The Rossi campaign and their cheerleaders on the neocon blogs have made much ado about a 1996 memo from the Secretary of State’s office that supposedly shows Christine Gregoire’s “hypocrisy” on the issue of whether recounts should include re-examining the signatures on rejected provisional ballots. This is the issue at the heart of the Dems’ lawsuit, and if this memo truly proved Gregoire had changed her stance, it would certainly hurt her in the court of public opinion, if not a court of law.
But the memo doesn’t prove anything of the sort. Let’s take a look at the paragraph in question:
We are advised by the Attorney General that state law makes no provision for the challenge of ballots or voters (as provided in RCW 29.10.125) during the recount. The recount procedure provided for by statute is a mechanical function of re-tallying the ballots cast and accepted as valid by the precinct election officers or the canvassing board with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of a particular ballot during the canvass is not open to question during the recount.
The memo doesn’t say when they were advised, or by which Attorney General, nor in what context. The Gregoire campaign claims that this advice was given by the office of her Republican predecessor, Ken Eikenberry. This makes sense when you consider the memo in question concerned routine guidelines for conducting an election; it was not in response to any existing debate over recounts, so it would have been unlikely that Republican Secretary of State Ralph Munro, in 1996 an old hand at the job, would have suddenly sought a new opinion directly from the AG — indeed, no evidence has been provided claiming such an opinion was solicited.
In fact, the last time this issue arose was in 1990, during the very close race in the 24th Legislative District that was eventually decided by five votes. Ken Eikenberry and Ralph Munro were both in their respective offices at that time, and it seems plausible that the advice expressed in the 1996 memo stems from that earlier disputed election.
Neocon apologists like Stefan on (un)Sound Politics would place the burden of disproof on Gregoire, with absurd double-negatives like “I haven’t yet seen specific information that the AG office in 1996 had no knowledge of the opinion upon which Munro was relying.” And I haven’t seen evidence that Stefan is not the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy… but that doesn’t mean he is. (Then again, it doesn’t mean he isn’t.)
But regardless of who gave the advice and when, a close reading of the memo calls into question whether it specifically contradicts the Democratic lawsuit at all. The paragraph’s two sentences should be understood as two independent clauses. The first sentence clearly reflects the advice of an “AG”, but it would be presumptuous to infer that the second sentence is anything but a conclusion by the SOS. The AG’s advice is thus limited to the issue of whether RCW 29.10.125 makes a “provision for the challenge of ballots and voters” during a recount.
A literal reading of current state law suggests the AG’s advice is on target, because the statute makes no provision one way or the other. The RCW says “recount” and it says “all ballots cast”, but it fails to define either term. Yes, there is no provision that defines how a party might challenge ballots during a recount; but neither is there a provision that absolutely prevents canvassing boards from re-examining ballots on their own accord… an opinion that current SOS Sam Reed seemed to share in the TNT yesterday.
Oh, and by the way… the advice in the memo was based on an interpretation of RCW 29.10.125. Problem is, there is no RCW 29.10.125 on the books anymore, so the accusation of hypocrisy becomes shakier still in light of the fact that the law itself has changed in the intervening years.
On a curious side note… guess who was the Assistant AG assigned to the SOS at the time of the 1990 dispute? None other than Tim Eyman’s attorney, Jim Johnson, newly elected to the state Supreme Court on the strength of a familiar, alliterative name, and a half million dollars of BIAW money.
I mention this because it raises the very important issue of process. AGs and SOSs don’t generally give this kind of advice or write these kind of memos on their own; their staff handles it. So even if there was communication between the two offices in 1996, it’s unlikely that it would have been called to Gregoire’s attention on an issue that appeared to be settled practice as recently as 1990. Remember, Assistant AGs (and SOS staff) stay on from one administration to the next, and an Eikenberry holdover would have no reason to expect the office to reconsider this issue without a recent controversy.
And just to be sure I’m not accused of hypocrisy myself, I’d like to present a quote from a screed I wrote last year in which I repeatedly attacked the Attorney General for selectively seeking an injunction against my “Horse’s Ass” initiative: “And of course, wherever I refer to the ‘Attorney General,’ I am usually referring to her office.” Even I didn’t have the temerity to believe that my joke initiative was on her radar. The injunction was the work of an underling, as is most of the work of the office.
So what we have here is a eight-year-old memo, probably written by an SOS staffer, which included routine advice which may or may not have been given in 1996, or in 1990, by an Assistant AG in either Gregoire’s or Eikenberry’s office, about a vague lack of provision in a narrow portion of a statute that’s not even on the books anymore. And we’re asked to accept this as damning evidence of Gregoire’s contemptible hypocrisy?
Puh-leaaaase.
If Ralph Munro comes out tomorrow and states that he personally got this advice from Gregoire herself, then I’ll give this memo more credence. Otherwise it’s little more than gossip, hearsay and conjecture.
Goldy- the RCWs were recodified in 2004- that basically was just a cleaning up of the code, and it is now Title 29A RCW.
You know I do not like the Dems lawsuit, but I also do not like overreaching and misrepresentation, which blogs seem to be full of. I spent a fair amount of time this last year disputing misrepresentations of Rossi’s record on one particular blog, and I hate to see the same kind of misrepresentation of a Democrat. There are enough real issues and matters of dispute, we don’t have to manufacture them out of whole cloth…
The GOP blew it by trying to hang the memo around Gregoire’s neck, instead of using it to demonstrate the settled state of the law, and noting that she didn’t try to unsettle it until it was to her personal advantage (where was the protection of every voter in 2000?- oh, Gregoire was winning in a runaway, and in the close race- ah, who cares about Gorton voters?). Now that would have been a fair and on-point hit…
Jim, yeah… I know the RCW thing was a weak argument, but the run-on sentence at the end just didn’t read right without it. I’m allowed a little poetic license now and then.
I completely understand your position on the lawsuit, and we can agree to disagree. I believe there were too many legitimate ballots discarded for anal, bureaucratic reasons, and these voters have the right to have their votes counted. (And, of course, I believe it will help my candidate win.)
As to the state of the law being settled in 2000, I do not recall Gorton or anybody else challenging it. Why would the AG reconsider this issue unless it is raised?
Your last paragraph is my point exactly- the law WAS so settled, no one thought of challenging it…
Goldy–
The “neo-Leftists”, like yourself, are oh so serious & oh so self-righteous. The fact is these ballots have been evaluated by election staff and in many cases the canvassing boards. If you want to start searching to count more ballots…then you ought to ask to review all the ballots previously accepted. The problem is….you can’t!! Enough is enough…let’s recount what we have. You can see that some overvotes & undervotes are now being counted. Unfortunately, the impact of the human error factor remains to be seen. Are you striving for the impossible?????….a perfect election? It appears so. How convenient for the “neo-Leftists” like you who are oh so serious and oh so self-righteous. In fact, I beleive that your painful hair-splitting is prima facie evidence of why Washington State is oh so business unfriendly. But the neo-Leftists, like yourself, who are oh so serious and oh so self-righteous, will never get it.
Gosh, who cares whether or not Gregoire herself did the library work to issue the opinion, or whether it was an original written opinion or a verbal “go ahead and rely on the most recent opinion on the subject that we have on file”.
If one of AG’s staff attorneys gives advice in the name of the AG Office, the whoever is the AG is both legally and politically responsible for the advice.
You know, Goldy, some folks just can’t get over the fact that there is no opinion from the AG- from any AG. Over elsewhere, one fool still writes about Gregoire’s memo to Munro- hey, read the memo, it was FROM Ralph, to the Kitsap and Pierce County Auditors. Hello? Anybody home? No one has yet demonstrated that SOS was doing anything more than recalling previous advice given from AG, reissuing boilerplate memo that was last reviewed when?
Awfully hard getting down off a high horse…
Jim–
Do verbal opinions count?? In my book they do….which is often what the AG’s office gives. And they often will refer in those opinions to prior opinions which often means they concur. And if they don’t concur, they will say so. Folks within various State Agency’s will tell you this.
Okay, you all – on Mary Lane’s behalf I am posting the Rossi campaign press release on the subject so you too can understand our position:
——————
Gregoire & the memo: Attorney General claims ignorance
Bellevue, WA – Christine Gregoire is trying to shrug off responsibility for a 1996 memo that puts her own Attorney General’s office at odds with her efforts now to change the rules of the recount in the governor’s race.
Yesterday, a November 1996 memo from then-Secretary of State Ralph Munro regarding a manual recount in a state legislative race was made public. It included the following statement:
“Challenge of Ballots Not Allowed. We are advised by the Attorney General that state law makes no provision for the challenge of ballots or voters (as provided in RCW 29.10.125) during the recount. The recount procedure provided for by statute is a mechanical function of re-tallying the ballots cast and accepted as valid by the precinct election officers or the canvassing board during the canvass of the election. The decision of the canvassing board with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of a particular ballot during the canvass is not open to question during the recount.”
Gregoire was Attorney General at the time of this memo; she was elected in 1992.
Now, however, Gregoire says that the opinion in the memo was an old one and that she was never personally asked for her advice. Governor-elect Dino Rossi’s office says Gregoire’s excuse sidesteps the issue.
If Gregoire disagreed with the opinion in 1996, she shouldn’t have allowed it to be included in a public document from a state agency. Instead, if she thought the opinion was wrong, Gregoire should have issued a new opinion. But she didn’t, and the standing rule remained as-is.
“Once again, Christine Gregoire is trying to pass the buck and claim it wasn’t her fault,” said Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane. “It’s hard to believe that at the time of this memo, when she had already been Attorney General for four years, she let stand an opinion she didn’t agree with. If she did fail to correct an opinion she thought was wrong, then she was derelict in her duty as Attorney General.
“The fact that Christine Gregoire can’t deny is that for 12 years as Attorney General, she did nothing to change the rule that you don’t bring previously rejected ballots back into a hand recount. It’s only now that she’s lost the election twice that she wants to change the rules.”
###
——————
Oooooh, pleasssse. Gimme a break… The point is: The advice eminiated from Gregoire’s department, ended up in a memo that should have been brought to Gregoire’s attention (considering the controversy) and dealt with from there.
Comment by Jim King— 12/9/04 @ 11:35 pm
That they sort-of did… could you please read the last paragraph of the Marummy (f.k.a. Mary Lane) press release?
Most excellent FML–
Goldy will give it a good spin though…like Ralph just made all this up or something Gregoire-like. The Gregoirian era is one of back-pedalling, side-stepping and BS…kind of like Country Western Line-Dancing!!
LOL Country Western Line Dancing!!! The Washington Conservative Passtime. LMAO
Another nice quote Mr Cynical : from that unsound sight you live in : I’ll bet he would be mighty tough to live with…kind of the “Felix Unger” of bloggers!!! Why I’ll bet Goldy’s toilet could never be clean enough for him.
Posted by Mr. Cynical at December 10, 2004 12:55 AM
Josef- I read the last line days ago- they sould have focused on that. Where FML and Cynical and all go wrong, is the claim that the advice came from Gregoire’s office- no one has demonstrated that.
Cynical- how oftyen do you see a state agencie form with a date at the bottom indicating it has been the version of the form in use for years? I see it often enough. Boilerplate is reused, often current AAG doesn’t even review it.
It is fucking embarrassing that ya’ll insist on acting the way you describe Democrats all the time. Someone blew it, and the desperate attempts to avoid admitting that only make ya’ll look more and more stupid.
And all of you repeating yourself on different blogs indicates a real ego problem- look at me, I wrote something funny so I’ll post it everywhere- it ain’t that funny. Anyway, Cynical, I expect the Snark’s toilet is clean because he’s such an anal retentive it never gets used…
The point is, you guys are trying to make this into some sort of ethical scandal, like you’ve caught Gregoire in some kind of a big lie. Read your own website Stefan, and look at how this is being used to attack Gregoire personally.
And you ignore what I think is the primary part of my argument, that the language of the memo doesn’t really say what you claim it says.
Sorry Goldy, the memo says exactly that, it is unfortunatly your liberal bias that doesnt allow you to see it.
I just read that the SecState would have, as per procedure, taken that pre-Gregoire opinion to Gregoire’s office to verify it still stood.
On that, I stand with FML and the like… Here is the Rossi camp’s core points: The memo should have been corrected. If it was allowed to stand for other elections, then it should be swallowed now and then changed at a later date.
I litigate cases against the State of Washington a lot, but I don’t think the type of memo described here would be of any use even if it supported my position. There are formal published AGOs (Attorney General Opinions) which are useful to cite against the State, but still not binding interpretations on either the State or the Court; there are less formal letter opinions, that are published letter opinions, which can be cited, but are given even less weight, and there is informal advice, like that described in the 1996 memo., which is rarely even disclosed and is certainly not binding on the State or a Court. I guess I might cite it, but success would depend on the Court agreeing with that interpretion after making an independent decision based on both sides’ arguments.
I’ll try to answer all of you at once…
Jim… Right, and I think Rossifarians have attempted to misrepresent the role of the AG. The AG doesn’t sit around searching for settled practice to unsettle. It is only when there is a legal controversy or challenge that the AG would reconsider an issue like this. There was no such controversy during Gregoire’s term. And there was no official AGO, because nobody asked for one.
Cynicla-di-da… some ballots were not evaluated at all, and those that were, were almost all evaluated by canvassing boards… except for King — which had the highest rate of rejection — in which the decision was left to sub-canvass staffers. There are documented cases were voters have been disenfranchised by bureaucratic snafu, and your response is: “enough is enough”.
I find it ironic that you, who seemed so offended by the impact of government bureaucracy on business, should be so callous in your disregard for government bureaucracy’s impact on the rights of voters. Now that is hypocrisy.
Friend of Mary Lane… this was a memo from Ralph Munro’s office, not Christine Gregoire, and if Sound Politics can be believed, even Ralph “doesn’t recall the actual timeline.” Did he personally review the memo at the time? Does he recall circumstances behind every memo from his umpteen years in office? And is the Rossi campaign actually claiming that Gregoire should have reviewed ALL documents from ALL state agencies to make sure they didn’t misrepresent an AG’s office opinion?
Furthermore, it would be an abuse of the English language to conclude that this “advice” necessarily represented an interpretation of law. If there was a communication between the two offices in 1996, what was the question asked, and what was the specific answer? Was the exchange something like SOS: “Hey, do recounts include recanvassing?”; AAG: “Um… let me check, uh… they haven’t thus far.” Is that an interpretation of law, or an opinion as to how the law has thus far been interpreted. AND… who is to say the SOS staffer didn’t misrepresent the AAG’s advice? Where is the evidence that the AG’s office approved this SOS memo before it was released? How do we know that the SOS staffer wasn’t just working off old SOS or AG boilerplate?
And finally, it is a clever rhetorical trick to parenthetically say “(considering the controversy)”… considering the controversy is occurring in 2004, not when the memo was written in 1996.
Yes… for 12 years Gregoire did nothing to change the rules regarding previously rejected ballots… because it wasn’t her job to do so unless somebody raised the issue. And they didn’t.
Oooh… can’t argue with “that.” (No really… I can’t. ‘Cause you didn’t make any points.)
AND FINALLY…
As to all the curiosity over the state of my toilets….
a) It says a lot more about you than it does about me, and
b) It says that you’ve never been in my bathroom
Little story here, I was taking a walk one morn and came upon a little boy giving away pups. He was telling everyone they were democrat puppies. I looked at them and they were very cute. A few days later I was walking along the same road and saw the same boy giving away pups again, this time he was telling everyone that they were republican pups. I looked and they were the same pups. I asked the boy about them and he said that they just opened their eyes this morning, making them republican pups. The moral is if the democrats will open their eyes and see the world for what it is, seeing all sides of the issues, most will become republicans.
Goldy, good points. I never thought of you as below smart. But Gregoire has got to take SOME responsibility for this. Plus, the rules that previous AGs have set down are now being changed in the 3rd count of the 11th hour and 57th minute of the Gregoire AG-ship. Now, that’s what this is all about. I wouldn’t be so dismissive, but I’d swallow and move on.
This also brings up my #1 rationale for supporting Dino Rossi over Christine Gregoire. While Gregoire has written amicus curaes calling for the end of the Public Records Act (an initative), Rossi and AG-elect Rob McKenna are working to clarify the Public Records Act so this can be overturned. Having full access to public documents would have shown WHEN and WHOM made this opinion… so we wouldn’t still be debating it.
Now you know.
Also, Gregoire & Co. has put specific bans on access to documents about the 7E7 deal.
Oh and amicus curaes & litigation ALWAYS TRUMP statements in political platforms…
Okay, I just heard SecState Sam Reed on TVW’s “Inside Olympia” and he thinks:
a) The opinion was run by the A.G.’s OFFICE and that because of the lack of controversy it is EXTREMELY unlikely due to the lack it was a formal AGO Gregoire was ever advised… So it seems as if Jim King and Goldy are validated. As per tradition, I concede that one.
b) I still believe that Gregoire should drop the lawsuit. SecState Reed and I note that Gregoire’s office had the opportunity to change it and did not. It’s just too late… SORRY! I – not the SecState – say, “Change it via initiative or via the legisature.”
Make that legislature!
Josef… thanks for the report from TVW… I appreciate you and Reed being so forthright.
Goldy, I confess to riding the bandwagon a few days ago when this SOS was posted. Should have counted to 10 or something but what can I say, I was gleeful.
However, you are missing the most important point for the future of Gregoire: even if she and her office had absolutely nothing to do with any interpretaion of recount law from 1992 to the present, the AG was in a position to decide the law and never once suggested her new opinion. (Oops, there I go again, forgot that she has nothing to do with the lawsuit). This further loss of her credibility is the result of the SOS memo regardless of whether or how involved the AG was in 1996. And it begs the question in the public’s mind: Why would we want her to be Governor? When enough people in high places realize she has lost so much support including among peole who supported her a few weeks ago, her quest will end. A concession after a Monday ruling is not too far fetched in my mind.
Comment by zip— 12/10/04 @ 12:42 pm
I will, ONE AND ONE TIME ONLY, ask Gregoire to stick it out. We’re finding new VALID ballots throughout the state – and even Whatcom County found seven new ones with a net gain of one for Gregoire. King County has had an attitude shift (thank you & God Bless AG-elect RMK and “Governor Dean” Logan) so maybe, just maybe we can accept the hand recount as is.
As you may know, I broke ranks with my fellow Rossi supporters and supported the hand recount. I feel happy today that I am validated in doing so.
I also recommend that you all put up with 60 minutes of public affairs TV this weekend and watch TVW’s Inside Olympia with SecState Reed.
cross post thread
Mark – appreciate this is a bit of a cliff hanger for all of us, but these gains, approx 1.3 vote per county, should not reassure Dino Bossi supporters. King County is not just the prize, it is the Democratic super canon. BLASTINGand BLOWING any thing that sounds like a 69 vote lead. Someone said they were doubling their bets on Rossi, too much whiskey in that late night glass.
If this continues tomorrow, 10 more counties, big money to be made on fleecing Rossi people out of their bets.
Chuck, YES, looking for dog. Good liberal left home, calm old neighborhood, warm and cozy, big yard, casual interior, no stress from performance anxiety, lots of love and hugs, smell of incense, no prudes allowed, much talk of morals-good-evil-right vs wrong, parade of friendly people coming and going, did I say good food and drink? Well paying Seattle jobs, all the cash needed. Movies, theater, clubs, parks, day trips, long vacations, loving grandma 89 going strong, no hate or biogry allowed, several civic projects incl. the homeless and hungry, pay the taxes and vote each election—-Maybe Dog/Doggies Heaven?
Bob–
Correction Sir
You said “Good liberal left home”….oxymoron.
Mr. C – want a more serious response on something else…. You voted for Bush/Rumsfeld. Please explain why neither can get on the phone and bellow about what they need in the way of armored Humvees. Can you imagine FDR waiting several years to tell Henry Kaiser to build the god damn ships as fast as possible. GM quit making any cars to make tanks, the War powers act still exists.
Such a shameful page in American political history, and the whole world sneering at American bravado/propaganda instead of might and right.
Of course low grade grunts always suffer the most in any war, but just for a moment – discard al that partisian slop and tell me about this pathetic and inept Sec of War, who is blaming everyone else for his stupidity and lack of expertise. Can sure tell the only war he ever saw was in a movie.
INMHO- one of the most shameful days in American history, all on international video. Live, uncensored, and made me want to cry. PLEASE EXPLAIN why loyal R’s will put up with this ghastly unpatriotic, unAmerican scene.
You would think our troops were spending all of their time in a Hummer…
Comment by Bob from Boeing— 12/10/04 @ 2:25 pm
Totally share your sentiments. But what does INMHO mean?
In my humble opinion ….. repotedly there are now more than 5,000 deserters from guard units who have gone to Canada ….. shame with cause if the Sec of War will not provide the best equipment in the world from the richest govt. treasury in the world by far … close friened has younger brother in Bagdhad- Army Major, he is going crazy with anxiety… don’t blame him.
There goes Mr. Cynical-dy with his oh so serious & oh so self-righteous projection again. Anyone else notice that? Anyway, elections workers are supposed to give a tracking code to each voter who fills out a provisional ballot. Since most people don’t even know that, they don’t know to ask for the code when they vote. Even if they find out later that they were supposed to have gotten a code when they voted, there is no way for them to get that code so there is no way for them to check up on their ballot. Canvassing boards in numerous counties have candidly admitted that they did not attempt to verify the validity of any provisional ballots in their county. Since some voters have no way to check on the status of their ballot due to the incompetency and/or corruption of elections workers, the Democratic party and the Republican party should both have the legal right to attempt to validate all provisional ballots. We’re not talking about one or two provisional ballots, we’re talking about entire counties where none of the provisional ballots have been verified and almost none of the people who cast those ballots have any way of checking their status. Since the ballots were not verified or counted to begin with, there will be no challenges to any decisions made by canvassing boards or elections officials in these cases. The full list of every provisional voter should be handed over to both the state Democratic party and the state Republican party and they should be allowed to attempt to contact the voters in question. This is the only way to verify and count the valid ballots amongst “all ballots cast”.
Brent/Rudy–
What in the hell are you rambling about??? There are time limits on these validation processes. You seem to be making up the law as you go along with the sole purpose of counting until Greg wins. The continuous re-re-evaluation of rejected ballots simply is not an option Brent/Rudy.
Mr. Cynical-dy, I have told you repeatedly that I am not Rudy and Goldy has also told you that I am not Rudy and you said you will stop calling me Rudy, yet you just called me Rudy twice in that last message. What is your drug problem? Too much or not enough?
You seriously need to inform yourself as to how the legal process is set up. Gregoire had to wait until the results were certified before she could request a manual recount, and she had to wait for Sam Reed to set his partisan guidelines for the recount before she could legally challenge them. The canvassing boards are supposed to train the elections workers to tell provisional voters how to check the status of their ballot, but they did not do that. In fact, the canvassing boards in many counties candidly admitted that they did not verify any provisional ballots, and since the voters cannot check the status due to the incompetency and/or corruption of the canvassing boards, each provisional ballot must be verified and, if legitimate, counted. State law makes it quite clear that the manual recount is to be of “all ballots cast” so stop trying to claim that it says that the manual recount is to be of “all ballots previously counted”. The partisan guidelines which Sam Reed has set for this manual recount are illegal under state law, and if the state Supreme Court is not filled with partisan hacks, they will rule to uphold state law and allow “all votes cast” to be verified, and if legitimate, counted. You neo-cons know that there were more legitimate ballots cast for Gregoire than there were for Rossi, otherwise you wouldn’t go so far out of your way to attempt to prevent the verification and counting of “all votes cast” as state law clearly states should be done. Cease your efforts to commit elections fraud every chance you get and allow the verification and counting of all votes cast state-wide.
Well folks…..Monday-Tue will tell the tale, the 9, en banc, Supremes functioning- ah so well -in the oh, so appropriate driving W Wash. rains, midst surging rives..
Then- no matter what they say, the 900,000 Kingco ballots telling their own tale, and hark, Chris Vance and Mr. C have imploded, or exploded into puddles of pure angst.
And I am not sure Canada is taking right wing necons as immigrants, after all there is a criteria,
Yes, doubling all my bets and more.
LISTEN: King 5 just announced some county found 100 new ballots today. Those damn hand counts, and in full sight of the parked blinking scanners.
Any county that is just now finding more ballots should start firing people from the top down and immideatly clean house and start anew in the elections department!
Bob and Brent, The term neo-con is overused. It muddles your messages. Most people are getting tired of seeing that label thrown around willy nilly.
Just checked King5.com, and no mention of any found ballots.
Josef- appreciate the TVW info… And as I’ve indicated, this memo could have been a very potent weapon against Gregoire and the Dems, if it had been fired accurately. We Republicans had a high-yield warhead, BUT SOME FOOL PUT IT ON TOP OF A SCUD MISSILE. And we don’t get to fire it twice. We blew it.
Having read the briefs- Hurrah! Hugh Spitzer!!!! It would seem that while the Dems raise interesting points and issues, some of which should very definitely be considered by the Legislature, the consitution and the statutes are almost overwhelmingly on the side of Sam Reed. The point about there being no common law right to ANY recount, and that such recounts are discretionary at the whim of the Legislature, pulls the rug out from under the constitutional arguments. Add the legal fees the State Democrats will get stuck with, and we are looking at a State Democratic Party rapidly approaching having another million dollars- in iou’s- on the table.
Paul- bankrupt central committees do NOT re-elect party chairs…
zip- I saw the King 5 News report- two counties with found ballots, Whatcom and one other. At least reporters are starting to look at the details of what is happening and why. In Whatcom (I think I recall- it might have been the other county) provisional ballots were found still inside the outer envelopes- don’t remember the explanation for the other county…
Chuck, you seem to be under the impression that they’ve been continuously searching for votes which were not counted and they’ve just now found them. The reality of the matter is that they checked when they counted the votes the first time and checked again when they counted the second time. Now that they have checked for the third time and have found ballots which were not previously counted, you try to make it sound like this is abnormal and incompetent, when in reality, more ballots are discovered during every recount. It’s not as though all the ballots are found during every election. It’s actually quite the contrary. We only hear about them finding uncounted ballots when they perform a recount, which is not very often. If there had been no recounts in this race, those ballots would not have been discovered or counted and it wouldn’t have really mattered too much because there are not enough of them to sway the election unless the margin of votes is so small that a recount is issued, which is the only time they’re discovered. If there is a large enough margin of votes that there is no recount, they don’t look through the ballots again and therefore they don’t find the ones they didn’t count, and even if they did there wouldn’t be enough ballots to sway the election. However, this election with over 2.8 million ballots cast has come down to 42 votes so every single vote should be verified and counted. You neo-cons made a huge deal over the 224 ballots found during the machine recount and Gregoire only received five more votes than Rossi amongst those ballots. This is less than half of that number of votes. Oh no! One candidate might end up with one or two more votes out of those than the other candidate! Come on. This is ridiculous.
Whatcom’s 7 were reported in the Times this AM. 3 Rossi, 2 Gregoire, 1 Bennett and 1 no vote. Still in the envelopes.
zip, I use the term neo-con to specify which type of Republicans I’m talking about. If I simply used the term Republican instead of neo-con it could be misinterpreted that I mean to include people who consider themselves Republicans who do not consider themselves neo-cons. When I mean all Republicans I say Republicans, when I mean fiscal conservatives, I say fiscal conservatives, when I mean Democrats I say Democrats, when I mean progressives I say progressives and when I mean neo-cons I say neo-cons. It’s as simple as that.
Brent: “neo-cons”? come on now, not all Rossi voters are neo-cons.
If you wonder why some are concerned about the hand recount, check the last 2 weeks of posts on this site and others. Found ballots feed that worry, people feel like they might be getting screwed, etc. Documenting and reporting exact detail of found ballots like Whatcom did is exactly the right thing to do.
And handling situations like Whatcom’s is what the “flex” in the rules is about- clearly elections administration error, opportunity to correct. As opposed to DOL not bothering to send registrations over to elections administrator- a problem, of the same nature as those ballots “delivered” to the sender because of post office error. We do not make provision for third party error in our laws. Perhaps we should. But no one should object to elections administrators correcting their errors, as long as they explain.
The other county was Kitsap, the reference was to the 154 ballots that were too faint for the optical scanner to read- the same kind of situation King County remedied last time.
Comment by Jim King— 12/10/04 @ 10:05 pm
Free advice: I was told on my ballot to use a #2 pencil and darken the ovals, which I did as much as I could. When I saw during round II/machine recount pens being used – why not tell people to use a type of pen that the machines will pick up for sure w/o applying much pressure…
I hate to get technical, but thank that ogre Gregoire!
zip says, “come on now, not all Rossi voters are neo-cons.” You’re right. Not all Rossi voters are neo-cons. Rossi’s voting record shows that he has voted with the neo-cons 96% of the time so most of his voters are neo-cons. The rest of his voters are idiots for assuming he’s not a neo-con when he’s voted with them 96% of the time, they financed his campaign and legal fees and created commercials for Rossi which have the same exact tone and attitude of Bush’s commercials. He’s a real slime ball and he’s backed by the White House 100%. Since you support Rossi and you do not consider yourself to be a neo-con, you’re an idiot. Plain and simple. Why do you believe he’s not a neo-con? Because he said so? Because the media or someone you know said so? Ever think of checking up on politicians to see whether or not they’re telling the truth about something? They like to lie an awful lot. Or hadn’t you noticed?
Josef, in which county do you live? I’ve only ever seen pens at my polling place and it’s even changed locations in recent years. I live in King County, where we use optical scan ballots. If the video you saw on TV was of King County, I’m not surprised they were using pens.
Brent- as usual, a lot of venom with little sense. Toss out issues you consider neo-con, and give us the voting record that adds up to 96%. You can’t because you are just venting.
Supporting state parks is neo-con? Rossi does, and yet many a neo-con wants to privatize them. Supporting funding for the developmentally disabled is neo-con? Rossi did that, when many a neo-con would go with the “survival of the fittest- and they ain’t fit” attitude. Funding for indigent single adult male dental? Rossi there- I doubt many neo-cons would have gone there. The thing is, Brent, you have no clue about Dino Rossi- none at all.
Comment by Brent— 12/11/04 @ 7:38 am
Skagit.
Brent–
If you are not Rudy (who has totally disppeared the last 2 weeks) then let’s just call you a neo-Rudy!
I get a kick out of the Marxist/Leftist crowd labeling anyone who stands up to them a “neo-con”.
And one other thing–I voted for 7 Dem’s this election. Does that make me a neo-con? I’ll bet a mindless, venomous loser like yourself voted a straight Dem Party ticket.
Brent, Rossi picked up several hundred thousand votes from Kerry voters. Are you calling these Kerry voters neo-cons? That would definitely be the wrong call. Where you got your 96 % “neo-con” record from is not my concern. I and many people I know believe that Rossi is good for business and Gregoire is bad for business. That became an overridng highest priority in this state the last few years for many voters. Neo-con has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The voters I described above would resent being called neo-cons by venting liberal blabber mouths.
Zip–
Remember Brent is a “Neo-Rudy”. Rudy was an “Angry Gay Male” who spewed the exact same BS as Brent…however, Brent says he isn’t Rudy.
I think Brent is just another sad example…a victim of the Leftist/Marxist movement who have not realized until it’s too late that pot-smoking and Prozac lead to early-Alzheimers. Why Brent can’t even remember he was Rudy et al!!!
And I have officially taken off the -dy suffix as an olive branch to the real Dems here. It is pretty hysterical that the Leftist/Marxist crowd cannot understand that the real Dems have pulled their covers and seen them for what they are. How else would Rossi even have a chance in this State????
Mr Cynical, you are a real piece of work. Maybe you should up your weekly vists to your psychonalist to two times per week. Or maybe you should stay someplace where you are appreciated by atleast .00436% of the posters. You are the first to call names and slander people, but according to your posts you must really be a saint.
Now, Now Jim P.
Rudy made a huge deal out of his gayness….the angry part was apparent to all of us. Is that slander???
When a person believes openly in Marxist and Leftist principles and espouses them, is it wrong to point that out???
It’s typical of Leftists/Marxists like yourself to try to silence the opposition. I encourage people like Rudy to speak. Why who in their right mind would want to be affiliated with that???
Jim P–you lack any sense of humor. Perhaps that is yet another side effect of mixing Prozac and Marijuana????????
I understand your grief Mr C. About Prozac and Marijuan…lol…That is an impossibility as I live in a country where drug posession carries the death sentence. (originally from Olympia, living in Bangkok) Best of luck to you and yours.
Mr. Cynical-dy severely needs to have a serious visit from the nice men in the long white lab coats. I have made clear my identity and political affiliation on numerous occasions. However, Mr. Cynical-dy has decided to assume I’m lying about both. I have made it clear that I am not Rudy, Goldy has made it clear that I am not Rudy, and on top of all of that, I sound nothing like him. That doesn’t matter to Mr. Delusional-dy, however. In his sheltered little world, everyone is whomever he wants them to be and their views are whatever he wants them to be, regardless of whether or not what he wants is consistent with reality. I have made it clear on numerous occasions, and it is also clear from my messages, that I am an intellectual. I am not a Democrat, nor am I a liberal. It appears to Mr. Cynical-dy that I must be a Stalinist or Marxist because he is unaware of the obvious fact that there is virtually no one who lives outside of America who even so much as tolerates neo-cons. Everyone who is not a neo-con automatically looks like a Marxist to this sheltered CPA because he cannot comprehend what neo-conservatism is or how it impacts people, he just knows he likes the results of neo-conservatism so he will defend it to his last breath. This country is full of sheltered idiots such as Mr. Cynical-dy, and this is the reason why we are loathed and despised by the entire rest of the world. You people watch sports too often. You’re used to there being two different teams fighting it out and it doesn’t really matter who wins. Your media tell you that there are only two ways of looking at every issue and then they tell you what they are. You don’t even bother to think for yourself. You don’t bother to realize that there are many different people with many different mindsets. You don’t bother to realize that there are many different ways to look at an issue. The fact of the matter is that you can check on the voting records of politicians and compare and contrast them to the voting recommendations of political groups. For example, Rossi claimed during his campaign to have received an award from an environmental group for a vote he cast. Said environmental group immediately spoke up and pointed out that the award they gave him was only for one specific vote. They also pointed out that he has only voted with their agenda 36% of the time and that they have never and will never endorse Rossi for any office. If he had voted with their agenda 100% of the time, or close to it, he would be labeled an environmentalist, but he has not done so. However, if you compare his voting record to the neo-con voting agenda (yes, they do suggest people vote for or against pieces of legislation), you will see that he has voted with the neo-cons 96% of the time, and therefore he has been labeled a neo-con. I have referred to Rossi as a neo-con because his voting record shows that he is a neo-con. Mr. Cynical-dy has referred to me as a Marxist because I abhor neo-cons and their agenda. Mr. Cynical-dy’s insults are obviously of a reactionary nature and are a direct result of my views on neo-cons, not a direct result of my views on Marxism, of which he is completely unaware. You neo-cons are pathetic. Whenever someone points out how stupid, sheltered and uninformed you are, you automatically assume they’re a communist and start calling them communists because you are completely incapable of understanding why anyone would have views which are antithetical to yours. The fact of the matter is that many political groups have antithetical views to neo-cons. Intellectuals, progressives, liberals, Democrats, socialists, Marxists, Communists, fiscal conservatives and libertarians all have directly antithetical views to neo-conservatism. You will have to prove that I belong to any group. But instead you just say, “Well, since you’re not a member of that group, that means you must be a member of this group!” Apparently sports and the corporate media have warped your mind to the point that you believe that there are only two ways of looking at every issue and that there are only two political parties and everyone who abhors you must be a member of “that group” simply because they abhor you. Grow up and come out of your sheltered neo-con propaganda bubble. At your highest points you’re ignorant and uncaring, at your lowest points you are violently psychotic and barbaric, with no regard for even basic human rights provisions, such as the Geneva conventions.