limited only to this remedy (due to constitutional restrictions on when gubernatorial elections can be held), or more broadly to the burden proof, remains to be seen. But his comment that it may be “problematic” for Rossi to prevail, suggests the latter.
Indeed, Judge Bridges seems to keenly grasp that the Legislature has pragmatically set a very high bar for overturning elections.
He said it is clear that a lot more election contests have been rejected than have succeeded because there are well-accepted reasons why elections should not be overturned.
“Do we as voters and as constituents and candidates want to engage in what one judge referred to as seasons of discontent commencing the moment after the polls closed on election day?” Bridges asked.
As I have previously suggested, the answer is implicit in our election statutes, which clearly prefer finality over certainty.
Listening to Rossi spokes-shill Mary Lane, you’d think Republicans were the big winners yesterday. But just like in the election, where winning two out of three means nothing when it’s the third count that’s final, it doesn’t matter how many rulings went the GOP’s way yesterday, when the most important one apparently went to the Democrats. If the judge subscribes to the Democrats’ argument that the statute must be narrowly interpreted, then Rossi’s burden of proof is more than just “problematic”… it is nearly impossible given the types of irregularities uncovered thus far.
My guess is, if either party is going to appeal the judge’s rulings, it’s the Republicans.
sorry for repeating, but let me put this in the relevant thread. I went into some of the same detail as you about the shifting story Postman gives us in Seattle Times, here:
http://alsoalso.typepad.com/al.....ng_sa.html
Goldy,
It’s not clear whether the author of the Tribune article understood what the Judge meant by not ruling on “burden of proof,” but it, almost certainly, wasn’t about the question of whether or not the Republicans have to show that a sufficient number of illegal votes went to Gregoire. In the context of a trial, the phrase “burden of proof” has a very specific meaning, and refers to one of three standards: a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The third standard applies exclusively (or almost exclusively) to criminal cases. The in this case the issue is whether the burden should be at the “preponderence” level or at the “clear and convincing” level–the latter being the higher standard.
The WSDCC raised this issue in one of their briefs, which would lend credence to the notion that the judge’s statement refers to the question of which standard to apply.
It will certainly be interesting to see if Rossi backpedals on the revote issue, and decides to press forward with the contest. I’d almost expect the Republicans to appeal the revote issue, except that there’s very little chance that they’ll prevail on appeal. On the question of a revote, Fowlkes is easily distinguished from this case.
All that said, I find it hard to believe that either the trial judge or the Supreme Court would conscience the notion of setting aside the election merely because it was close enough for the margin of victory to fall within the standard margin for error in any election. Whatever irregularities might be proved, I think the courts are going to at least require some proof that these irregularities are more than just common, human error.
That being the case, I think it would be great for this case to proceed on the present grounds. Let the Republicans try to proove that this election involved more than just human error rather than allow them to get away with simply casting aspersions on the result by mere allegation. Anything less would simply be bad policy.
I don’t think anyone should believe for one instant that Rossi meant what he said, when he said he wouldn’t accept a decision declaring him the winner. That was strictly for P.R., and like everything else the Repubs have said, it’s subject to change according to whatever serves their interests at the moment. And if you ever get into a hockey game with these guys, and they’re leading at the end of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd periods but you win the game, they will tell everyone they beat you 3 times for your 1. They’re the world champion bullshitters. It will be interesting to hear their spin the day their contest lawsuit goes down the drain. They’ll make it sound like a colossal moral victory for principle or some similar damn thing.
Interesting, but it’s a waste of time in the end to try to read the judge’s mind. He may have been leaning toward the narrower standard yesterday, but he can lean the other way tomorrow.
To Don, Erik, bby, Rick Shaut, Christine G etc–
Why are you folks wasting so much time rehashing the hash??
I’ve already told you have won….Dino ought to concede.
What are you all going to do with your lives when this is over??
Maybe we can all work to clean-up the voter rolls…that would be productive and give more confidence in future elections.
It’s kind of a shame though if Rossi does concede like you all suggest…
How many of you have actually seen the documentation & evidence the R’s have developed??
It’s actually quite a “soap-opera”.
Maybe we can create a new “Reality TV Show” called something like
“Cheatin’…Washington-style”.
You know what? Just for grins, I’m going to suggest Dino not concede and all the months of grueling, tedious work be shared with “the rest of the nation and the world at large”.
Remember, that was Christine’s famous quote about this election.
“This election is a MODEL for the rest of the Ntion and the World at large”.
Based on what I have seen, it’s kinda hard to call it a model.
Anyway, do any of you remember that box of provisional affadavits Paul Berendt brought in and attested to their validity personally. He attested that each and every one of them was legitimate. Remember that?? Have any of you actually looked into those affadavits??? Have you actually looked at the signatures? Perhaps rather than re-hash the hash…you might want to just double-check Paul’s work. You don’t have to though, because I’m sure if Paul says the are all 100% valid, they must be….right???
Oh and remember one more thing..
The R’s haven’t even begun to present the evidence.
They have deposed even one “witness” yet.
I sounds pretty clear that the Judge has said, “GO FOR IT!”
Even though it is a total waste of time…just ask bby…aren’t any of you just a teensy-weensy bit curious???
I kinda think Judge Bridges would have clearly indicated to all of us that he was going to require 100% proof of how all those illegal voters voted if that’s where he was headed, don’t you?
I mean, the Judge is a very intelligent man. Certainly intelligent enough to know that once ballots are co-mingled, there is absolutely no way to know. I laugh when I hear the idea that felons and dead people who voted illegally will be deposed and the Judge will then adjust Rossi/Gregoire totals accordingly. How many of you think that’s what he meant??
I believe he will look at the distribution of illegal votes, apply reasonable formula’s and rule accordingly. The R’s have to put up or shut up.
OOP’s, I forgot…Rossi ought to concede!
Now Cynical why are you wasting your life energy lecturing these hopeless liberals. Here I am dead. My vote will not go to waste. Have you notified the authorities of Berendt’s fraudulent activities? We have an election here that must be put right! (No pun intended.)
Well- Mr C – does not surprise me that you are all caught up in the “soap opera” of it all. Good substitute for a real life.
And of course you think all that trash drama and bad writing is real life? Oh, I forgot. Dino is now out of work, how will he pay for the house and food for the kids, and what of the meanies out to destroy his empire- oh God, is there infidelity among the neighbors in Shammosh?
Stay tuned. Not me.Trash, pure trash.
By the way, this judge is plain spoken. When he calls your non- case soap opera, well…….I would start to worry.
OLD fashioned theme- follow the money. As long as he is in the spotlight, Chris Vance, and the bucks keep flowing, the case will proceed. For several years maybe.
Keeps the troops in high indignation mode and writing checks to thwart the evil Queen Christine…..one of their polite insults.
To the dead spouse person – WILL YOU TESTIFY? Could be the most interesting person to person story in the whole opera.
Remember, after all, Dino loves you. What was the little wife’s name again?
Dear Peter,
Son I am dead. I cannot in any way testify. However, my husband who is alive and voted for me can testify but I’m not about to give him up. Now you strike me as baiting and sarcastic therefore liberal and a supporter of that wicked witch from Olympia, Christine Gregoire. I was a life-long Republican, therefore I have little to say to you aside from a withering insult or two.
Goldy,
I think you are dead wrong on Judge Bridge’s use of the Foulkes case. From the reporting and comments I’ve read, Bridges said that the Republicans could set aside the election on grounds other than illegal votes as set out in the election contest statute, RCW 29A.68.020. He said based on Foulkes they could rely independently on the broad “negligence” and “misconduct” provisions of RCW 29A.68.011 to set aside the election. These provisions are very undefined and theoretically leaves the judge almost unlimited discretion to set aside the election based on errors such as the improper provisional ballots, the alleged overvotes, or even the allegedly illegally enhanced ballots. All this possibly without a showing that these errors did in fact result in Gregoire improperly receiving more votes than Rossi. It all depends on how broadly the Judge interprets the language of Foulkes. Hopefully, he will at least feel he is constrained by the provisions of RCW29A.68.070 which holds that any misconduct by an election board must have been such as to cause the declared winner not to have in fact received the greatest number of votes.
The fact that he stated the Constitution prevented him from ordering a new election is no evidence for his not claiming the broad equitable power announced in Foulkes to set aside an election. These particular Constitutional provisions do not prevent him from setting aside an election.
I think Foulkes was a poorly decided case, but the Democrats really blew it by not directly addressing that case in their memorandum. I personally would fire those lawyers for that mistake.
Chew… I haven’t seen an transcripts, so I’m relying on the reporting of others, but Lawyer X assures me that Bridges cited Foulkes in regards to the grounds for a contest, not the standard necessary to set aside an election. In fact, the Becker decision specifically says that anulling an election is not an available remedy under .011 in itself.
Remember, this was mostly a hearing on whether a contest would proceed, in this court. On that, the GOP won. But I really don’t see much in the ruling that makes the GOP job any easier.
chew2–
I think you just might be correct.
Goldy’s Lawyer X does not give the best advice while he is getting his back shaved!
However, we all must bow at the alter to Don’s little buddy bby.
Both these guy’s are absolutely convinced there is no merit to Rossi’s case…even before they have seen one shread of evidence.
How can you debate this with 2 psychics?? Madame bby and his bb.
Goldy, I agree–his repeated references to the tension between .020 and .11 all came during rulings on the nature of contest procedure, not based on prevailment. Whenever the Democrats tried to move the focus to evaluating the claims, Bridges called them premature–I find it difficult to believe his specific citing of procedure rulings would be used to extend it where he claimed he did not want to go.
.11 and .020 are both clearly contest grounds rules, not annulment rules. .070 and .110 are the annulment statutes.
“As I have previously suggested, the answer is implicit in our election statutes, which clearly prefer finality over certainty.”
That is an interesting statement, Horse-butt.
I don’t think that GreGore agrees, because she kept the counting going until enough magical mystery ballots were procured to give her the office.
You can see more of my views, which are sure to piss you off, at: http://www.sillyseattle.blogspot.com
I think Foulkes was a poorly decided case, but the Democrats really blew it by not directly addressing that case in their memorandum. I personally would fire those lawyers for that mistake.
Nah. You don’t fire the winning team. The judge heard about as much as he could handle and the Foulkes case was certainlt by the judge, perhaps serveral times.
Having the judge strike one of the GOP’s remedy was quite a surprise as he didn’t need to do so until the end if he felt that way after the trial.
The fact that he stated the Constitution prevented him from ordering a new election is no evidence for his not claiming the broad equitable power announced in Foulkes to set aside an election.
I think you may be confusing the two. The judge stated that there was not going to be a “revote” period under any theory equitable or constitutional. Yes, of course, the election could be set aside, but with a general election in 11/2006.
As far as the lawsuit, the judge made a clear distinction between what is have a contest heard and what is required to prevail.
The judge discussed how difficult it would be to meet the burden later and read the case which stated that illegal votes generally cannot be attributed to one cadidate or another.
So the contest will go forward but require a high burden with limited remedies for Rossi.
Thanks Erik. It is intereting that people hear nothing when it is clearly stated – or hear what they wish – despite what is said.
If Rossi and his people are smart- they will fold before a trial. The big loss will make them look as silly as they are. No case, now or two months ago.
They are doing the legal PR scam – as they do in public policy discussions. All PR and ideology in a silly guise as good public policy.
All posture, invective, and illusions – no substance.
Agree with the previous two posts. And now even unsound policrits has started swaying from the topic. They are now after blood from the students at SCC that ‘offended’ the recruiters. LMAO@Them
Erik, Peter & jpgee–
I agree with your views. Rossi should absolutely quit..hopeless.
Thanks to folks like you, the message has gotten thru to us “Righties”. I am taking my spanking like a man.
Although, don’t you think, just for grins, we ought to take a look at all the evidence. As you Einsteins are well-aware, the timing of this is now the EVIDENCE is to be presented, depositions taken etc. I think moving this forward will at the very least flush out some serious problems with our election system, particularly KingCo, and be a strong catalyst for much needed reform. It may also be embarrassing to a few folks…well more than a few folks, like Logan, Huennekens, Sims, the KingCo Council etc. but what’s a little embarrassment to some incompetent bureaucrats if we can have better future elections? They will continue to “circle the wagons” defending each other but eventually we will get the truth. Especially when lower level staffers start talking…and it’s my understanding several want to talk.
But you folks are always right. I bow at the alter to you all.
Oh and it will also be embarrassing to Mr. Berendt…I mean when they go thru the provisional ballot affadavits he personally brought in and attested to the validity of each & every one. Do you guys think all 400+ were legit?? Paul said they were by bringing them in. Just curious.
just a question….what is the penalty for ‘voter fraud’? I can’t find it on the net.
Goldy–
Bad luck to you & your beloved “Eagles” today.
I hope today’s Super Bowl extends your substantial personal losing streak on things that are of importance to you!
Rodney Harrison is the wrong guy to piss-off.
jpgee-
So if there is no penalty for voter fraud, I guess it’s ok huh?
I think the biggest penalty will be in the Court of Public Opinion which decides future elections. That’s why it is very important for this case to proceed. Voters get a clear picture on some of the BS that went on in this election. Then they can choose to consider it in future elections.
Remember, “this election is a MODEL for the rest of the nation and the world at large”.
—-Christine Gregoire
I love watching re-runs of her saying that. As good as re-runs of Seinfeld and Friends!…maybe better.
Between that, Paul Berendt bawling about spending his whole life making sure that all votes are counted (especially illegal ones!), and a few other choice quotes…the R’s have some great campaign material for future elections. Nothing like watching the Dem leaders with the actual words coming out of their tight lips and there mannerisms as they deliver those lines.
Classic politics!
Has anyone in the “media” looked into who are the attorneys on the Rossi side? Has The Seattle Weekly? Or The Stranger? I assume neither the Times or the P.I. has. This highly dangerous election scamming by the Republicans goes way beyond Rossi and Vance, of course. I suspect Karl Rove is in the background. Check out one of their lawyers, described in the main press as “another lawyer for the Republicans,” Mark Braden. E. Mark Braden. He’s the ringer. He’s from the D.C. law firm, Baker & Hostetler. According to “Find A Republican Lawyer” (FaRL), his areas of expertise include: Legislative, Elections, Governmental Affairs/Nonprofit, Organizations, Redistricting. If you google “Mark Braden” + attorney, all kinds of interesting links come up. He’s been a Republican go-to con since at least the early 1980s. He proudly claims to be the “father of soft money.” Here’s some more (from FaRL): “…served as Chief Counsel to the Ohio Elections Commission and Election Counsel for the Secretary of State in Ohio. He was a principal lawyer in two of the largest recounts in our political history–governors’ races in New Jersey and Illinois.” He has worked on redistricting in 25 states; in 1994 he was attorney for Ollie North; he was part of the New Mexico 2000 voting strategies; he was one of the Republican lawyers in “Troopergate”, for crying out loud! Etc., etc.
I didn’t go far enough into the 305 google hits to see if he was involved in Florida 2000, but I’d bet the farm if, I had one, that he was.
Goldy and TJ,
If the judge agreed with the democratic arguments about the reach of the Becker case, then he would not have stated that the Republicans could seek the relief they were asking for, setting aside the election, under 29A.68.011 errors and misconduct standards, and would have said they were limited to a challenge under 29A.68.020 which is limited ot illegal votes or misconduct by precinct officials. Becker says you cannot set aside an election under subsections (4) and (5) of 29A.68.011. The Republicans said you should ignore Becker and that Foulkes still controlled. Isn’t that what the judge did?
Perhaps not. Perhaps he was saying the Republicans had independent grounds to set aside the electon under subsection (6) of 29A.68.011, an “error” in issuing a certificate of election. I have taken subsection (6) to only incorporate the grounds statee in the election constest provision. 29A.68.020, but the judge might be saying it affords independent grounds.
But you are right that the judge may still consider himself to be limited by the proof requirements of 29A.68.070, so there will have to some showing that these “errors” changed the outcome in favor of Gregoire.
Goldy: “As I have previously suggested, the answer is implicit in our election statutes, which clearly prefer finality over certainty.”
Yes, that would definitely be supported by the phrase, “good enough for government work” — just get it done, regardless of if it is right or not.
I actually agree to an extent with your interpretation, but I think you need to view the election statutes as a whole. The intent may well be finality over certainty, but it is presumed that all of the other laws are followed. In other words, if the SoS tells counties they have to reconcile and explain discrepancies, they must. All of the widespread voter “hanky-panky” (I won’t call it fraud at this point) should be squashed. The Dems seem to insist upon a smoking gun — one glaring action of fraud or malfeasance. They probably won’t get it. Instead, this entire election is a “death by a thousand paper cuts” and the act of malfeasance is the overall running of the election — especially in King County.
Chew2 @ 25
I don’t believe the judge said anything about the available remedies from .011 on its own, but rather viewed as part of the entire statute. The contest proceeds under .011, but relief must be granted under .070 or .110.
Foulkes was decided based on what is now .011, and the court reached to its general equity jurisdiction to provide a remedy not specifically available. But that was before .011 was rolled into the contest statute, and Becker has subsequently ruled that such remedy is not available from .011.
There was no indication from the judge that Becker doesn’t hold.
Mark @ 26
I am viewing the election statutes in their entirety and I believe the very high standards for turning over an election as clearly stated in the contest statute is consistent with the acceptance of uncertainty implicit in the recount statute.
It is not enough to prove the election is flawed. One must also show that the irregularities likely changed the outcome.
I’ve used this thought experiment elsewhere. Let’s say crooked Dems stuffed 2000 ballots in pro-Rossi county, all marked for Gregoire, but that Rossi still won by a couple hundred votes. If the crooked Dems did a good enough job, the ballots would be untraceable (so nobody could be charged with the crime) and nearly impossible to separate out, so we could never show who they were cast for. But… after Rossi is certified, the crooked Dems responsible make sure it is known that there were 2000 stuffed ballots.
All the court knows, is that Rossi won by 200 votes, and that there are 1000 illegal stuffed ballots… but we don’t know for whom. If the court sets aside the election because the results are uncertain, then Rossi is being punished because of Democratic fraud.
This creates an incentive to commit fraud. In the best case scenario, the fraud helps your candidate win. But if your candidate loses a close election, you can use evidence of this fraud to set aside the results.
You may consider this an unlikely scenario, but show me a stitch of evidence that any of the illegal votes uncovered thus far benefited Gregoire? Indeed, the press has reported on 8 illegal votes thus far where we know how they were cast, and the count is now 6 for Rossi, 1 for Bennett and 1 for Gregoire.
Yes the findings from Friday mean a lot. You have a very effient matter of fact judge, confident, ruling right from the bench.
Not intimidated by anything. Very rural, high school lecture time in his court Kept the high paid Seattle cadre sitting quiet while he held class for high schoolers. Love it..
Booted the counties for his sake and theirs. The R’s were holding them hostage— hoping to squeeze nice people to bolster their weak case. Hard core fishing.
Did not work. The power to suponea and discovery is universal for both sides. They can use those powers anywhere, anytime and for anybody. But the question is what do they hope to find that is not already know? Rehashing information does not get the R’s a better case. They have been pawing over everything they could get their hands on with a big paid staff for weeks- nada.
Rossi was hoping his own – we need revote- PR would be substitued for the law. How fucking silly. And what attorney of high intellect would have played along with Vance and the right wingers?
The R’s have no case, and then you act like it is your right to spin the situation and have all parties agree that you get want you want because— ” I did not win. She did.”
Too much. Stupid. Silly. Mindless. Don’t hire these people for your legal team.
Goldy @ 28
I think you bring up a good point with your example. Methinks perhaps too good. Was this plan discussed at the last Demo groupthink session? ;)
My point simply was that I believe legislative intent is for finality over certainty WHEN all of the other rules are followed within reason. In this case, we have a number of rules that were broken in the interest of expediency or laziness or sheer incompetence. Or, though I’m not saying it is… fraud.
Bluesky @ 24…it’s too bad that more folks don’t pay attention to parts of the story such as your point.
Setting aside all the legaleze and iota focus of the case, we should all ask ourselves why this election is so protracted. What can be gained from this process.
Too often all sides forget that the electorate of this state, as well as nationally, is split entirely down the middle. Half are vehemently opposed to the other half no matter which side of the middle line one looks.
What we are all forgetting is there is an ideological split in this nation that widens daily. The complexion of politics has taken on the look of mud wrestling rather than diverse view conversation.
Bluesky, is the Baker of the firm Baker & Hostetler to which you say Braden belongs James Baker? Does anyone else here remember the divisiveness Baker and gang brought to politics of old?
Why are we being duped into focusing so on the particulars of politics when the basics of same are being flushed down the toilet? The only thing that has kept this nation great for as long as it’s been is the conversation between divergent views. That seems contrary to the Baker/Rovarian philosophy of lock step agreement partisanship.
Shouldn’t we all step back a bit and reevaluate the overview as opposed to nitpicking the he said/she said of the particulars?
What is truly gained for the state as a whole by extending this particular election fight to this degree? No matter which side wins, half the voters will feel disenfranchised. Why are we not focusing more on getting real, long term election reform rather than who wins at what cost for the immediate moment?
The irregularities of this election have been around since man started voting. Why are we so shocked that they exist now? Why are we not conversing about how to move toward fixing them rather than the hysteria of the day?
What happened to diverse conversation with the overview of the good of the whole?
bluesky & G Davis-
So now you want to focus on the R’s law firm rather than the issues?? Sounds desperate. I previously have stated that it appears Rossi has lost and bby is the “voice of reason” for the Democratic Party (along with Howard Dean, of course). However, seeing you folks try to shift the focus and tie Florida 2000 in with this fiasco make me think perhaps you are in trouble.
Also G Davis—your intent to “minimize and marginalize” what happened in this election fiasco is just what the doctor ordered for the R’s. Keep telling everyone that felons voting, dead people voting, people voting more than once etc. are ok cuz it’s always been done. I love it. I’m sure that will get you a long ways in the PR campaign….and it won’t make a bit of difference to this judge. Keep up the bad work!!
Mark… I wouldn’t know, because if there are Demo groupthink sessions, nobody ever invites me.
Mark, I understand your concern that rules weren’t followed, and clearly some election workers made mistakes that may have resulted in votes being counted that shouldn’t have. (I also think that in KC, many valid ballots were excluded because of signature matching requirements stricter than many other counties. C’est la guerre.)
But I don’t believe that this is what the contest statute is intended to deal with. Yes, there were irregularities that could have effected the outcome. But there is no evidence that they did, or that they were the result of an attempt to do so. What we have here is an extraordinarily close election taking place within an imperfect system. The good news is that we have learned some things from this election that will help us make future elections less imperfect. But I doubt we could ever get an election with 3 million ballots to have a margin of error smaller than this margin of victory.
And G Davis–what is to be “gained by the state as a whole by “EXTENDING” this particular election fight to this degree?”
How about:
1) Accountability
2) Improved future elections
Aren’t you even a little curious about the actual “EVIDENCE” g Davis?? Perhaps you are afraid of it…because once it is public, once election officials and others have been deposed…then where will you be?? The posturing is over…although watch for Dem appeals. They will do everything possible to stop the public from knowing the specific acts of various election officials, party operatives etc. This Judge is great. He wants everything out in the air.
Keep trying to deflect attention away from what specifically happened in this Washington Governor’s Race. Perhaps you will get the attention of the Dean & Kookinich crowds but it will pretty much end there.
Christine Gregoire–
“This election is a MODEL for the rest of the nation and the world at large”. We’ll see if the Judge and just as importantly, the public, agrees with you.
Oh and if you want to deflect a bit…let’s discuss the actions of Move-on.org in Wisconsin, Washington and other states.
It’s important to remember that when Rossi filed the petition, the thrust of his argument was not that he could prove he won the election, but that he could show the election was in doubt–that things were too messed up to know.
But that decision, were he to get it, does him no good at this stage, because he cannot get his remedy. The best the judge can do (based on his ruling so far) is vacate the election, with no replacement until November 2006. The Legislature may opt to order one, but will probably have to change code and possibly the Constitution to do so.
All of which is to say that the tumble over illegal votes may be a little premature, since I’m not convinced the Rossi team is ready to show that he won the election. At least until the revote was off the table, I think they were going to try to use .11 as a standard for prevailment, and get by that way.
Cynical @ 5
Gotta call your hand on this piece of blather, my friend. Yes — this election was a model for Florida, et al. — because of the people who DIDN’T get disenfranchised by partisan election officials (e.g., Katherine Harris, Ken Blackwell, etc.). Repubs fret over a few dozen ineligibles voting, but you never hear them call for “election reform” that protects the right to vote! Now why is that? They send other people’s children to die for bringing democracy to foreign lands, while working overtime to keep American citizens from voting in our own country. Hmmm … . As for your inane, factually inaccurate snipe at P. Berendt, apparently everyone on this board except you knows those signatures had to be checked and verify by county election workers before a single one of those ballots was counted. You seem to imply these were illegitimate votes. Got news for you, pal — those were eligible voters who wanted to vote, had a right to vote, and did vote — and they had a right to have their votes counted! Maybe you need to refocus. Instead of decrying a handful of mistakes of the kind that inevitably occur in every election involving 3 million voters, you should be celebrating the millions of legitimate votes that were cast! You chose your screen name well; you are indeed a sourpuss of the first magnitude.
Cynical @ 6
Why do you assume all those dead people and felons voted for Gregoire? Yes, let’s hear the testimony. By all means … go for it.
bby @ 8
Why do you say “Dino now is out of work?” He’s still got his old standby — his slumlord business.
Peter @ 9
The Legislature can’t turn off BIAW’s money spigot fast enough to suit me! I’m getting tired of the taxpayers footing the bill for Rossi/Vance/WSRP’s antics. Make ’em do it on their own dime.
Cynical @ 14
Get over it. We had an election. Your boy Dino lost. Notwithstanding that disagreeable fact of your sad, miserable, self-flagellating life, I’m a big fan of the concept that every dog should get his day in court. Keeps my brethren of the bar employed, you know.
DeadManVoting @ 16
Another CarlsonClone regurgitating, manta-like, the absurb spin emanating from Bellevue. Fact check:
1. All votes had to be cast at polling places on Election Day, or by absentee ballot signed by a real person and postmarked no later than Election Day.
2. The Democrats didn’t “find” any votes during the recounts. The county “found” them. They shouldn’t have been misplaced or not counted in the first place. That was the county’s fault. Gregoire, Berendt, and the Democrats had nothing to do with it.
jpgee @ 19
I don’t doubt for a second the Repubs will call for the judge’s head on a platter. Just not yet. Not while the case is still pending. Don’t want to piss off the judge. But if these crybabies don’t get what they want from him, they’ll be demanding his head on a platter, along with Sam Reed’s. That’s their style. Always.
Cyn @ 20
Yes yes yes yes yes — let’s try this case! I want to see what the Repubs have got, as tested by legal standards of proof. So far, the only testing of their “evidence” has been by the talk radio standard of proof, i.e., if it’s what they want to hear, it must be true.
And why do you assume all of the signature affidavits were validated? My understanding is that about 70% of those votes ended up being counted (i.e., roughly 700 out of 1,000 signatures were validated by county election officials).
Cyn @ 23
Why are you so fixated on Christine G.? Do you have a crush on her? You’re missing the main action. You’re like the fan who watches the quarterback warming up on the sideline while the kicker is booting a 56-yard field goal. Vance’s and Rossi’s flip-flops and backpedaling are much more interesting than any G. ever said.
Mark @ 28
The more plausible scenario is that crooked Repubs stuffed electronic voting machines in at least one county (Snohomish)with untraceable electronic blips. See http://votersunite.org/
Cyn @ 32
Yes, the Republican lawyers and their tactics — along with Karl Rove and his tactics — are the issue. These scumbags are subverting our democracy. Like cockroaches hiding under the kitchen sink, they need to be dragged into the light of day.
Cyn @ 34
Is your damn keyboard stuck? How many times are you going to repeat that quote from Gregoire? But since you asked, yes this was a model election compared to how elections get run when Republicans are running them.
So Don..you agree with Gregoire..
“This election is a MODEL for the rest of the Nation and the world at large”.
—Christine Gregoire
You actually agree with that Don…even without hearing the evidence??
No wonder Gregoire’s AG had such problems!
As a lifelong Government Attorney, I’m disappointed that you would draw such a conclusion so prematurely.
Kind of like PREMATURE EVALUATION!! Not very satisfying for your partner Don.
Mr. Cynical @32
So now you want to focus on the R’s law firm rather than the issues?? Sounds desperate. I previously have stated that it appears Rossi has lost and bby is the “voice of reason” for the Democratic Party (along with Howard Dean, of course). However, seeing you folks try to shift the focus and tie Florida 2000 in with this fiasco make me think perhaps you are in trouble.
Not shifting the focus so much as getting people to understand what may lie at the core of this scam. I see patterns. You might too, if you weren’t so blinded by propaganda. The current crop of Republicans are trying to undermine democracy in the truest sense. And what better way than to destroy trust in the franchise. This guy Braden has been involved in almost all the voting “irregularities” and right wing scream-fests in the last 25 years. Does this not make you wonder why he was the guy sitting next to and behind the Washington Republican lawyers during these vote contest cases? I was in the court room for the whole day at the Wenatchee hearing. I saw that guy and wondered who the hell he was. He wasn’t sitting at the main petitioners’ table and didn’t say peep during the proceedings. But he was clearly someone they all consulted with. I wondered who the hell he was. I’m beginning to see who he is. And possibly why this dangerous “re-vote” deception is still going on. You really ought to take off your blinders and pay attention, stop believing the BS you are parroting.
KARL ROVE’S DOGS HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEALS TO THE HASH SUPREMES. ROSSI WAS AN HIGH PROFILE GUEST OF BUSH AT THE INAUG.
MAINSTREAM ROOSI HAS BEEN DE CLOAKED.
Relative to the rest of the country, the Washington State election IS a model, frankly. The counties have been extremely open with information and given pretty much anyone who wanted information and access. That’s certainly not typical of other places like say…Ohio and Florida.
Further, Torrid Joe is correct on the analysis of the contest laws vs the “stay” law. The threshold to contest is much lower than the threshold for overturning. Further, as I’ve had it explained to me by 2 attornies…Rossi will have to present ALL illegal votes, prove who voted for whom and show that the election was tipped to Gregiore illegally. The Republicans are saying they can use a mathematical formula and make an educated guess. I don’t think the judge is going to stay the election based on a GOP guess.
CARLA–
You are absolutely incorrect that “Rossi will have to present ALL illegal votes, prove who voted for whom and show the election was tipped to Gregoire illegally.”
Perhaps your 2 “attorney’s” are as daft as Goldy’s Attorney X.
Once votes are comingled, they cannot be specifically identified. They aren’t going to depose all felons, dead folks and people that voted more than once.
carla–The key word is “appears”. “Appears” is not “Proves”.
It’s a high standard, but not nearly as high as “PROVES”.
I suppose you can keep saying it and convince yourself..perhaps you already have. But that doesn’t make it so.
So let the depositions, questioning and unraveling of this election begin per Judge Bridges. We will see who did what. The Lefty’s can rant & rave all they want about Karl Rove & Braden. No impact on the decision.
Cyn @ 37
Lissen, Cynical, even if 5000 felons and dead people voted, it’s still CLEAN and a MODEL election compared to ANY election run by Republicans (e.g., Blackwell, Harris, et al.). Everything’s relative, ya know (e.g., Einstein’s theory of relativity).
Cynical @ 41
“Appears” may be enough to overturn the election, but it’s not enough to declare Rossi the winner. If it “appears” that Rossi won, then it also “appears” that maybe he didn’t. I think the most the Pubs can hope for is an Acting Governor Brad Owen for the next two years.
Don @ 43-
The next general election is this November…2005. I’ve heard the case for waiting until 2006 but don’t think so. Besides, Brad Owen is way may reasonable than Gregoire and less beholding to the fringe wacko groups that seem to be multiplying in your Party. Owen is well respected by both sides…it could be a blessing for the Dem’s, especially if the next election isn’t until 2006. 2005 would be all Rossi.
And Don, I never, ever expected the Court to declare Rossi the winner. I always believed the election would be “set aside’…Gregoire ousted, Brad Owen in temporarily until a new election at the next General Election. Still think thats going to happen.
Don@ 42–
I guess we’ll see if the majority of Washington voters agree with your assessment that this was a “MODEL” election. I’m sure you will try to drag in Florida and Ohio…good luck getting folks interested in that. In Washington, folks will be talking about how Murderer X from Cle Elum was able to vote, or how bby and his loverboy each voted 4 times…stuff like that.
The idea of…well 5 years ago in Florida, we say this happened. We have no proof, but we think it happened…that won’t get you too far Don. Give it a try for about $100,000.
Mr. Cynical, in my post I asked what the penalty was for ‘voter fraud’, I did not say there was no penalty. You should read a little more closely before you chirp your redundant chorus. Like I asked quite nicely before, what is (if any) the penalty or fine for voter fraud in Washington State? Any help greatly appreciated
and also mr c, you are truly fixated on bby. Seem like you are probably falling in over your head
Will Rodgers moment –There are a bunch of attorney in this affair. Ask them and draw from your own experience with the courts, judge, the law.
The status quo is the norm. And maintaining the status quo.
You think this conservative judge will make history by screwing the status quo to overturn a very close election because a preteneder – someone named Dino, thinks they might have won?
No way.
LOL…Cynical are you really this knuckle dragging devolved or is it some misguided attempt at attention getting?
If you’re simply saying it’s hard to know if an election divided by 129 out of 3+mil votes went one way or another, I doubt you’ll get much argument from any thinking soul.
If you’re simply saying there are problems with the election system, I doubt the Dems of all people would quibble with that after the Florida and Ohio debacles.
What some of the more evolved are saying is don’t throw the baby out with the bath water…fix the system publically so faith is restored in perpetuity for all citizens, don’t just toss it out as unfixable to satisfy some power mongering win at one particular point in time.
You have no idea how another election would turn out, and what the heck do you do if it is as closely divided as this one?
You and your ilk bitch and moan about frivilous tax expenditure, but are whole heartedly backing this folly?
How much is this whole circus costing the taxpayers of the state? How much would it cost to really fix the system so these sorts of questions wouldn’t have to be hashed and rehashed?
Which is the more useful TO ALL THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE?
G Davis @ 48
I heard John Carlson recently say the $4 million cost to taxpayers would be cheap and well worth while, and then of course all his wingnut listeners chimed in with their affirmation.
Just don’t ask these folks to pony up $4 million for school textbooks, or health care for poor kids, or similar “waste, fraud, and abuse”!
Cynical @ 44
Would you deign to define the “fringe wacko groups” that Gregoire is beholden to? Obviously you don’t mean the BIAW, as that’s a fringe wacko group that Rossi is beholden to.
Don @ 48–
Absolutely false that a November, 2005 Governor’s Race election would cost taxpayers $4 million. Another Democrat scare tactic that is long on fear and short on the truth!!!!!
Reason:
THERE ARE ALREADY A NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ISSUES ON THIS NOVEMBER, 2005 BALLOT. There is a specific formula for allocating the cost of the election. This November, 2005 election will cost X dollars even without a Governor’s Race. The “INCREMENTAL COST” of the Governor’s Race is the true cost!
Fringe groups include former career government lawyers like Don that are ept at misrepresenting the facts to scare people as Don just showed us!!
Don@48 Remember, we must all bow down and listen to MR.C, after all he and Proud A, know the truth about everything and the rest of us are just ‘little people’ with thought disorders…..LMAO@MRC&PASS
Mr. Cyn, you keep spouting your ignorance. Judge Bridges and the Democrats pointed out during last Friday’s hearing that IF there were to be a new election for Governnor, the state Constitution states specifically elections for Governor are to be held at the time of the GENERAL election–the same time the Legislature is elected–which falls on even years. That would be 2006. November 2005 is NOT a “general” election. November 2006 is. Meanwhile, there would be Brad Owen. And anyone could run for Governor by then. There can be no re-match, as the Republigoons would like.
bluesky @ 53 Mr C ignorant? impossible, he know more than all of us combined. Just ask him and his ilk for the answers. Easy life for all of us. Bow down to MR C
SPIN SPIN SPIN. Amazing how all of your articles spin to the favor of the Democrat and to your lost of reality. Get your head out of your ass and look at the political person, not the party. If I could waste away my days, as you, creating nonsense, disaccord and contentment, I would spend my days reporting the TRUTH.Trust me, the News Tribune runs articles without checking their facts – I personally have been at their hand of “journalism”.
If you want to post anything worth truly reading, get off your fat ass and go to these functions and report accurately.
Stop embarrassing yourself with gossip and repetition of bias journalism. Study laws and the individual candidate before posting more trash.
Do yourself a favor and spend time in the Houses at their meetings. You will realize that our government is run by those who have the money and power to move the strings of the legislative and senate puppets. You can see these appointed idiots sit on a throne, casting a gazing look of boredom. The true system is corrupt – all parties!
Been there – done that