HorsesAss.Org

Okay… so in case it wasn’t clear, let me explain again the concept of these Open Threads. I give you a thread here, to post whatever you want on whatever topic you want… and you agree to try to keep the other threads somewhat on topic. I don’t mind if the other threads organically stray off track, but if you have something entirely unrelated to say, this is the place to do it.

It makes me proud to be a Washingtonian — and a Jew — to know that our region boasts such a well-connected and influential rabbi as Daniel Lapin. Known locally mostly for his incredibly boring radio show (no wonder he’s forced to buy his own air time on KTTH) Lapin has recently gained national notoriety as the man who introduced disgraced uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff to disgraced House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich called Lapin a “show rabbi” for the Christian right, and as the investigation deepens into the Delay/Abramoff corruption scandal, we’re beginning to learn more about Lapin’s role in the neo-theo movement, and about his own questionable business practices.

Rick Anderson has a great piece in the current Seattle Weekly (“Meet the Lapin Brothers“), and local talk radio blog blatherWatch has also been providing excellent coverage for weeks. Today’s installment (“Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a long look backward“) provides a fascinating look at Lapin’s personal blend of God, business and politics. It’s a must read.

So for those of you who think I focus unfairly on the schemes of right-wing Christian Evangelicals, I just want to make it clear that I’m an equal-opportunity, non-sectarian critic of fundamentalist extremists everywhere. Especially the corrupt, hypocritical kind.

For those of you on the right who constantly complain about the size of government — how much it costs us in tax dollars, and how it distorts our economy — you may be interested to learn that the U.S. military is Washington state’s single largest employer, with over 94,000 uniformed personnel and civilian workers.

Well, the latest round of base closings has been announced, and fortunately for our state economy, Washington has been spared any major losses. In fact, it looks like we’ll be picking up about 800 personnel statewide. This is big news for a state economy still struggling to recover from recession. Huge.

Still… I’ve always been uncomfortable with the way these base closures pit states against each other, and the ensuing battle between politics and logistics during the decision making process. For example, the Philadelphia area where I grew up, just got the bad news that it will lose yet another major installation, the Willow Grove Naval Air Station. Pennsylvania has lost over 16,500 military jobs in the four rounds of base closures since 1988, and the local economy was hit particularly hard by the shuttering of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in 1991. If approved, this latest round of closures will cost Pennsylvania another 1,658 jobs.

“This is not good news, but I can tell you the entire congressional delegation, the governor, all of us will go to bat,” said U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum.

Yes, that is exactly what congressional delegations around the nation will be doing during the coming months, in one of the few D.C. rituals where a hate-filled, right-wing, partisan whacko like Santorum is actually willing to reach across the aisle to his Democratic Keystone State colleagues. So as we digest this good news, we all owe a big thanks and our continued support to Gov. Christine Gregoire and our congressional delegation for all their hard work in protecting our own, selfish, economic interests.

UPDATE:
In case you’re wondering, here are the base closures proposed for WA state. You can view the official BRAC list in its entirety here.

Washington:
1LT Richard H. Walker U.S. Army Reserve Center
Army National Guard Reserve Center, Everett
Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center, Tacoma
U.S. Army Reserve Center, Fort Lawton
Vancouver Barracks

As the something for nothing folk get all excited at the prospect of repealing the recently passed gas tax hike, I’d just like to point out that this is the sort of thing that comes from allowing our transportation infrastructure to fall into disrepair.

A crew from a highly respected national TV news program will be in Seattle on Monday, filming a segment on youth gambling. They are looking for teenage gamblers to interview.

If you know of any teenager who is a frequent gambler, or has experienced symptoms of problem gambling, who is willing to talk on camera, please contact me, so I can forward the information.

Tuesday, Gov. Christine Gregoire signed model legislation that creates treatment and prevention programs for our state’s growing number of problem gamblers. While other states fund similar programs, Washington is the first to legislate a permanent funding source, thus avoiding a biennial appropriations battle.

The legislation is modest in that it only budgets $750,000 a year through fees on commercial gaming operators, a fraction of the amount needed to meet current demand; by comparison, Oregon, with roughly half our population, spends $3.5 million a year. Washington Tribes have agreed to kick in an additional $450,000 to help fill the gap, but the commitment is neither permanent, nor nearly large enough to be commensurate with the size of the tribal gaming industry.

Still, anybody who has ever tried to push a bill through the legislature — especially one that raises taxes or fees — knows that even this watered down bill is an accomplishment. Many deserve credit for its passage, but as Peter Callaghan observed last week in The News Tribune, probably none more so than WA’s leading advocate for problem gamblers, Jennifer McCausland.

Jennifer McCausland, who joined the fight in memory of her son Ben, whose death was indirectly caused by his gambling addiction, believes the program is too timid. She opposed the final bill.

“I’m so terribly disappointed that I couldn’t activate any legislator’s sense of obligation to do more than the very minimum,” she wrote in an e-mail. “After all these years of neglect of the problem and overt willingness to have both hands in the pockets of gamblers, this was the best they could do?”

But McCausland doesn’t give herself enough credit. Her advocacy put a human face on the issue. And her scolding pushed legislators into doing the right thing.

I first met Jennifer last spring, when I was looking for ammunition to battle Tim Eyman’s gambling industry backed effort to legalize slot machines, the incredibly selfish and stupid Initiative 892. Jennifer is a passionate and persuasive advocate on behalf of compulsive gamblers and their families, and while I had hoped to recruit her to the fight against I-892, it was she who quickly converted me to her cause.

She taught me that gambling could be just as addictive as drugs and alcohol, and the consequences at least as devastating, destroying businesses, families, and lives. And I learned that problem gamblers were not merely an unfortunate by-product of the gambling industry, but rather, its core business… with over 50% of industry profits coming from 5% of its customers. Indeed, the science of slot machine design is the science of creating compulsion.

I spoke with Jennifer shortly after the bill signing, and she was perhaps a bit more philosophical with me than in her email to Peter Callaghan. While still disappointed over the amount of money allocated, she recognizes the accomplishment, and hopes it is only the first step. She told me that Olympia created a public health crisis by allowing a massive expansion of legalized gambling with little thought to the consequences, but that legislators were about to get their “eyes opened” to how big this problem really is.

“Once the program is fully implemented and legislators see how far demand for treatment outstrips supply,” Jennifer predicted, “it will be harder for them to ignore the need for adequate funding.”

Given the size of both our population and gambling industry, Jennifer believes the proper funding level should be at least $3.5 million a year, and possibly twice that. She also strongly believes that the tribal casinos must become a permanent part of the solution. But despite her resoluteness, she does not plan to lobby this issue full time, and has turned much of her advocacy efforts towards youth gambling, an issue she believes is dangerously ignored, not just in WA state, but nationwide.

She has converted me to that cause as well, and I will continue to support her efforts as best I can.

U.S. Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) slammed President Bush’s nominee for U.N. Ambassador today, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee began deliberation.

“This administration can do better than that,” Voinovich said in the first big battle of President Bush’s second term

Voinovich said he could not vote for the nomination, but would agree to send it to the floor without a recommendation of approval or disapproval.

Republicans hold a 10-8 advantage on the committee. Without Voinovich’s support, any vote to send the nomination to the floor would deadlock, and thus fail.

Voinovich called Bolton “the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be,” and accused him of being “arrogant” and “bullying.”

What he didn’t accuse Bolton of was being a “sexual pervert.” That accusation was left to somebody with expertise in subject, Hustler publisher and outspoken civil libertarian Larry Flynt. According to a press release on his website, Flynt alleges that Bolton’s first wife fled the couple’s home while he was traveling abroad in 1982, after being forced by her husband to engage in group sex. (She also took all the furniture.)

Corroborated allegations that Mr. Bolton’s first wife, Christina Bolton, was forced to engage in group sex have not been refuted by the State Department despite inquires posed by Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt concerning the allegations. Mr. Flynt has obtained information from numerous sources that Mr. Bolton participated in paid visits to Plato’s Retreat, the popular swingers club that operated in New York City in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

“The first Mrs. Bolton’s conduct raises the presumption that she fled out of fear for her safety or, at a minimum, it demonstrates that Mr. Bolton’s established inability to communicate or work respectfully with others extended to his intimate family relations,” said Mr. Flynt. “The court records alone provide sufficient basis for further investigation of nominee Bolton by the Senate.” Mr. Flynt continued, “The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations must be free of any potential source of disrepute or blackmail.”

Okay… perhaps Flynt isn’t the most unimpeachable source, but he has a long history of successfully defending himself against slander suits… and it is hard to argue with his reasoning that these charges deserve further investigation.

UPDATE:
In an unusual — but expected — move, the Foreign Relations Committee has sent Bolton’s nomination to the Senate floor, but without an endorsement. The Committee’s vote was 10-8, along party lines.

… but not Goldy free radio. I’ll be on the Kirby Wilbur Show again this morning, shortly after 8am, bringing a rare smattering of truth (well… at least, perspective) to KVI-570.

On previous appearances, Kirby and I have enjoyed a really respectful, friendly banter on the subject of Dino Rossi’s futile election contest. So perhaps I’ll spice things up by throwing in a few words about the gas tax.

UPDATE:
Well… late to bed, early to rise, makes a man groggy. But once I knocked the cobwebs out, I thought today’s exchange was a bit more entertaining. We actually got to respectfully disagree a few times.

For those who missed it (I’m assuming that’s most of you,) I suggested to Kirby that if his No New Gas Tax initiative qualifies for the ballot, he and John Carlson should follow Dave Ross’s lead, and take a leave of absence through the election. I graciously offered to fill in for him during that time.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Missed the show? Listen to an MP3 audio clip.

Listening to it, I realized I missed a couple points. First, I didn’t hear Kirby respond to my offer to sub for him by saying he wanted a show to come back to. Missed a chance to give him a dig back in return.

Second, I failed to explain the biggest reason why talk of rail is a red herring when discussing Kirby and John’s initiative. The initiative will only rescind the gas tax portion of the transportation bill… about $5.5 billion. But the rail projects are funded by vehicle weight fees, which would not be rescinded. The state Constitution requires gas taxes to go only to roads, bridges and ferries… so it couldn’t possibly be spent on rail.

Okay… this doozy from David Sirota is all over the liberal blogosphere already, so many of you may have already seen it, but this is just too good to hide from my many righty readers.

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
– President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54

Hmmm… stupid Texas oil millionaires seeking to undermine social security, labor laws and farm programs. We should be on the lookout for dangerous folk like that.

Of course, it’s not like we’ve heeded any of Ike’s other warnings, like this familiar one from his Farewell Address:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

A man who once threatened the life of the BIAW’s Tom McCabe, can’t be all bad… so I’ve tried to keep some perspective on the sad (yet comic) story of Spokane’s gay-bashing/gay-banging soon-to-be-former mayor, Jim West. The charges of child molestation, while heinous, will never be proven short of a personal confession, and apart from the disturbing image of the mayor, pants down, jacking-off at his City Hall computer, his admission of legal, consensual sex with other men (however young) is scandalous mostly in its stunning hypocrisy.

But when it comes to right-wing moralists, West is far from the most stunning hypocrite. For example, there is militant, anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, Horsley leads the Creator’s Rights Party, whose website gathers personal information on abortion providers — pictures, addresses, license-plate and social security numbers, etc — essentially creating a target list for assassination. It also includes an article by Horsley entitled “Arresting Homosexuals (for their own good)“, which cites the Matthew Shepard murder as evidence that gays should be locked up because they inspire revulsion in the general populace.

And so it was with some disbelief that I read on News Hounds the bizarre transcript of a recent interview Horsley gave Fox radio-host Alan Colmes. Colmes asked about an Esquire Magazine interview, in which Horsley reportedly admitted to engaging in homosexual sex… and even bestiality.

NH: “Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I…”

AC: “You had sex with animals?”

NH: “Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.”

AC: “I’m not so sure that that is so.”

NH: “You didn’t grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?”

AC: “Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?”

NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality… Welcome to domestic life on the farm…”

Um… I don’t want to come off as some out-of-touch, liberal, elitist city-slicker… but if this sort of thing is typical of rural, “red state” America… I don’t think I want to be in touch.

You can’t make this kind of stuff up! But just in case you think I did, and that this is some sort of vicious fraud perpetrated by liberal blogs, here’s a link to a source I’m sure you can trust, the Alan Colmes Show page on FoxNews.com, where you can actually listen to an excerpt for yourself. (And while you’re at it, listen to Randi Rhodes’ take on the story, and her amusing use of sound effects.)

Horsley has described gays as “faggots who will burn in Hell”, and who are part of “Satan’s plan”… and this from a man who believes that fucking farm animals is all a part of growing up in rural America. As he so eloquently explained to Colmes:

“You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. […] If it’s warm and it’s damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it.”

Yeah sure… if you’re a fucking pervert!

Now I’m not suggesting that all right-wing, gay-bashing evangelical extremists are porking pigs — or even just having your average, run-of-the-mill, boring, missionary-style gay sex — but apparently, some are. So when I hear the likes of U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum or Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, talking about the slippery slope from gay marriage to perversions like bestiality, I just think it’s worth pointing out that they’re figuratively and literally, closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

And if I were the horse, I’d bolt too.

(A big thanks to HA reader DanW for tipping me off to this important news story.)

GOPolitburo Chair Chris Vance issued a typically defiant press release today.

(Sound of crickets chirping.)

The Republicans, whose aggressive PR campaign so successfully pushed the news cycle for months, now appear on the defensive… and while Vance’s recent statements have been characteristically dishonest, this one is particularly lame. I was talking to Andrew over at Pacific NW Portal, and he suggested we really need to roast Vance for this press release after Dino Rossi loses his case. But my acute sense of chivalry compels me to make fun of him now… particularly for this amusingly bold proclamation:

“With 13 days left until the trial, we are more confident then [sic] ever that we will win this case,” Vance concluded.

Which leads me to conclude that either they were never really all that confident to begin with, and/or that Vance and his attorneys are really, really stupid. Or perhaps that Vance is (gasp) lying. This quote is kind of like saying that “we are more confident than ever that we’ll find WMDs in Iraq,” or that “Crisco is part of a heart-healthy diet.” It’s time to move on Chris… if you don’t admit the lie, we’ll only spank you harder.

But if you really are more confident than ever, prove it… I want to hear these words coming out of Rossi’s mouth.

UPDATE:
Vance’s press release was in response to former Gov. Gary Locke’s public appeal to Dino Rossi to drop his lawsuit. So of course our good friend Stefan over at (u)SP picks up Vance’s “Desperate Democrats” theme, and questions Locke’s timing.

The timing is interesting. The trial is set to start in less than two weeks. At this point, Rossi is obviously not going to concede, especially when the call comes from a prominent Democrat. By making such an appeal, Gary Locke makes himself look more than a little bit foolish. If the case for Rossi is as hopeless as the Democrat lawyers (speaking through their official spokesman) want you to believe, why would Gary Locke bother to make a fool of himself with such a lame appeal? Why wouldn’t he just wait quietly and bide his time knowing that the Republican case will self-destruct in court anyway? The only reason I can imagine that Locke would speak out now and risk looking like a dope, is if he were convinced that the Democrat case was in serious trouble and he wanted to rally his own party faithful.

First, I’d just like to point out how amusing it is, that after aping yet another GOP press release, Stefan ironically labels me the Democrat lawyers’ “official spokesman.” If that’s true, then the Dems owe me for an awful lot of billable hours. Hmm… perhaps Stefan can help me out on what the going hourly rate is these days for propagandistic shilling?

Second… well… what a bizzaro-world piece of twisted, ass-backwards logic. Turtles are better known for sticking their necks out than our former governor, so if you want conclusive evidence that the train has reached the station, look no further than Locke climbing onboard and announcing its imminent arrival. Don’t get me wrong, I always felt Locke was an honest, well-meaning, competent administrator… but bold leadership isn’t exactly his schtick. If, as Stefan fantasizes, Locke thought the Democrats’ case was in trouble, the last thing he would do is “risk looking like a dope” by calling for Rossi to drop his case.

And of course, to Stefan, his political opponents are never just ceaselessly devious, they are also criminal… or at the very least, unethical:

How would Gary Locke be in a position to know how the trial was shaping up? Curiously, he was brought on as a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, the firm which is representing the Republicans in the election contest.

I suspect that Gary Locke got a peek at the case his partners’ are preparing, had an “oh, shit!” moment, and felt a desperate urge to throw cold water on Dino Rossi.

That’s a pretty pathetic thing for Locke to do, especially since he has a fiduciary duty to all of his firm’s clients, not just the ones whose politics he shares.

Hey, speaking of “fiduciary duty”… here’s an idea Stefan: maybe Locke is asking Rossi to stop his lawsuit now, because he fears the GOP may be unable to their $3 million (and growing) legal bill? As a partner, such a default would hit Locke squarely in the wallet, and there’s no sense throwing good money after bad.

Hey, I almost forgot… today is my one-year blogoversary.

A year ago today, I posted my first blog entry: “Comedy is easy, politics is hard.” Re-reading it, I obviously had no idea what I was getting myself into.

Truth is, I hadn’t really been following the blogosphere much, and looked to the relaunched HA mostly as an exercise in forcing myself to write every day. I had read an article on blogging in the New York Times that made the amusing observation that never before had so much been written, by so many, for so few readers. And so with modest expectations, I set a relatively ambitious target of 200 daily readers after 12 months.

Nobody is more surprised than me to have overshot that target by about a thousand readers a day.

As I type this, at about 5 p.m., HA has already logged over 1,100 unique IPs for the day. I don’t generally like to reveal my site stats, and I have no plans to publish them on a regular basis, but for the curious, here are some excerpts from my current weekly Site Meter report:

VISITS:
  Average Per Day          1,162
  Average Visit Length      6:08
PAGE VIEWS:
  Average Per Day          3,151
  Average Per Visit          2.7

While I haven’t done much research, I’m pretty sure this makes HA the most widely read liberal blog covering WA state politics. Indeed, it probably makes HA the number two local political blog, second only to the much hyped (un)Sound Politics.

I am particularly gratified by the amount of time my readers spend on HA. I don’t know of another blog whose visit-length and page-per-visit stats even come close… and while I’m not sure if these statistics are significant, the raucous, lively comment threads certainly are. During my first few months, I was lucky to get a single comment per post, but now my threads routinely reach triple digits, and often number several hundred a day. My threads are a bizarre place, where useful information is exchanged despite the insults and obscenities flying in all directions. Unlike the sterile, troll-less threads one typically finds elsewhere, we encourage comments from those on the other side… even the really, really stupid ones. So thank you all for participating. (Well… most of you.)

Anyway, perhaps I’ll gather my thoughts and post some more insightful observations on my first year blogging when I have some more time. But I just wanted to acknowledge before the day passes, that without all of you, I’d just be typing into the ether.

So… thanks.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. I alas, cannot attend tonight, but I’ll try to remember to lift a glass in solidarity at the appointed hour.

Andrew has once again updated the already excellent Pacific Northwest Portal, an invaluable tool for keeping up on the region’s growing number of progressive blogs. He has announced the latest improvements in a diary on DailyKos, and I ask all of my readers who are Kos members to sign in and recommend the diary… now.

Progressive bloggers need all the help they can get to catch up with right’s established infrastructure, and frequent coddling by talk radio. Driving traffic to Pacific NW Portal drives traffic to all of us, and helps us get our message out on an equal footing.

If you read the headlines in the MSM on May 2, you might have thought Dino Rossi scored a major legal victory in his lawsuit seeking to overturn the November 2004 gubernatorial election. But after studying the transcript of Judge Bridges’ rulings, my initial impression hasn’t changed: it wasn’t a very good day for Dino. While the Judge hasn’t entirely shut the door on the election contest, he certainly clarified the enormous burden Rossi must overcome in order to prove his case. The Judge also seems quite conscious of the inevitable appeal to the state Supreme Court, and has carefully attempted to insulate his decisions from being overturned.

The first ruling of the day was the one everybody anticipated the most, and it’s the only one that didn’t go entirely against the Republicans. The Democrats had filed a motion to have evidence of a statistical analysis excluded from the proceedings, claiming that such proportioning would be inconsistent with the standard of proof required to invalidate an election. Judge Bridges denied the motion, concluding that neither the statutes nor the courts had established guidelines in this area, and thus he would consider such evidence, subject to a “Frye hearing.”

The AP immediately broadcast a headline that implied the court had accepted the Republicans “proportional deduction” methodology, ignoring Judge Bridges’ huge caveat:

However — and this is an important however. The denial of this motion should not be interpreted as a pretrial ruling adopting the statistical analysis methodology, so everyone understands that, and that’s the ruling of the Court.

As I had previously mentioned, my fly-on-the-wall reported that the first issue the Judge addressed in conference was scheduling the Frye hearing, at which the Democrats will argue that the GOP’s methodology is bad science, and thus inadmissible — an argument I don’t expect Judge Bridges’ to entirely accept. After all, we can all imagine a situation where some sort of statistical analysis makes perfect sense; for example, if Yakima County’s touch-screen voting machines had somehow randomly erased 10,000 votes, it would be absurd to argue that this error did not cost Rossi the election.

Thus I do not think the Judge will generally rule out the use of proportional deduction per se, but rather decide that the evidence is not “clear and convincing” in this particular case… a shrewd judicial move. If he were to reject proportional deduction as a point of law, it would leave his decision much more vulnerable to being overturned on appeal. But if he rejects its application as part of his evidentiary findings, the decision is virtually appeal-proof.

Clever.

If you are a Rossi supporter, that’s where the good news ends, such as it may be. The rest of the day’s rulings overwhelmingly favored the Democrats.

The next ruling concerned a motion by Democrats that the Republicans must actually prove a felon voted, by finding a signature in a poll book or on an absentee or provisional envelope, rather than simply relying on the voter crediting records. Judge Bridges ruled in favor of the Democrats, stating:

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….

Republicans shrugged off this ruling as little more than a procedural hassle, and indeed it’s likely the vast majority of felons alleged to have voted, probably did cast ballots. (How many were really illegal votes or not, is another question.)

But if Rossi had planned to argue the same case in a court of law as he has in the court of public opinion, then this ruling represents a huge defeat, for it entirely undermines what’s left of the “total mess” theory… that there were hundreds of unexplained “voterless ballots.” This charge was based on the discrepancy between the number of voters credited with voting and the number of ballots cast, but since the court has ruled that voter crediting has no bearing on the authenticity of election results, the so-called “voter credit discrepancy” is entirely meaningless. (And, I should mention, it also totally validates my refutation of the Snark’s OCD-like focus on this issue.)

In launching his contest, Rossi emphasized a number of allegations in support of his contention that the election was a “total mess,” including: that thousands of overseas military voters had been disenfranchised, that King County had illegally enhanced and duplicated tens of thousands of ballots, and that King County tallied hundreds more ballots than voters. It is telling that none of these allegations will be argued in court, their case almost entirely relying upon a statistical analysis of illegal votes by felons, and unverified provisionals.

“Total mess”… my ass.

After a recess the Court addressed two dueling, related motions, that due to some inexplicable bungling on the part of Rossi’s attorneys, resulted in the kind of ruling that legal malpractice cases are made of. The Republican’s motion argued that upon a prima facie showing that a voter is a felon that had not had his rights restored, the Democrats should bear the burden of proving that the vote was not invalid. Meanwhile, the Democrats’ motion asked the Court to exclude all evidence of illegal felon voters unless the R’s could prove six elements, that the voter was 1) convicted of felony, 2) as an adult, 3) had not received a deferred sentence 4) had not had their rights restored, 5) had cast a ballot, and 6) had marked the ballot to indicate a vote for governor.

But before issuing his rulings, Judge Bridges joined Jim West in sharing with us a glimpse of his bedroom fetishes.

As I was lying in bed last night, I had one of the fears that I think attorneys have had often, I’m sure, did I miss something. Am I going to get in court and realize that there is an issue that I just completely overlooked. Mr. Foreman started out his presentation a few minutes ago with the burden of proof argument, that is, is it by a preponderance of the evidence or is it clear, cogent and convincing evidence. And in actuality, I hadn’t anticipated specifically that that argument was before the Court, based on the written materials that the Court had been presented.

Ohmigod… did Rossi’s attorneys really raise the all important issue of burden of proof, without first briefing the Court? Uh-oh….

I’ll make a ruling. If counsel wish, however, to readdress the issue, I invite counsel to do that.

Translation of obtuse legalese: “You fucking morons.”

Up until this point, Judge Bridges rulings had been rather brief, but perhaps spurred on by the GOP’s amateur performance in arguing what, by any measure, was a truly stupid motion to begin with, he started lapsing into schoolmarm mode. In denying the Republican motion he ruled that “a felony conviction, coupled with the absence of a certificate of discharge… does not establish a prima facie case of illegal felon voting.” He then went on to lecture the GOP attorneys on some legal fundamentals, explaining why the burden of proof rests with the contesting party:

The reasons the burden of proof does not shift is grounded in both our case law as well as our statutes, and the Court, of course, as are counsel, we’re all mindful that the courts of this state presume the certified results of an election to be valid unless the contrary is clearly established. And unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts.

Just to be sure the Republicans got the point, he then went on to cite statute that stated that registration is presumptive evidence of a person’s right to vote, and that when a voter’s right is challenged, the burden rests with the challenger, and must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” The same standard, the Judge ruled, should apply when election results are challenged under RCW 29A.68.020.

Inasmuch as voting is a constitutional right, no vote should be held illegal and discounted absent clear proof that the voter was legally disenfranchised.

Any questions? I didn’t think so.

Next the Judge denied the Democrats motion, but after doing so, issued guidelines for establishing that a felon vote was illegal, pretty much along the lines of what they had requested: that the individual was 1) convicted as an adult, 2) of a felony, not a misdemeanor, 3) was not given a deferred sentence, 4) did not have rights restored, 5) cast a ballot, and 6) marked the ballot for governor. Of course, number 6 is impossible, which the Judge duly notes, but says: try anyway.

And then came the killer. (Yes, it gets worse.)

With respect to and responding to Mr. Foreman as to simply what is the burden of proof, I’m going to say it’s clear and convincing.

At this point, while MSM headlines are still proclaiming a big Rossi victory, his attorneys are probably shitting in their pants. “Clear and convincing” is a very high standard, and it doesn’t just apply to illegal votes, but to the entire case. So for those of you still clinging to the fantasy that the legal definition of “appears” is “appears to Stefan,” it’s time to start moving towards the fifth stage of grief.

And it only gets worse, for now the Judge starts to get a little improvisational. Judge Bridges remarks that he’s notices a theme to the Republicans’ arguments — that an election may be invalidated where the number of illegal votes exceed the margin of victory, without proving which party was credited with illegal votes — and he wants to get this issue “out of the way.” Judge Bridges explains that,

Washington’s election contest statutes clearly require the contestant to show illegal votes or misconduct changed the election result based on RCW 29A.68.110 and .070.

He cites the much debated Foulkes v Hayes case, where the court set aside an election based on evidence that ballots were fraudulently altered, without requiring proof that the result had changed. But, Judge Bridges notes, that Foulkes does not mention these specific statutes. Neither, he notes, does Hill v. Howell, where the court also suggested that “such a showing might not be required where fraud, intimidation or a fundamental disregard of the law had occurred.” Indeed, there’s only be one case where the courts did not require “proof of causation,” and that was Foulkes, a case that involved fraud.

But in our case here today, the petitioners have never alleged, to the Court’s knowledge, or even alluded to fraud or voter intimidation.

Hmmm. I’m guessing that may come as a shock to those of you who have gotten all your election contest coverage from talk radio and the right-wing blogs. So if that describes you, you may not want to read the following:

The rule urged by petitioners may be a wise one and a tempting choice for the Court. However, the Washington legislature has, by enacting RCW 29A.68.110 and .070, removed this choice from this Court’s discretion. The statutory command is clear and the Court should not invalidate the election upon proof the number of illegal votes exceeded the margin of victory.

The final issue of the day was a Republican motion to exclude all Democratic evidence of offsetting illegal votes and other irregularities, a gambit that perhaps was not quite the stupidest motion of the day, but certainly vied for the title of “Most Desperate and Futile.” Needless to say, the Judge denied the motion.

Conclusions

Rossi is toast.

It doesn’t take a genius to see which way Judge Bridges is leaning on this one, and “leaning” is a dramatic understatement… he’s virtually horizontal. Furthermore, he’s carefully constructing a decision that will be extremely difficult to appeal. Every motion to exclude evidence on a point of law has been denied; instead, the decision will be made based on his evidentiary findings.

Of course, none of this is a surprise… to me. I never thought Rossi had much of a case. There had been some thoughtful analysis coming from the other side, but most of it was based on a misinterpretation of the Foulkes decision, as I have previously pointed out here and here. And now even Rossi supporters are beginning to admit the inevitable.

Anyway, sorry to get so wordy. Now that all the evidence is in, and the standards of proof settled, I’ll follow up sometime soon with a brief overview.