The Supremes have spoken, and now most of the 723 “misfiled” ballots will be counted, likely pushing Christine Gregoire’s lead to over 100 votes.
So how will the Dino Rossi campaign respond? Well the same people who urged Gregoire to concede in the face of a 42-vote landslide after the machine recount, are now challenging the legitimacy of any Gregoire victory, under any circumstances. No surprise there; R’s have been laying the groundwork to contest this election for weeks.
Republicans now claim that they have hundreds of disenfranchised Rossi voters lined up to contest signature mismatches… more than enough to throw the election back the other way. Rossi is apparently ready to tear open the recounts in the 38 other counties, only one day before the Secretary of State planned to certify the election.
Well, two can play at that game, and I have been assured that Democrats have been busy documenting their disenfranchised voters too, and can match the Republicans “affidavit for affidavit.”
But there is an irony here. Okay, perhaps “irony” is not the right word. How about: an incredibly blatant, arrogant, and galling act of hypocrisy on the part of Dino Rossi.
This is, after all, exactly what the Democrats where asking for the first time before the Supreme Court, an opportunity to recanvass all the rejected ballots so that we could find as many wrongly disenfranchised voters as possible, and count their votes! When Rossi held the lead, he accused Democrats of “changing the rules.” Now that he’s losing he’s ready to toss out the rules entirely.
Whatever.
I sincerely doubt that local elections officials — even those in Republican strongholds — have the same appetite for recanvassing rejected ballots as the Rossi/Vance team. The recount battle is over… we are now seeing first skirmishes of an election contest where the only winners will be high-priced attorneys… and bloggers like me.
Goldy – not only can the Dems match the Repubs affidavit for affidavit, KC was reported to have stricter signature matching guidelines than other counties, so they rejected a larger proportion/number of ballots than most counties (true rejects).
So I bet the Dems could find more than enough rejected ballots in KC to cover anything from Rossi counties should the Repubs try to go there.
And yes – the unmitigated gall of all this is that the Repubs were adamantly opposed when presented with the opportunity to apply the harsh light of partisan and media scrutiny to a statewide re-canvassing. If ever there’s been a time to use the phrase “sore losers”, now is it.
Amazing Irony. I actually think the root of all problems here are the media. Will the media point out this IRONY? Democracts have always been for count the VOTES. Suddenly ROSSI is only for it when he is behind. I just heard Dori Motsen say that they are coming unglued over in SPOKANE. Well ask the question maybe they have been mislead by the media – to falsly believe the final determination was made on the Race. The problem with Media Spin vs truth and logic is when you are in a court of law infront of the supreme saying things like “Rossi won 2 out of 3 counts” does not work with Educated people. Machine Estimate counts are not the same as a detailed HAND RECOUNT.
sound poltics is still silent
We are going to trade fire with fire…
It’s not over – AND YOU GUYS HAD YOUR CHANCE TO END THIS, BUT YOU CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE IT, SO YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES.
BRING ON COUNT 4!
BEST OF 5, I GUESS?
Or is it last candidate standing?
oooh. Is that a threat?
How many times can it be said that accurately counting votes is not a “best of” situation. The law provides for 3 counts and three counts have been done.
Josef- you lost. Get a backbone, take a deep breath, get back on track. Sore looser stuff is petty and silly.
Your coments are interesing, becoming a Vance Clone is not your style
Rossi et al. are apparently rounding up Republican voters whose ballots were rejected, presumably on the basis of non-matching signatures. I’ll say it again here: each of Rossi’s threatened challengers would be arguing not that there was an error in the tabulation or a discrepancy in the returns (like including unreviewed signatures in the “not matching” count), but that the canvassing board made the wrong decision in rejecting their ballots. Anyone who argues that is contesting the election…which they certainly could do. But if the Republicans want to get those challenges in *before* certification, requesting recanvassing of those ballots under RCW 29A.60.210, they should be denied, because without a discrepancy in the returns the canvassing boards have no authority to revisit those decisions (as the state Supreme Court ruled in the first decision).
Don’t Count Every Vote!!! Don’t Count Every Vote!!!
The supreme court ruled in Gregoire v Rossi (the first trip to the supreme court) that counties are not obligated to recanvass every ballot.
Sam Reed said when certifying the machine recount, this is not a best two out of three, this is instead the last count stands. Counties cannot be expected to revisit past decisions, unless their canvassing boards decide that their is the same problem with their returns as King County. But they already certified their returns, so I guess Rossi will do anything to win.
Regarding the Suprerior Court judge who ruled against the Dems, I think we have to remember the past supreme court case was very vague. She had no choice in my opinion but to block it. However, it was a wrong decision, and not based on enforced practices. Please do respect the judge from Pierce County, even though she made an erroneous decision in this case. She did not have the benefit of discussing it with colleagues, and either way it likely would have wound up in Olympia (the supreme court could have rejected a republican appeal, as they could have done to the dems), and the votes allowed to count.
This is a very solid and resoned ruling. Exacting in detail and carefully considered/erudite wording.
All posters need to read it, it is self expanatory. In the universe of words, Forthwith, never used anywhere but courts. Supemes reversed, revoked and repealed Pierce ruling forthwith.
Three cheers for the Supreme Court which saw the issues clearly and with great judicial calm and acumen.
They did not buy a single element of the R’s case, inferred as in security of ballots, or specific, as in canvassing boards can’t do that.
Another VICTORY- trust in the Judical system of our state. Just don’t go to Pierce County.
Republicans would be filing an identical lawsuit on its face to the failed attempt by the Democrats to recanvass all of the votes, therefore it would fail for the same reasons as the Democrats claim. Hypocrites, now that the ball is not rolling in their favor.
Well, the election can now be torn wide upon, since the WA Supreme Court has defined “certification date” to mean the date on which Sam Reed will certify the manual recount (which won’t be for at least a few more days), instead of the November 17, 2004 date on which county election canvassing boards certified the initial machine count totals for all of the various races in their respective counties.
For example, all absentee ballots that were received after November 17, 2004 (or whatever date counties cut them off) must now be counted. Of course, they must be signed with a date on or before November 2, 2004 if cast by military members or by people outside the United States. In addition, they must also be postmarked by November 2, 2004 if mailed within the United States by non-military people.
Similarly, the deadline for correcting signature mismatches and missing signatures would likewise be extended until today at least and perhaps for several more days.
You can count on both parties having smart enough lawyers to realize this and do something about it.
Another thing needed to achieve justice is to allow all of the military personnel who did not receive their absentee ballots before election day to now cast their votes and have them counted. Federal law requires that military personnel be mailed absentee votes in sufficient time to receive them before election day and have them counted.
And of course, the partisan decisions of Democrat controlled canvassing boards — such as awarding Christine Rossi votes to Gregoire, or disqualifying Rossi ovals as overvotes when there is a slight pen tip mark in Gregoire’s oval or a stray mark by her name, while not treating Gregoire votes in the same way — need to be reviewed by objective judges or juries, so that all votes are counted fairly and equally.
If all these legal errors are corrected, and Gregoire comes out on top, even by a single vote, then she deserves the respect that a any legitimately elected Governor deserves. If not, then she will always be viewed as a fraudulently elected Governor, even if it is possible or even likely that she would have still won if all the errors were corrected.
Hey, Jim King,
you: funny.
David- simply trying to maintain a sense of humor… :)
c’mon KC, post those totals already!
This Rossi supporter isn’t worried, you whiney liberals got one hell of a fight coming, rest assured. Kinda funy, lil Crissy loses twice, but keep countin till she thinks she wins. Also, she said “It’s a tie.” when Rossi had 42 more, and now with her measly 8, fat-ass cry-baby Paul Brendt calls for Dino to concede. Maybe change the name from Wa. State Democrats to Washington State cry-babies. It’s certainly more fitting. Hold on to something you whiney liberals, the mighty GOP machine is about to give you one hell of a ride. Thanks.
And I disagree with Goldy’s characterization of this process as “mutually assured destruction”. The WA Supreme Court has defined what “certification date” means — a date which has not happened yet, as opposed to November 17, 2004 when the counties first certified. This “certification date” must now be applied to every other RCW and WAC which uses this term. It is not a matter of county canvassing boards having the “same appetite” — it is a matter of following the law, as the WA Supreme Court has interpreted it. Counties must now process all absentee ballots that were previously viewed as being received “late” and must now process all signature corrections for absentee ballots. The only travesty now would be if the counties refused to honor the WA Supreme Court’s definition of “certification date”. If this results in Gregoire winning, or winning by a bigger margin, then she wil have a better legitimacy than otherwise. The same thing applies if this results in Rossi winning.
John S – given the magnitude of the case and the importance of her ruling, she did a sloppy/amaturish job. She should have known the Sec. of State had a resoned and expert opinion and brief, not the partisian hired gun for the R’s. She only listened and questioned the R attorney. She could have asked more questions, taken more time. Her court, she is in charge in her court, history in her hands. Not a good job and I don’t like the throw it up to the appelate court appraoch to rulings. Slouchy
I think she is poorly qualified for the bench- don’t live in Pierce, but if I did, would back an opponet strongly..
Mark, Mark, Mark. sigh. Y’know, when your baseball team is ahead after the 7th inning and the 8th inning, you haven’t already won the game twice! The only score that matters is the one at the *end* of the game.
You miss the point, Richard. The counties must not do anything. They may re-examine ballots if they believe an error has occurred. Rossi’s lawyers know this, and those affidavits are all fuel for the contest, not the recount.
king county is reporting a 4 now according to komo4.com
Someone looked her (Arendt) up, and apparently she was
rated “minimally qualified” for the bench. I think she made
a poor decision, and it has fortunately been overturned.
bj-too
Well, then I guess I can stop manicly refreshing the KC Elections Page
Mark – you lost- go get drunk and laid and you will feel better…. what mighty machine, your party is ruled by churches. Glad to see you go to Sunday School.
Hey, Richard Pope,
you: unintentionally funny.
Man, you gotta love this “liberal media”…
On MSNBC.COM, front and center, under “Top Stories”
“GOP-leaning states to gain seats in Congress”
and in the “oh in case you actually care about this crap below” section, also called “Also In The News”:
“Democrats win ruling in Wash. governor race”
“whiney liberals,” Mark?
Anyone see anything ironic about this? :)
PS: I’m really not opposed to scouring the state for
ervery single ballot that should be counted (except for
the part of me that follows the WWTDD rule). Did anyone
else read the “declarations” posted by the dems in
support of their supreme court appeal? There are so many
stories that show how hard people do try to vote: 1) the
retired couple who drove 360 miles on election day so that
they could vote. 2) the 19 year old college student voting
for the first time. 3) the physician, who shortened his
signature for work, and got his signature mismatch
notification when he came home from work, hours after
the 4 PM deadline. People worked hard to vote, and
I want their vote to be counted.
Now, I do also believe that the real story of vote counting
and this election is that votes are undercounted in
high density areas and that counting all the votes won’t
help the Repubs, who live in low density areas.
bj-too
Goldy — read footnote 2 to the WA Supreme Court opinion, which interprets “certification date”:
“2 While RCW 29A.60.210 requires recanvassing prior to certification of an election, and RCW 29A.60.190 speaks of certification occurring on the fifteenth day following a general election, it is clear to us that whenever a recount occurs, amended abstracts are certified that supersede any prior abstract of the results. RCW 29A.64.061. The statute does not define “certification,” but the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of State make clear that certification involves the preparation and transmission of abstracts of votes to the Secretary of State. See WAC 434-262-010, -020, and -080.”
Obviously, the WA Supreme Court didn’t say the counties had to count absentee ballots received after November 17, 2004 or accept signature corrections submitted after November 16 or 17, 2004. But the RCW’s and WAC’s put either the “certification date” (absentee ballots) or the day before the “certification date” (signature corrections) as the deadline for those two events to occur — just like the “certification date” is the deadline for counties to recanvass if they find any errors.
County election officials must accept the WA Supreme Court definition of “certification date” and process these “late” absentee ballots and “late” signature corrections. This issue was not before the WA Supreme Court of course, but if litigation results (or should I say “when” litigation results), the WA Supreme Court should be expected to apply the same “certification date” in interpreting other sections of the RCW and WAC.
bj-too – you’re right. King County has more rejected ballots than any other county, and we can virtually guarantee that counting those ballots would give Gregoire more than enough votes to cover any votes gained if the smaller counties did a full re-canvass.
The Republicans don’t really want every vote counted, because they know that the more votes that are counted, the more Gregoire will lead by. They just want to muddy the waters and convince everyone the election is tainted. It’s all part of a ploy.
Hey, we’re not the ONLY screw-ups… The P-I is reporting that New York State’s electors are on record as having cast their votes for John L. Kerry- NOT John F. Kerry…
VICTORY – GREGOIRE 10 VOTES
I don’t think Judge Arendt’s decision was the result of poor legal reasoning. It all depended on the interpretation of “certification date”, which is the deadline for recanvassing under RCW 29A.60.210. It was not unreasonable for Judge Arendt to interpret this date as November 17, 2004 — 15 days after the election — which is the deadline for county election officials to certify the original count. This is also the same “certification date” that county elections officials have used (at least until now) for accepting mailed absentee ballots and signature corrections (the latter due the day before “certification”). The WA Supreme Court has now interpreted “certification date” to mean the (future) date on which Sam Reed certifies the manual recount result. So Judge Arendt’s decision, while reversed, was not unreasonable, but instead based on her interpretation (and the historical administrative interpretation) of “certification date” — a term which is not precisely defined by statute, and which had never previously been interpreted by an appellate court.
10 pt lead for Gregoire
Richard Pope persists:
Re-read n.2 and realize that there’s certification of an election, and then certification of a recount. Good luck getting the GOP to take up your argument.
Get real Mr. Pope- would you hire her if your life was at risk…..I know she is a Judge, suggest she is a poor attorney as well.
She could have….she could have….She DIDN’T
Let’s not beat up Judge Arendt too badly. She made a very narrow ruling that was over-turned by the Supreme Court. Happens all the time. If it happens too often to the same judge, then worry. This just happens to be a high profile case in which all of us have strong opinions.
The Supremes did an excellent job, even clarifying that the votes were secure (Republicans failed to provide any proof of tampering or insecurity, just accusations). This is clearly shown in their unanimous ruling.
If Judge Arendt was a terrible judge, then she would have a bad reputation amongst lawyers in Pierce County. There would have been someone put up against her, and perhaps she would have been defeated. I think she was elected in a special election in 1999, and did not have any challengers in 2000 or 2004.
Also, if the Dems thought Arendt was a terrible judge, they had the right to automatically disqualify her prior to the hearing by simply requesting this. Each party to a lawsuit has the automatic right to disqualify one judge — an option which is rarely used, but is an absolute right under the RCW.
Besides, she was a Locke appointee originally back in 1999, and then had to seek election in her own right that fall. Gary Locke is not known for appointing very many known Republicans to judicial office.
Just to throw some water on your fire, she was judged minimally qualified in 1999 (as evidence posted here has shown). That’s a lower rating than the other judges that were up for election that year. She’s obviously still on the bench, so she’s not incompetent, but it’s not like she was elected in a blaze of glory.
In fact, Judge Arendt was elected by a very narrow plurality in a winner-take-all election. That is what happens when a judicial vacany occurs too late to have it on the primary ballot, but soon enough to have it on the general ballot. Everyone who files is on the general ballot, and the highest vote getter wins. I think she only got about 30% of the vote. Of course, her margin of victory must now be redefined as a “landslide”, since she did win by a couple of thousand votes over her nearest competitor.
Call Rosi and demand he concede. On to the busines of government.
I’m not calling Gregoire’s win a landslide or a mandate. It’s a win. Simple as that. If Rossi had one by one vote, I would have called that a win too.
I’m not calling Gregoire’s win a landslide or a mandate. It’s a win. Simple as that. If Rossi had one by one vote, I would have called that a win too.
Comment by jcricket— 12/22/04 @ 5:45 pm
Oh please… can you be more disingenous jiminy or are you just deluded? – It wasn’t a “win” at 261 and it wasn’t a “win” at 42 but now all of a sudden the thief in chief is up 10 and it’s a win??
AND after considering all of your posts that I’ve read and now considering your smarmy, smug comment about how generously (see me roll my eyes, babe) you’d consider Rossi the winner if he had WON (not one dear, although yes I know the whole won/one thing is just so darn confusing for the simple folks) by one, your branding as a jiminyliar is complete.
Thinker in Seattle – about what? —- One more catty, silly, venting phrase –Thief in Chief, is that Karl Rove?– called name calling and is UNrelated to thinking. Go back to the lair.
You know boeingbobo, considering how little thinking union thugs actually do for themselves…
Comment by Bob from Boeing— 12/22/04 @ 3:10 pm
I’m worse than the Vaninator! I’m just as good as Marummy!
Back Stinker, back. Union thugs? What are you farting about?
To end this war of votes, why not take the advise of the previous Secretary of State, Ralph Munro, and have a re-election. Everyone votes, no one files an absentee vote, everyone goes to their polling place and cast their votes. The results of that re-election would decide who would be our Governor. No recounts, no nothing else. This would be the only way to settle this battle.
Thanks
Uh, Sharon, I appreciate the sentiment, but there are some problems with your idea. The absentee ballots help all the residents who are out (including our military folk) who won’t be able to be here even in a recount. Not to mention people who are home-bound or too elderly to make it to a polling place.
And if you think the count for the revote wouldn’t be contentious, you’re definitely wrong. Would you use a machine count? Well, those aren’t 100% accurate. Two machine counts? One hand count? If you do a hand count you’ll have some of the same issues you had this time. The county canvassing boards did two machine counts and a hand recount that was completely transparent and observed by partisans on both sides. We’ve got as accurate a result as we can get with our variety of state laws and voting standards.
If you want this type of thing to happen less, support statewide election reform. But know that there will always be contention in elections as close as this. There’s no perfect solution that works 100% of the time.
Banks, with all their money, don’t have fraud-proof systems. Even Hospitals, with life/death at stake don’t get everything right.
Someone made a good suggestion that everyone vote by mail, and everyone receive a special envelope. But that you print out your ballot through a web site. That would prevent the problems with random marks, not-filled-in ovals, over-votes, unintentional undervotes, etc. But there would still be a totally normal paper trail. No computer records kept.
Everyone only gets one set of envelopes (just like now) with a tracking number, but can print out their ballot ten times if they want (let’s say they want to check it).
Your all idiots. analogy – If we are playing a game and the rules state you can’t take two turns in a row but you insist on doing so and go to mom for permission, do you not expext me to take two turns in a row as well if mom tells you it’s now ok. Should I let you take two turns, now that mom says so, and keep only taking one myself? No I play by the new rules mom approved evne though I don;t agree with them OR I LOOSE – UNFAIRLY !!!!!
First, the possibility of a hand recount existed in the law before this election was ever started. If the first margin was less than 150, the second count would have been a hand recount.
Second, Gregoire followed the rules and paid for the hand recount.
Third, go argue with Sam Reed. He’s stated that the Supreme’s decision categorically does not mean the other counties that have the right to un-certify and re-open their canvassing. If they had wanted to re-canvass they had an opportunity to do so during both recounts. Some counties did, which accounts for big vote changes during both the machine recount and the hand recount.
So if “mom” in this case is the Supreme’s or Sam Reed – then he’s saying you’re misunderstanding the rules, and have been all along. They haven’t changed just because you didn’t understand them the first time.
So are you saying that you don’t want anymore votes counted? Now that Dino Rossi is behind? Now you want to stop. What happen to “Every Vote Counts / Count every Vote” You really mean count every vote until you have the lead then stop. Why would you be opposed to the counting of previously uncounted votes in other counties? A bit hypocritical don’t you think? Because counties “Certified” prior to the supreme courts decision, those voters should be “Disenfranchised”. I thought you were so concerned with voters rights and making sure every vote counted? Now you want to tell all of these people you loose, we got our friends ballots to count, even though they shouldn’t have, but you are all S.O.L. These other voters did nothing wrong, just as your precious Voters did nothing wrong. They filled them out correctly, or atleast as correctly as those recanvassed King County ballots, signed them, sent them in on time, and for reasons beyond the voters control, they did not get counted, maybe they were delivered late but that is not the voters fault, as you know. If that was your vote and you did everything right, would you want you vote to count or would you just say oh, someone screwed up but it’s no big deal. I think not.
Is it right in your opinion, to leave these valid votes left uncounted? If your answer is yes, then why why was it wrong not to count earlier REJECTED King County ballots?
The Democrats asked the state to compell a complete re-canvassing. The Republicans argued against it. The Supremes unanimously agreed – no forced re-canvassing of rejected ballots. Where were you then? The Democrats asked to “count every vote” and were denied, and the Republicans were part of that denial. If the Democrats had appealed to the US Supreme Court you would have excoriated them. Now explain to me who’s trying to change the rules?
The Supremes clarified election law with the second case, agreeing with SOS Sam Reed that counties could re-canvass at their discretion, but wouldn’t be forced to. Many counties did already use this discretion, selectively re-canvassing (like Kittitas, Whatcom, Snohomish and King) during the machine recount or hand recount. I didn’t hear anyone complaining when Republican counties added Rossi votes. And please explain how Democrats are guilty of anything when several Republican counties (many with no Dems on the canvassing boards) carefully examines the votes under the watchful eye of partisan observers and add some votes to Gregoire’s total. Could it be they were doing their job properly?
Sam Reed has been consistent all along, as have the Supremes and the Democrats. The Dems and the county canvassing boards have followed the rules, and as clear by the unanimous verdict, properly used their discretion. Again, it’s the Republicans who now want to change the rules they were just against. Sounds like “I voted against the re-canvass before I voted for it”.
Moreover, the 723 votes were never in the same class as the rest of the rejected ballots, and you know it. They were not rejected. They were not fully canvassed. Read the Supreme Court ruling:
If you want to open the real “universe” of rejected ballots, you’re in for a big, bad surprise. There are 1000-1500 actually rejected (due to signature mismatch, etc.) ballots in KC alone. Rossi’s margin only shrinks the more legal ballots that get counted. He’s gone from a 261 vote lead to a 130 vote deficit at the end the certified, legally conducted hand-recount. That’s a loss of almost 400 votes. If you were somehow able to convince some court to re-examine all the rejected ballots and apply a state-wide “liberal” (in the include as many ballots as we can agree on) standard, you’ll find far more Democrats have been rejected across the state and will now be included. Not just in KC, where the margin is pro-Gregoire, but in all those little counties, where each recount brought Gregoire more votes that are legally hers. Biiiiigggg margin for Gregoire.
But that’s not going to happen. No state law supporting additional counts after certification. SOS against it (based on his understanding of the law), County auditors across the state (including many, many Republicans) against it. Legislature against it. And I bet polls come out in the next day or two showing the public against it to.
Chris… you do understand that you are making the exact same argument that the Dems originally made when they asked the Court to force an entire recanvassing ballots, including re-examining all rejected ballots?
While I’m still all for this on the grounds that it is good public policy to make every last effort to count every last legal vote, the Supreme Court said no. So don’t pretend that Rossi’s sudden conversion on this issue is somehow because he cares more about voters rights than Gregoire. In fact, the R’s aren’t trying to count every vote… they’re only trying to get canvassing boards to re-examine ballots of voters they have already determined to have voted for Rossi. And the Rossi campaign assertion that the Supreme Court has somehow “changed the rules” is ridiculous; their ruling reaffirms the first ruling, that counties are not required to re-examine rejected ballots, but that canvassing boards have the discretion to fix mistakes. The Court also clearly stated that the 735 ballots were NOT rejected… they had been misfiled, and thus they were never completely canvassed. So these ballots are in an entirely different category than the rejected ballots R’s are now contesting.
That’s the legal side. On the practical side, there is no chance in hell that the canvassing boards are going to re-examine these ballots (well… maybe one or two might try to break ranks, but I doubt it.) Republicans had plenty of time to bring these ballots to the attention of the canvassing boards — a few of which have only Republican members — and my guess is they did. But if by some odd chance (or federal court order) this does happen, the Democrats are also sitting on a pile of affidavits from Gregoire voters who have had their ballots wrongly rejected.
What we really have here is a lot of maneuvering for legally contesting the election. The R’s don’t really expect to get these ballots counted… they want the entire results of the election thrown out… because they lost.
You are missing my point. I never disagreed that the republicans di not want these votes counted, at least at this point. But their reasons where clear. The law is that the “Universe of Ballots”, to borrow a phrase, should remain unchanged after the initial count. Just because the supreme court decided that they did not like this fact and changed the rule, does not change the original rule. If that universe failed to include legitimate votes then that would need to be taken up in an election contest. But the original counted votes are the only thing to be re-counted or re-tabulated. The right answer was to only re-tabulate the original votes and contest the results if there was a valid reason to do so. So based upon the election law, you are right the republicans did not want anymore ballots counted, at this time. It should have been done legally through a challenge of an election result. I still say, to jcricket especially, if it was your valid vote that your county did not count, regardless of the reason – certified results or not, you would be furious that it never counted towards anything. You would want someone to challenge the election results and get your vote counted. That is always been the position of the Republicans, if the results of the initial count and subsuquent “re-tabulations” disenfranchised voters then a Eletion Contest should be pursued. But the rules of the re-count process should not have been changed regardless of what you or the supreme court say. They is a mechanism in place in election law to address this issue and the supreme court was wrong to circumvent this system. So there is no hypocracy on the part of me or the republican party. All valid legal votes should always count but in this case they should have counted as a result of a contest to an election result. Why is this so important, why does it matter if they are counted now or later is simple. These left out votes, Republican and Democrat alike need to be scrutinized in greater detail and ruled upon in a legal basis. They need to be addressed individually, because for one reason on another they were not included in the original total (computer error, late mail delivery, misplaced, election worker error) or accurately or inaccurately deemed invalid and to change their status after the fact should involve investigation as to the cicumstance of each vote. And if the voter did everything right on their part and through no fault of their own their vote was not counted then that must be corrected. Another persons error should never invalidate the legitimate vote of someone else. Questions need to be asked; Where they secure? Where did they come from? Are they duplicate votes, have they been altered? Some ballots were found in unsecure bins, in voting machines, in drawers. Does this mean they are not valid? No, but it does mean you take extra effort to verify their validity. This is all done through a contest. Reality is fraud happens, did it here? who knows but to act as if it is inconceivable is to be blind and ignorant. I am not saying any occured in this election, but there are some serious questions that I think you would be asking also if the 130 votes was stacked against you. If the legitamte votes are counted and illegal votes are “un-counted” and Rossi losses I can live with that. But to lose with unanswered questions lingering is not acceptable and Gregoire would not do it either and you would not want her to. So if everyone would just be homest with themselves and admit that neither party would be conceeding under these circumstances and that they would pursue any legal remedy available to them we would all be better off. I fully expected the Democrat Party to fight to the end if Rossi had a lead after the last count, exhausting all legal remedies available and none of you should be surprised or be so appalled by the fact Rossi is willing to fight as well. Again, all I ask is that you all be honest, under the same circumstance you would expect nothing else from your canidate. If Gregoire won the first count and the first re-count and lost in the less accurate, unreliable hand count you would all be screaming from the roof tops. It is what it is, just admit it.
I could have broken that into a few more coherent paragraphs – Damn Public Schools!
Chris, I am neither appalled nor surprised that Rossi and the GOP are exhausting all legal options to win this election, but neither should you be surprised if Democrats attempt to extract a political price for this. Rossi, Vance & Co. have spent the last 6 weeks trashing Gregoire for not conceding, and dragging the state through these recounts, and well… fair is fair. If Rossi wants to contest the election, let him do so, but his hypocrisy is only going to hurt his own political prospects.
That said, you may disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, but my guess is these justices are more qualified to interpret statute than you are. The Court did not change the rules. Yes, Democrats attempted to change the rules with their lawsuit, and failed. And Republicans failed to change the rules with their lawsuit. Meanwhile, all the SOS and all the county auditors I’ve seen speak on this issue affirm that the rules have always allowed counting of ballots like the KC 735.
Goldy hit the nail on the head. Gregoire supporters would do well not to gloat too much, but it’s totally fair to throw the Republican’s most heated rhetoric back in their face. Time for Rossi to concede. The voters deserve closure. It’s good for the state. Don’t drag this through the courts.
You can’t keep re-counting and re-counting.
All the Republicans can come back with is “you started it” and the spurious charge that the Supreme’s changed the rules (which they went to great lengths to show they didn’t).
Also, to be clear, the Rossi affidavits are largely about voters that did something wrong (as in the example of the 9 who failed to sign the outer envelope in Kittitas county). Yes, if I made a simple mistake like that, I would be furious that my vote didn’t count. But my anger has nothing to do with whether the state should count my vote or not. Or if my ballot was one of the 22 found unsecured in the bins throughout KC, I would be pissed off that it wasn’t counted. But neither scenario means the state should count my vote. They have to follow the law – which the Supremes and SOS have made sure was the case.
Lastly, the Republicans had their chance to prove the KC 735 were insecure/illegal, and they failed to provide a single piece of evidence to the WA Supreme Court – the court even commented on this.
PS. Last time a Democrat (Gore) had a chance to continue exploring legal options (one Supreme Court ruling isn’t necessarily the end of things) or recommending his supporters protest, he chose to concede. He even earned back some political capital/grudging respect from doing this (at least from some).
Good article in the PI showing the shift in rhetoric on each side over the past three weeks:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....pfrom=tstr
Neither of you addressed the fact that of Gregoire where in the same position she would be doing the same thing. You can’t honestly expect that any canidate would conceed under the current situation. As far as the court being better qualified then I to judeg this case, please don’t try to tell me you support every decisiona court has ever made and that it is impossible for them to be wrong. There are countless “qualified” individuals and groups that totally disagree with the courts decision. I am sure if a federal supreme
court overturns Roe vs. Wade you won’t be so quick to say they are more qualified then you to determine that legal issue will you?
More problems with my public education…I can’t type. Excuse my typos.
Chris, I honestly expect that any candidate (Rossi or Gregoire, and certainly Bennett) would concede under the current situation (i.e., having lost the election). And yes, the Court is better qualified than you — for that matter, I am better qualified than you — to judge this case, based on your faulty analysis above. The Court’s decision was clear, cogent and sensible; it was grounded in the facts, well-supported in the law . . . and unanimous.
jcricket: “I voted against the re-canvass before I voted for it”.
GREAT line; the dems should be using it in their press appearances to ridicule the repubs.
Chuck – Of course Rossi wanted Gregoire to concede after the machine recount. Of couse Gregoire wants Rossi to concede now. You’re correct in the sense that if Gregoire were in this position it’s possible she wouldn’t concede. It’s also possible her supporters would be trying some legal strategy to force a new election. But you’d be forcing her supporters to argue in favor. It’s not like you’d be out there in front arguing to support her side of things.
That’s all that’s happening here. The tables are turned and you can’t expect us to argue in your favor now. Good luck.
Only becuase you agree with the courts decison you say it is valid and correct. You fail to acknowledge that courts are wrong sometimes. You connot agree with every court decsion ever made. Just because they are “Better Qualified” to make such decisions does not mean they make the right decisions all the time. And you know it. You happen to agree here so you say they are right. And as I said before many more qualified people the you and I totally disagree with this decision on a legal basis. Under your thought process there would be no need for the right to appeal an court decsion, because they are qualified to determine intent of law and what is the point of an appeal? The fact appeals exist and that they are frequently won is just proof of my point. Courts CAN and DO make bad decsions. You want all processes to stop when you are happy with the current result. That is understandable, but not realistic.
I think I was clear that I’m not telling/trying to force you to give up your right to protest what you feel was a bad decision. But I’m certainly not going to help you make your point or support you, when you (i.e. Republicans) went out of your way to deny what you’re now asking for. At this point, I intend to make you work as hard as possible and throw your empty rhetoric of fraud and your flip-flopping right back at you. Turnabout is completely fair play.
And before you ask, I don’t pretend I’ve got some magical hold on a supposed “moral high-ground”.
Chris: yes, courts sometimes make bad decisions, make wrong decisions, make baffling decisions. But not in this case. (Unless you count the much-maligned Superior Court decision by Judge Arend, the one the Supreme Court unanimously overturned.) Whether or not I disagree with the outcome (and yes, I happen to agree with it), I know from education, experience, and careful analysis of the facts and the opinion that the Court’s decision in this case is legally rock solid. Whereas you have offered only uninformed misrepresentations (claiming the court “changed the rule”) and sour grapes. Your unhappiness does not change the fact that the Court’s opinion is legally unassailable.
Oh, and you engage in a bit of projection: “You want all processes to stop when you are happy with the current result.” I imagine how *you* felt after the first count, and the machine recount. But once the Democrats paid for a statewide hand recount, we knew that all processes would stop afterwards, no matter which candidate ended up receiving more votes. Christine won, if only by a sliver. Accept it and move on.
As you know the third count is not the end of it, election law allows for the process to continue – A Contest. The reality of it for me is I, and most republicans, never expected Dino Rossi to win. Considering how close he has come to upsetting the Democrats, we can’t give up until all legal options are exhausted. The fact that it comes down to this is a sign that the Democrats of this state and their monoploy of control are severely weakened and are in jeopardy of being overtaken. The fact is Kerry won this state easily, and assuming all things remain the same at certification on Thursday Gregoire will have the narrowest of victories. This to me is like the Chicago Bulss, in their prime with Jordan, beating a high school team in triple overtime by 1 point. A win yes, but embarrassing none the less. Do I look for the silver lining? You bet and I think there is a bright one here. For the democrats to have to scratch and claw to win a contest that they should have easily walked away with – as Kerry did – is refreshing to us on this side of the poilitcal sprectrum. The political tide is shifting in this state and you can say anything you like to deny it but this race is a clear indication of this fact.
Yes, the Republicans can contest the election, and it seems like most people expect them to; yet even though it is a legal option to them, it seems like grasping at straws. We’ll wait and see. But Christine Gregoire is Governor-elect.
You are correct, Chris, that this is an embarrassing win for Gregoire, who was expected to walk away with the victory. But she sat on her laurels and hardly campaigned while Rossi filled the airwaves with hard-hitting commercials and portrayed himself as a centrist — something this state likes. The political tide isn’t shifting Republican in Washington — heck, Kerry beat Bush here by more than Gore did four years ago (53%-46% vs. 50%-45%). The lessons of this gubernatorial election are that Democrats can’t afford to sit on their duffs and let their right-wing opponents claim the political center. Now, if Republicans actually fielded more centrist candidates (e.g., McKenna vs. left-wing Senn), things might get a little more interesting.
Oh, and Merry Christmas.
Chris, I don’t agree that the close gubernatorial election necessarily bodes well for state Republicans. Most voters vote for candidates, not parties. Rossi is a good candidate, and ran a great campaign. The fact that he did so much better doesn’t mean the state is trending red. What does seem apparent, is that like the rest of the country, WA is becoming more divided between red zones and blue zones… there are fewer and fewer swing districts to compete over.
If you want to be optimistic about Republican chances in the future, I’d look at the number of other statewide offices they no hold. McKenna’s win should be particularly troubling to Democrats, as the AG’s office is clearly a stepping stone to higher office, and will make McKenna a formidable candidate down the line.
I wish the race had been Sidran-McKenna…
Oh, and Goldy: Shabbat shalom.
To Josef: Two weeks ago, Sam Reed said very clearly this is not a best of three. Final count stands, and Dino Rossi is out on a ten count (oops, 129 count). (130 vote lead – 1 thurston gregoire vote which will be disallowed — cant go back and change certified results).