[NWPT48]One of the curious patterns I’ve noticed in the election contest trial, is how frank Rossi’s attorney’s have been with reporters after a long day of dishonesty in court. They opened the week by alleging “sinister fraud” and ballot box stuffing, claiming that this was enough to set aside the election. And yet at week’s end, the Republican’s lead attorney, Mark Braden, once again admitted to The Olympian that the key to their case is still proportionate deduction:
“If [Judge Bridges] says we have to show how individual voters voted, we lose,” Virginia-based Republican lawyer Mark Braden said Friday afternoon.
So not even Rossi’s attorneys believed that their own sloppy charges of fraud were grounds for setting aside this election. They acknowledge that they can’t win without proving that Rossi actually got the most votes. And oops… that’s exactly what they didn’t prove last week in court.
Goldy, willing to make the prediction that Rossi’s team will lose?
Perhaps a little friendly wager between you and Stefan… say… loser wears a Gregoire T-Shirt… that would be punishment no matter what!
Reply to 1
I PROUDLY wear my Gregoire t-shirt, but you wouldn’t catch me dead in a Rossi t-shirt. In fact, that’s the worst punishment anyone could inflict on me. That’s why I never speed or blow stop signs in Chelan County. I’m afraid some creative muni judge over there would make me wear a Rossi t-shirt as punishment!
Goldy–
You seem to be grasping at straws….per usual.
Have you nothing else to do???
You take little snipits out of things said by Rossi’s attorneys, Judge Bridges etc. and glue them together like Dr. Frankenstein!!!! Are you sure your name isn’t Goldy Franken-stein? It seems like you are creating a monster here out of nothing. All Braden was talking about was the “remedy” for illegal votes and stating the obvious. Will Bridges require Braden to produce felons who will testify under oath who they voted for??? You really believe that Goldy? And do you really believe Bridges will totally ignore the ILLEGAL VOTES and not allow a proportional reduction method to remedy those ILLEGAL VOTES???
Goldy – Whatever happens, there will be screams let loose that will reach 737’s flying over mount Rainier. Judge Bridges just might suprise both sides. After all he needs to consider posterity. If the Republicans are not successful, then truly Washington state has no meaningful election contest laws. Already the bar is set at $2 million and counting. If a Gregoire supporter stuffs the ballot box, and nobody sees it until after the fact, is the ballot box still stuffed? With unverified provisionals and an almost 2000 voter/vote imbalance in King County alone (Home to the infamous fraudulent certification document)it’s just really hard to claim this was a model election for the world. Bosnia gets better than this.
Compared to the onus of fraudulent and horribly mismanaged elections, a runoff might be a less devisive, more sound alternative. (Unless you are a politburo member striving for power at any cost)
Reply to 4
Ignoring for the moment Repub trolls’ special talent for seeing stuffed ballot boxes where none exist, if a Gregoire supporter does stuff a ballot box and nobody sees it, then you have no evidence and haven’t proved your case, have you?
Can you point us to a constitutional or statutory provision providing for a revote (or “runoff” as you put it)? But don’t let lack of legal authority interfere with your wishful thinking …
Cynical at least understands the issues (and law) better than you do. That’s not saying much. But Mr. Cynical is right that it boils down to what the remedy is for illegal votes, and how you apportion illegal votes to the candidates.
Where Mr. Cynical goes wrong is assuming there’s a legal remedy for every harm or wrong. Not so. There are wrongs without remedies. Unless a remedy is authorized, there isn’t one, Cyn.
Patrick@5,
“Ignoring for the moment Repub trolls’ special talent for seeing stuffed ballot boxes where none exist, if a Gregoire supporter does stuff a ballot box and nobody sees it, then you have no evidence and haven’t proved your case, have you?”
You reveal quite a bit about yourself in that sentence. You basically say, the Democrats committed a crime and unless you can catch them it is perfectly OK that they get awya with it. It reveals that you aren’t really interested at all in fair elections. You just want to win at any cost.
Are you trying to convince me you really are a lawyer?
Everyone above,
Somehow there seems to be this perception that Democrats “own” or are somehow responsible for the illegal voters. There is no evidence that. From all we can tell now, statewide, the felon and other illegal votes had no affect whatsoever on the final vote count.
Remember, if Rossi had won, the same illegal votes would still be there. Would you then be calling for the election to be overturned because of these same illegal votes???
Mr. Cynical, why would the judge need to “remedy” illegal votes, unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that the felon votes hurt Rossi more than they hurt Gregoire? All we know now is that illegal votes hurt both candidates, and they very nearly cancel each other out. It doesn’t sound like a remedy is appropriate under those circumstances.
Zapporo @ 4
Come on, zapporo, you are smarter than that (I’ve read many insightful posts from you in the past). You know that the supposed “2000 KC voter/vote credit imbalance” is hogwash. Bridges has been willing to defer decisions about almost every controversial aspect of this case; but, he ruled that using post-election voter crediting as evidence is not going to be allowed to decide this case.
Bridges knows something that disappointment seems to blind you to: Voter crediting is an error prone, low stakes, large scale administrative exercise. The quality control for voter crediting is far lower than that employed during the election process.
pbj @ 6
Once again, you demonstrate a lack of common sense. Patrick did NOT claim that the Democrats committed a crime. You need to avoid letting your anger dampen you analytical (and reading) skills, pal.
Patrick’s point is that IF there is fraud, it must be demonstrated. Simply conjuring fraud charges out of bitter disappointment just doesn’t cut it for the courts (or almost any disinterested party).
Demonstrate fraud and we are all on your side; spew baseless fraud conspiracy theories and you come off as an idiot!
Reply to 6
Sorry, pea brain, but you misread it. What I basically said was if you have no evidence you can’t prove a crime was committed, but the Repubs’ lack of evidence doesn’t prove the Democrats committed a crime.
but you wouldn’t catch me dead in a Rossi t-shirt. In fact, that’s the worst punishment anyone could inflict on me.
I doubt that. Attending an open mic poetry reading by the semantic mster, GW Bush, would probably be a lot worse.
dj —
If voter crediting is so unimportant, let’s for the sake of argument, eliminate it. Now how do we prevent someone from voting multiple times?
When we allow ballot printing on demand without any tracking whatsoever, invalidated Ballots to be thrown away rather than retained, counted, and tracked to disposal, provisional ballots to be undifferentiated and fed directly into the Accuvote, and when we have elections officials willing to fraudulently sign certification documents, we have a credibility problem.
Just for the sake of protecting democracy, we need to run elections in a manner that is indisputably clean, that makes the opportunity for fraud so remote as to be unthinkable. We are not there yet.
Dave @ 9
LOL! To paraphrase Douglas Adams. . . .
Neocon poetry is, of course, the third worst in the Universe. Early attempts at Neocon poetry had been a part of their bludgeoning insistence to be accepted as a properly evolved and cultured political movement, but now the only thing that kept them going was sheer bloody-mindedness.
During a recitation by their Poet Master Dubya of his poem “Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found In My Armpit One Midsummer Morning,” four of his audience died of internal hemorrhaging, and the President of the Senate survived by gnawing one of his own legs off.
Don @5 – You are reading from other posts. So let’s take the runoff for example- If the legislature decides to consider such a mechanism, why would you oppose it? What possible valid reason could possibly supply?
Are you saying that, in light of all that we have witnessed, that a runoff would not be preferable to this? Some have said that this is the closest state-wide election in 200 years. Are you really afraid of a run-off every two hundred years?
I hate to draw judgement, but I think that you are more concerned with holding onto power than protecting democracy. What a strange juxtaposition of roles. The liberal stridently calling for more opaque, less certain election system. Unbelievable.
dj@7–
You must have missed a very important point made by the attorney for the SOS. He said the SOS needs precise legal voter numbers so they can calculate the exact number of signatures needed to validate an initiative. Remember that??? It didn’t seem too relevant to this contest on the surface but….it puts the onus on the Judge to remove illegal votes from the vote total….think about it a bit. You are a very smart guy. If the Judge removes “X” ILLEGAL VOTES….who does he deduct them from in the Governor’s Race?? Think about it.
Remember that exchange???
zapporo @ 10
If voter crediting is so unimportant, let’s for the sake of argument, eliminate it. Now how do we prevent someone from voting multiple times?
The GOP’s eleventh hour case for fraud was based on the post-election voter crediting. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with preventing multiple voting (the poll books are used for that purpose during the election). The voter crediting is used well after the election for cleaning voter roles of inactive voters. In his May 2 pre-trial hearing decision, Judge Bridges ruled that “the process of crediting voters with having voted is a post-election administrative exercise that this Court determines does not bear upon the authenticity of election results.”
When we allow ballot printing on demand without any tracking whatsoever
I have seen this issue thrown out a few times, and I frankly do not know the details, so I cannot comment. Perhaps you would be willing to provide some of the details on this?
invalidated Ballots to be thrown away rather than retained, counted, and tracked to disposal
Of course, this is how it has always been done (and done everywhere, I believe). The election judges are asked to dispose of the opened packets of ballots at the end of the election day. I have no problems whatsoever with providing additional accounting (beyond the ballot serial number tracking that is already part of this process). But, Monday morning quarterbacking is just that—good idea, but this was not perceived as a problem by any party before the last election. And there is no evidence that the election judges failed to destroy the ballots as required, is there?
provisional ballots to be undifferentiated and fed directly into the Accuvote
Absolutely, this is an easily preventable error! If I am not mistaken, it came out in the trial last week that the provisionals can be differentiated—they have a crease in theme because they come folded with the ballot envelopes. Again, everyone wants this problem eliminated—it is not a GOP versus Dem thing. We learned during the trial that provisionals were fed into machines in many counties—not just KC. I suspect this will not be a problem in future elections.
and when we have elections officials willing to fraudulently sign certification documents, we have a credibility problem.
This is little more than uSP spin. We heard at the trial that she did not know the number was wrong when she put it down. After the fact, it appears she (and her boss) used bad judgment. And, of course, it had no bearing on the election outcome whatsoever. Still, this is an easily fixable problem.
Just for the sake of protecting democracy, we need to run elections in a manner that is indisputably clean, that makes the opportunity for fraud so remote as to be unthinkable. We are not there yet.
We all agree that elections should be as clean as possible (but without making it difficult for people to exercise their right to vote). No election will ever be error free, and no election will ever be above suspicion. Intense scrutiny is an extremely important part of our democratic election process—this is why it takes place in full view of observers. Our Nov 2004 election was scrutinized like very few elections (of its size) in history. So far we find: a lower than average rate of errors, and no evidence of election fraud.
Well, that’s just dandy. But if his lawyers didn’t believe their own arguments, then they stand in violation of Civil Rule 11, a rule that requires a lawyer to have a good-faith belief in the validity of the arguments that he presents to the court, AFTER he has investigated the underlying facts. This seems to fail the test.
After this little farce is over, will the Dems have the courage to pursue these rather obvious deceptions with the court and the Bar Association? It’s about time that they do.
zapporo @ 12
there’s an excellent reason not to have a runoff–a fair victor has already been certified. Why is it fair? Because no one has shown any problem with the election that makes it clear somebody got an unfair advantage. Beyond that, it’s obvious that an election this close is impossible to reconcile under current standards for elections–both locally and nationally. You want better election standards? Vote for them, but don’t retroactively accuse the system of screwing you.
torrid – I’m not accusing the system of anything. I’m just putting the thought forward that we would all, Democrat and Republican alike, be better served with a reasonable method for avoiding what just transpired, which you seem to agree with.
Mr. Cynical @ 13
You must have missed a very important point made by the attorney for the SOS. He said the SOS needs precise legal voter numbers so they can calculate the exact number of signatures needed to validate an initiative. Remember that???
I do remember that point. At the time it struck me as refreshing that a non-partisan argument had been introduced!
It puts the onus on the Judge to remove illegal votes from the vote total….think about it a bit. You are a very smart guy. If the Judge removes “X” ILLEGAL VOTES….who does he deduct them from in the Governor’s Race?? Think about it.
Of course, it is completely irrelevant for the initiative and referendum signature requirements what candidate the ballots are removed from. The Washington Constitution requires that an initiative have signatures greater than or equal to 8% of the votes cast in the election (Article II.1(a)) and a referendum have 4% (Article II.1(b)). Just total votes are needed.
In any case, let’s look at the effect. Suppose 2000 illegal votes can be removed:
_______Stand____-2k___diff
Total 2884783 2882783 2000
___4% 115391. 115311. 80
___8% 230783. 230623. 160
So, yes, it will require a few less filled signature sheets from initiative drives.
Who does he deduct them from? Obviously, he should remove them from the candidate that each illegal vote went to! Can’t figure it out? Well, I am not going to lose any sleep over the fact that the number of signatures required should be 0.07% lower!
But, if I am somehow overlooking the importance of this issue, I must ask, why should we settle for the cherry-picked list of illegal votes that the GOP and Dems came up with? Shouldn’t we (the voters and potential initiative filers) be finding all the illegal votes everywhere in the state and ask the Courts to remove those, too?
BTW: I am curious. Are there any recent initiative drives that failed by under a few hundred signatures?
dj@18
I don’t think whether an Initiative has failed recently by a few hundred signatures is the point.
The point is, there needs to be a precise number of LEGAL VOTES on which to base the signature calculation.
I think you had the right to seek out other ILLEGAL VOTES but the time for doing so has passed.
It is quite a tangled web….when you start considering the impact of the Judge’s ruling on peripheral issues….perhaps there are others??? Don’t you think it was kind of “quizical” that the SOS Attorney specifically got up in front of the Judge to make this specific point??? I did. It seemed to me then and now that the SOS needs a precise count of LEGAL votes.
thatPrick–
You know…you may be right that sometimes the law is silent on remedies for illegal acts.
Don’t you think the Dem’s would suffer if the Judge ruled their were illegal votes but the law allows no remedy??? I do.
The would be hammered with getting away with cheating…
and Gregoire would be in many people’s eyes an ILLEGITIMATE Governor for 4 years due to a poorly thought out Election Contest Law.
I doubt this will be the result though…don’t you?
the judge likely cannot rule there are illegal votes, because they haven’t met the six tests for acceptance he set out.
What “cheating” are you referring to, Cynical? GOP bullshit notwithstanding, most people understand the parties and candidates did not cause the felon votes, dead votes, mislaid ballots, etc. You’re spouting nonsense — or just plain lying.
All they proved is that they can go into a court a lay a very large turd. Someone pass the fanny wipes, for God’s sake.
Cynical @ 20
George W. Bush stealing the election in 2000 didn’t seem to hurt his ability to steal another one in 2004.
Bridges seems a little more like a former pot smoking, acid taking love child than a right wing militia member that tortures Mexican babies on the weekends for fun.
I think he is on our side and well this election stand.
That’s a good thing, because I think Gregoire is kind of hot, personally.
thatPrick–
I believe the majority of Washington voters believe cheating happened that favored Gregoire.
When they look at the politics of Dean Logan & the bullyboy tactics of Ron Sims….they connect the dots.
I’m sure you would love for this to just fade away thatPrick….but you & I both know it won’t.
Shrubber–
Bridges is not on either “side”.
I believe he understands the importance of this decision.
Complex, for sure.
I’m not saying I will agree with him….but I respect the way he has conduct this trial. Lots of evidence admitted for sure.
Cynical, I think the majority of people will think that if the GOP couldn’t prove their accusations in a court of law, they were bullshitting.
thatPrick–
Time will tell.
Certainly Gregoire will regret her statement:
“This election is a model for the rest of the nation and the world at large”
It will polarize much of the state against Seattle and KingCo.
It will be the catalyst for repealing the gas tax.
It will be a catalyst in the 2006 elections.
No, I think Bridges is on OUR side. He probably goes home at night and takes a few bong hits to chill out. But, anyway, it doesn’t matter what side he is on.
There is no case. Rossi is serving up dead varmit on a paper plate with a side of poodle vomit. Repugs are washing it all down with wine from the urine of swine and wiping their faces with used TP from a prison cell.
dj@7,
He clearly said that IF they did commit a crime and it couldn’t be proven, then he was OK with that. WIn at any cost. To hell with Democracy. The point is subtle I know, since morality isn’t a leftist stringpoint.
So are any of you leftist going to go out on a limb and predict a Rossie loss? Stefan make HIS prediction. Any of you lefty dorks got enough guts to make one of your own?
There is no case. Rossi is serving up dead varmit on a paper plate with a side of poodle vomit. Repugs are washing it all down with wine from the urine of swine and wiping their faces with used TP from a prison cell. -Comment by Shrubber— 5/30/05 @ 9:08 pm
Doesn’t it jus make perfect sense that the same guy that would say THAT ^^ would say THIS:
That’s a good thing, because I think Gregoire is kind of hot, personally. Comment by Shrubber— 5/30/05 @ 7:55 pm
Well, I guess if you like women who favor the Grinch with an exceptionally bad case of constipation, chrissy would be the one!
What is it with these libs and their unhealthy fixation with all things anal?
Mr. Cynical –
Wow! — You alone holding off 10 savage mendacious intolerant truth-defying close minded liberals all at once. And that doesn’t even include Don’s fractured personas. Kudos.
hehehehehe. They couldn’t even put up a single good rejoinder.
Fixation on all things anal? Seems to me that is what you repugnants are all about. Why is it, anyway, that you all hate gays with such a passion? Is it because they like to poke each other in a certain place, or is it because you have a repressed desire to poked there?
You can’t see that Gregoire is a little hottie because you are too busy getting over the image of that prune faced shrew you got married to. She dried up years ago and now makes you take your gaseous self into another room to sleep, huh? I bet you pound the pud while looking and gay porn magazines, don’t you? Come on … you can admit it ….
Changing your name won’t change who you are Lucy, nor will it change your main problem, babe
31
Are you kidding? Who HASN’T predicted a Rossi loss? Are you truly this stupid?
zap @ 33
Didn’t meet his burden of proof isn’t a good enough rejoinder for you?
Mr. Cynical @ 19
First, I want to say that I appreciate this thoughtful exchange with you. You have a reputation as a troll, but sometimes you have great things to contribute.
Second, as you noted a week ago, on some of these issues, we are on the same page—even if we want different outcomes.
“I don’t think whether an Initiative has failed recently by a few hundred signatures is the point.”
I agree with you completely, I really was asking because I was curious, not because I thought than had any significance on correcting vote totals.
“The point is, there needs to be a precise number of LEGAL VOTES on which to base the signature calculation.”
Again, we agree here. But, there has probably never been an election in the State of Washington where the final election tally consisted only of legal votes. We always settle on a total that includes an unknown number of illegal votes. Your point (and it IS a good one) is that if we identify some votes known (or even suspected) to be illegal, we must remove them to get a better estimate of the total legal votes.
It is quite a tangled web….when you start considering the impact of the Judge’s ruling on peripheral issues….perhaps there are others???
Could be. The only other issue raised in the SoS trial brief was the legal impact on future election challenges. . . .
“Don’t you think it was kind of “quizical” that the SOS Attorney specifically got up in front of the Judge to make this specific point??? I did. It seemed to me then and now that the SOS needs a precise count of LEGAL votes.”
If I were paranoid, I might think the SoS was pressuring Judge Bridges to use proportional deduction. I don’t think that, however. I think the SoS is trying to play something of a neutral party and this is one issue that is neutral.
Ultimately it will come down to whether Judge Bridges (and ultimately the SC) thinks any of the illegal votes are documented to the required standards. If he seriously wants to know who the voter voted for, then only a small number of the illegal votes will be removed. If Judge Bridges is happy using a proportional reduction then many more will be statistically removed.
And, if he feels ridding the count of illegal votes is the number one priority at the expense of unintentionally removing some valid votes, then he will grant the GOP the 529 (or 785) invalid provisionals in KC and the 135 in Pierce county, as well as the the 1,889 provisionals w/o signature validation mentioned in the Dems case.
We’ll see!
pbj @ 31
“So are any of you leftist going to go out on a limb and predict a Rossie loss? Stefan make HIS prediction. Any of you lefty dorks got enough guts to make one of your own? “
I don’t think it requires any guts at all to make a prediction about this. And I couldn’t give a rats ass about Stefan’s prediction—I rarely vist uSP. I’ll be happy to make predictions here; I’ll try to be very specific:
(1) Judge Bridges will not turn over the election based on any Fraud or “mess” theory. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that can support fraud and no RCW to support “mess”. Bridges will uphold his previous ruling that the voter crediting data is irrelevant.
(2) Judge Bridges will accept the proportional deduction method. He will decide that the Dems and GOP have cherry-picked to the same extent, so that the resulting combined data sets are biased heavily at both extremes and therefore will give an unbised final result.
Here are the data he will accept for that analysis:
a) GOP 946 felons–accept most or all
b) GOP 53 deceased–accept most or all
c) GOP 16 double voters–accept most or all
d) GOP 348 KC provisionals–reject
e) GOP 77 Pierce provisionals–reject
f) GOP 529 (or 785) KC invalid votes–reject most
g) GOP 135 Pierce invalid votes–reject
h) GOP 2 Lewis county stolen ballets–accept
i) Dem 743 felons–accept most or all
j) Dem 51 additional invalid votes (May 6 list)–accept
k) Dem 6 Pierce county mentally incompetent votes–no idea
l) Dem 1,889 provisionals w/o signature verification–reject
m) Dem and GOP ballots to add (333 GOP) and (779 Dem)–reject
Result of the proportional deduction analysis: Election unchanged.
bm @1,
Have you been reading my blog? I’ve been predicting a Rossi loss for weeks.
Overheard on a bus caught in traffic while the Aurora Bridge was closed earlier this afternoon:
“They’ve closed the bridge because somebody’s threatening to jump if they don’t make Rossi governor.”
Reply, from apparent stranger: “It’s all politics with them, isn’t it?”
Zap–@33
Actually I was holding them off while eating a 16 ounce Ribeye seasoned with some fabulous “steak rub” grilled to perfection (Medium Rare) along with an extra fine Mrs. C—aeser Salad!!
It was hard to type while cutting the meat….so I simply picked it up in one hand and scarfed it down (it was mighty twnder too) while typing one-handed with the other.
These LEFTIST PINHEADS simply don’t understand the value of high-protein, good meat in their diets. It would help them be a little more RIGHT in their thinking.
Alas, the LEFTIST PINHEADS typically grill “free-range tofu” for Holidays. YUCK!! Hell, that stuff would be better used to spackle a hole in the drywall than to eat!
Anyway…thanks for honoring me with your praise on Memorial Day.
The only one of these PINHEADS worth a shit is dj. I actually read what he says and find myself agreeing with him quite often. (but shhhhhhhhh!….don’t tell dj shhhhhhhhhhh).
Reply to 42
Keep eating red meat, C! We’re gonna miss ya, though. (I quit eating that stuff because my doctor told me it would kill me.)
Seen on the suite level at Safeco Field last night — a suite filled with people wearing “Rossi for Governor” buttons.
I bit my tongue rather than snarkily inquire whether it might be a bit early to start fundraising for 2008.
thatPrick–
You mean to tell me as part of the human race you & your ancestors spent your entire lives fighting your way to the top of the food chain so you could eat disgusting shit like TOFU and things you grow in cowshit?
Geeeeeeeez!
C’mon thatPrick…eat somethin’ that used to have a face on it!
Democrats stuffing ballot boxes in Washington? Why the Hell would we bother? I mean, c’mon, let’s be honest – the Democrats don’t need to stuff ballot boxes to win elections in the Evergreen State. I find it highly unlikely that the election results are accurate – it is lunacy to believe that Gregoire’s margin of victory was not grossly understated somewhere along the way. If the Rossi teams wants to use statistical analysis of voting patterns to make their case, how about taking a look at the voting trends of the state for the last 30 years? Republicans running for statewide office, especially in the governor’s race, have consistently lost – and with a few exceptions, they’ve lost by pathetically huge margins. The trend is not getting better for the GOP in Washington – it is getting worse. Get serious! Something smells rotten in this election indeed – that stinking decomposing dead corpse that is the Washington GOP is overpoweringly nauseating and it has been for years. And that is precisely why the Republicans are so pissed: it is driving them crazy that they can’t win even after they’ve rigged voting machines in Snohomish County and packed election boards from one end of the state to the other! It drives them crazy and they’re stomping their little hooves because this time their little tricks didn’t work. They’re pathetic, greedy, deceitful, manipulative, moralizing hypocrites who haven’t been trusted by the people of Washington State with our governorship for 25 years. Christine Gregoire may not have all the answers, but unlike the Repukes she loves her country, she loves our state, and she’s got some class.