HorsesAss.Org

Tony Blair and his Labour Party are predicted to win a historic third straight term, according to exit polls… which of course means George W. Bush will be the next British Prime Minister.

God speed.

I’m understandably uncomfortable covering a story about accusations that a public figure molested children. As I have personally learned, such allegations are easy to make and impossible to fully refute. But the story breaking today in The Spokesman-Review about Spokane Mayor Jim West is just too big, too sordid, and too pertinent to ignore: “West tied to sex abuse in ’70s, using office to lure young men.”

For a quarter century, the man who is now Spokane’s mayor has used positions of public trust

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Dems allege more felons
According to a report from the AP, the Democrats now claim to have found 544 felons who illegally voted in predominantly pro-Rossi precincts. The Republicans claim to have identified 946 felon votes, mostly from pro-Gregoire precincts.

If the bulk of these numbers hold up, no effort at rejiggering spreadsheets could possibly produce a Rossi victory.

Reagan Dunn is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life
The Seattle P-I reports that nepotism poster-child Raymond Shaw Reagan Dunn will ask the King County Council to approve a motion of no confidence in Elections Director Dean Logan. Shaw Dunn says he has a “fiduciary responsibility,” or something like that, to grandstand on a motion that has zero chance of passing. For some reason, Council Chairman Larry Phillips comes off as a touch cynical:

“This is a well-orchestrated but thinly disguised attempt by Republican operatives to bring discredit to Dean Logan for the court case.”

Really? Who’d of thunk?

Stefan Sharkansky is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life a prick
In commenting on the Logan and Huennekens depositions, Stefan concludes:

If this isn’t grounds for both voiding the election and sending certain election officials to prison, I can’t imagine what would be.

See… Stefan’s not only a prick, he’s also a coward. He won’t actually come right out and accuse Logan and Huennekens of committing fraud, because that would be libel. Instead, he’s always careful to semantically couch his false accusations, so that the implication is clear, if not literal.

I also find it disturbing… the joy in which some on the right hold the prospect of seeing their political enemies behind bars. Reeks of fascism.

But to his credit, he’s not anonymous.

The truly sad thing about the way Al Gore was cruelly mocked for supposedly claiming to have “invented the Internet,” is not that he never actually said it — politicians expect to be tarred with lies. The sad thing is that perhaps no other politician deserves more credit for supporting the growth and development of the Internet into the incredible economic force it has become today.

It may be too little, too late, but Gore is finally being honored for his contributions.

Al Gore may have been lampooned for taking credit in the Internet’s development, but organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements don’t find it funny at all.

In part to “set the record straight,” they will give Gore a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet, said Tiffany Shlain, the awards’ founder and chairwoman.

“It’s just one of those instances someone did amazing work for three decades as congressman, senator and vice president and it got spun around into this political mess,” Shlain said.

Vint Cerf, undisputedly one of the Internet’s key inventors, will give Gore the award at a June 6 ceremony in New York.

“He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions,” Cerf said.

Thanks Al.

UPDATE:
The “Love Story” myth came up in the comment thread, so while we’re at it, let’s debunk that one too. Al Gore never said that he and Tipper were the models for the characters in “Love Story”:

For instance, the candidate was ridiculed endlessly after the infamous Love Story flap. Actually, what Gore mentioned to two reporters in an offhand comment was that, according to an old Tennessean article, Love Story author Segal had made that claim. After Gore’s quip, Segal corrected the record by saying that The Tennessean had gotten it wrong, and that both Gore and his Harvard roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones, had served as models for Love Story ‘s male protagonist, but that Segal did not base any character on Tipper.

You’d think that Republicans would be a bit ashamed at the way they maligned Gore’s character — probably costing him the election — but no… they think it’s quite funny. But then, why bother running on issues when you can just win by defining your enemies as liars, thieves and child molesters?

A quick link to George Howland Jr.’s election contest coverage in The Seattle Weekly. I think he pretty much sums up my take on the election… though in a much more dispassioned voice.

After months of effort by top legal teams, the Republicans, who sued the state and most of the state’s 39 counties, have come up with around 1,000 illegal votes

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Today comes reports in the Times, the P-I and elsewhere of a lawsuit fronted by the the WA State Farm Bureau, and joined by the usual suspects (BIAW, EFF, etc), challenging the Legislature’s invocation of the “emergency clause” in passing an amendment to I-601 that removed the initiative’s extra-constitutional super-majority requirement to raise the state spending limit. The lawsuit’s goal is to toss out $400 million in tax increases from the state budget, plunging the state into a financial crisis.

Hugh Spitzer, arguably our leading scholar on state constitutional law, politely calls the case “a very uphill battle.” I’d say its futile, but since Hugh’s the expert, let’s just go with what he has to say.

Spitzer said such a decision by the court “would create a large mess.” But he doesn’t think that will happen.

The court has given lawmakers broad discretion in determining what constitutes an emergency since a similar case went before the court in the mid-1990s after lawmakers approved a financing package to build a new ballpark for the Seattle Mariners, Spitzer said. There was concern the team would be put up for sale unless the team got a new stadium.

Opponents tried to mount a referendum challenge but were blocked by the use of an emergency clause. The court ruled the Legislature had the right to declare it an emergency.

“Generally, since the stadium case, legislative bodies have had significant flexibility in declaring emergencies,” Spitzer said. “It’s relatively difficult to challenge an emergency clause today based on that case and some other cases.”

The “emergency” was that the Legislature needed to pass a budget. That’s been good enough for the courts before, it’ll be good enough for the courts now. So much for the legal acumen of the knee-jerk, anti-government crowd.

While their legal arguments are pathetic, it’s their rhetorical arguments that really piss me off. Richard Stephens, the coalition’s lead attorney disingenuously echoes the EFF’s patently specious double-speak by arguing that an initiative that barely passed over a decade ago in a low-turnout, off-year election is somehow carved in stone.

“Here’s something the people put into place by initiative and the Legislature undoes it and says the people don’t get to vote on it.”

What a load of crap.

First of all, “the people” have as much opportunity to “vote on it” as they do with any other issue. These anti-government business groups have a track record of getting their own special interest initiatives on the ballot, and they could always run an initiative to reinforce I-601, as Tim Eyman unsuccessfully tried in 2003. Their complaint is really over the fact that the emergency clause prevents them from running a referendum, which requires only half the signatures and thus half the cost. This lawsuit is about money.

Second… what the fuck is so special about I-601?

That $400 million they so desperately want to repeal is targeted mostly at funding the voter approved class size and teacher pay initiatives (I-728 and I-732 respectively.) As I’ve previously and eloquently written on the subject (“EFF supports state income tax!“) the argument that I-601 more clearly expresses the “will of the people” than I-728 or I-732, represents a twisted piece of ass-backwards logic:

Clearly, the EFF believes some voter-approved initiatives should be more inviolate than others. But their criteria for measuring the will of the people appears a bit backwards; examining the margins by which these initiatives passed, a pattern quickly emerges:

    Year   #       Yes Votes
    1993   I-601     774,342 (51%)
    2000   I-728   1,714,485 (72%)
    2000   I-732   1,501,261 (63%)

Hmmm… so let me get this straight… according to the EFF, I-728, which passed by a landslide margin of 72% as recently as 2000, should be sacrificed in the name of I-601, which received nearly a million less votes, barely squeaking by with a 51% margin all the way back in 1993? So logically, I can only assume that the EFF believes that the older the initiative, and the fewer votes it received, the more it represents the true will of the people.

By that measure, I fully expect the EFF to join me in demanding that the Legislature honor the clear and indisputable will of the people, by fully implementing voter-approved Initiative 69… which enacted an income tax way back in 1932.

Let’s put this into perspective… when I-601 passed back in 1993, it garnered nearly 300,000 fewer votes than Eyman’s viciously stupid I-892 received in 2004, when it was trounced by a 62% to 38% margin.

Will of the people… my ass!

The Legislature did what the Legislature had to do, just to keep education funding at a bare minimum level, and if the EFF, BIAW and the others don’t like it, perhaps they should do a better job electing legislators, huh? Put Democrats in charge of the budget, and they’re going to fund the public services the voters want… you know, today’s voters… the folks who elected today’s Legislature… not 51% of some phantom, off-year electorate from way back in 1993. I know the EFF believes we’d all be better off home-schooling our kids or packing them off to private religious schools, rather than wasting taxpayer dollars on public education. So if they think that’s the “will of people”, why aren’t they urging Republicans to run on this platform in an effort to seize control of the Legislature in 2006?

Nahhh. It’s bad politics to be too honest about your agenda… especially when your true agenda is so godawful frightening.

The New York Times reports the stunning news that defying all expectations, consumers can sometimes be rational: “Ford and G.M. Suffer as Buyers Shun S.U.V.’s”

The latest automobile sales figures show that Americans are increasingly wary of gas-thirsty sport utility vehicles. That was particularly bad news for General Motors and the Ford Motor Company, which both saw their sales slip last month as consumers continued their steady march into Asian car companies’ dealerships.
…
General Motors has long maintained that gas prices do not affect how consumers approach buying a car or truck. But on Tuesday, G.M.’s chief industry sales analyst, Paul Ballew, appeared to retreat somewhat from that position, saying that record gas prices were likely playing some role in falling S.U.V. sales.

Ummmm… ya think?

If you think you can listen to my voice without losing your dinner, tune in tonight to the Brian Suits Show on 570-KVI, at 7PM. Brian and I will be discussing blogging, and possibly the recent McCarthyite effort to defame me.

His producer assures me that Brian is big fan of HA. Who’d of thunk?

UPDATE: I’ve been bumped to 7:13PM

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Well, that was fun. Sort of. I hope next time Brian has me on, we get to have more time debating politics, instead of just agreeing on the inviolability of the First Amendment.

[NWPT43] If there’s any indication of how yesterday’s rulings really went, I’d say it’s the predictable judge-bashing already coming from the other blog. I was particularly struck by this thoughtful piece of analysis from one (u)SP regular:

why does Judge Bridge wear an earing? Unless he’s a right wing Harley riding ex hippie I remain nervous about his politics…

Later in the same thread, one of our very own right-wing resident trolls, Jeff B., manages to cut straight through all the bullshit and and convincingly enunciate his own “bloody glove theory” of election fraud:

I suspect that when all is said and done, the outcome will be similar to that of the OJ trial. We all know he did it, but he got off because a very partisan jury was convinced of a reasonable doubt.

For the last time Jeff, even if OJ did vote in Washington’s November election… he was never actually convicted of a felony. (And besides, OJ’s vote would probably have been offset by that of convicted perjurer and Spokane talk radio host, Mark Fuhrman.)

Of course, I would hate to be judged by the content of my blog’s comment threads (I’d probably be judged mentally incompetent.) But this sort of paranoid emotional calculated lashing-out at the courts when decisions don’t go their way is de rigueur in Republican circles these days, and Stefan himself set the tone early when he dismissed Judge Bridges’ ruling on voter-crediting by implying that the Judge hadn’t bothered to read the depositions.

“Oy.”

In what I suppose serves as his final post-hearing analysis, Stefan comes back with a typically constructive critique, focusing on Judge Bridge’s firm statement that “Unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken, their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts.” To this, Stefan thoughtfully asks:

What might make an election “clearly invalid”?

I don’t know. Hundreds more ballots than voters? Ballots that appeared out of nowhere and were tabulated? Fraudulent ballot accounting statements? Election officials who knew about hundreds of unverified provisional ballots that went into the ballot boxes but somehow forgot to tell the canvassing board?

Maybe something will come up.

Oh… did I say “thoughtfully”…? I sometimes confuse thoughtfulness with sarcasm.

Well, yes Stefan, if you can prove that there were indeed hundreds more ballots than voters, and that ballots fell from the sky and into the Accuvote machines like manna from heaven, and that election officials committed fraud, then yes… the Judge might rule this election “clearly invalid.” But you can’t prove any of these allegations, and that’s why, dollars to doughnuts, Rossi’s attorneys won’t even try during the four days they’ve been alloted to present evidence.

And that is the extent of the post-hearing commentary from the blogosphere’s most celebrated, self-appointed election expert. I’d say that this atypical lack of loquaciousness might suggest that yesterday’s rulings have him feeling a little despondent, or even depressed… but I wouldn’t want to accuse Stefan of suffering from a mental disorder he clearly doesn’t suffer from.

The truth is, it’s hard to generate much spin when somebody nails your rhetorical dreidel to the floor.

And man did Stefan’s rhetoric get hammered yesterday by Judge Bridges… most devastatingly when he definitively ruled that voter crediting is a “post-election administrative exercise” and “does not bear upon the authenticity of election results.” That one ruling flushed months of Stefan’s hard work (and not so hard numbers) down the toilet, and with it, the last vestige of his “total mess” theory.

I can imagine how disappointed Stefan must be. All those tedious, quixotic hours pouring through election documents, compiling databases, and finagling spreadsheets… all those late nights emailing with the BIAW, and early mornings laying out his latest “findings” to the half dozen or so people listening to Mike Siegel at 6:30AM… all that hard work, only to be told by a lowly judge of all people, that he’s been looking at the wrong data set! (I tried to warn you, Stefan… tried to save you from this crushing heartbreak… but would you listen? No!)

Ah well. I had intended to discuss in detail some of my personal observations on how Judge Bridges’ rulings might ultimately effect the outcome of the trial… but it was just too much fun teasing Stefan. More analysis later….

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E…. and I will definitely be there. I invite you all to join me for a couple of pints, and some good conversation.

[NWPT43] Once again the early headlines coming out of the Chelan County Courthouse buoyed the spirits of Rossi supporters, and once again the details of Judge Bridge’s actual rulings have deflated the more realistic among them. Four of the five motions didn’t go the Republicans’ way at all. And the fifth… well… not so much either.

While we’ll have to wait for release of the transcript to parse the full meaning from todays rulings, I wasn’t about to simply rely on the MSM for immediate analysis. I had my own fly on the wall, who shared with me a few of the more interesting details that have yet to be reported in the press.

First let me make absolutely clear that despite the initial headlines (and Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane’s perfunctory exclamation of victory,) Judge Bridges did not rule that he would accept the GOP’s proposed “proportional deduction” methodology to divvy up the illegal votes based on statistical patterns. He simply did not reject statistical evidence per se. In effect, on what Lane triumphantly called “the big issue of the day,” we are simply left with the status quo.

The Judge decided that he would hold what is called a “Frye Hearing,” a hearing at which he will consider the admissibility of expert scientific testimony… specifically, the application of various proposed methods of statistical analysis. But Judge Bridges was unequivocal in stating that his decision “should not be interpreted as a pretrial ruling adopting the statistical analysis methodology.” Indeed, my insider tells me that at the pre-trial conference in the afternoon, one of the first things the Judge did was set the date of the Frye Hearing. (He had wanted to do it on May 17, but for scheduling purposes it will occur during the trial week.) And the fly reports that there was nothing in Judge Bridges statements that indicated he favored such an analysis.

Thus one can view this as a Republican victory, only in the sense that it didn’t immediately pull the plug on their case entirely. Indeed…

Mark Braden, the high-powered Republican lawyer brought in from Washington, D.C., to help Rossi’s cause, said after the hearing that if Bridges had blocked the proportional analysis strategy, the GOP case would have been lost.

As it is, Braden said, “We’re not out of the woods until the Supreme Court of this state says: ‘New election!’ “

Yeah… sure Mark. Whatever.

If only the rest of the day’s rulings had been so ambiguous, Braden’s enthusiasm would not have come across as so forced. But the remainder of the day went almost entirely the Democrats’ way, not the least of which being the Judge’s rejection of a GOP motion to prevent the D’s from introducing new evidence. Press accounts have reported this ruling as it relates to the 432 alleged illegal felon votes the D’s have found in pro-Rossi precincts (with more to come,) but my fly tells me the ruling came not in a discussion of illegal votes, but rather about whether the D’s could introduce evidence of additional ballots that should be counted, but weren’t.

Remember those 735 “signature not found” ballots that came to our attention after King County Councilman Larry Phillips learned his ballot was among them? 566 of them were counted after a legal tussle in the state Supreme Court, padding Christine Gregoire’s lead by 120 votes. You ever wonder what happened to the other 169 of them? Well most of these were not counted because King County couldn’t find the registration record by the certification deadline. There are also an additional 82 absentee ballots set aside because they “needed research” and 622 “cancelled” provisional ballots… all of which the Judge ruled the D’s may admit into evidence, representing a potential mother lode of Gregoire votes. Or so says the fly.

There were several other rulings that could play a major role in deciding the case. As previously reported, Judge Bridges has ruled that neither party may rely on the counties’ voter-credit records to prove that a vote was cast, calling crediting a “post-election administrative exercise” (told you so, Stefan.) Instead, the parties must find an actual signature in a poll-book or on an absentee or provisional envelope. In addition, Judge Bridges laid out six standards for proving an illegal felon vote: the voter was convicted of a felony, as an adult, was not given a deferred sentence, has not had his voting rights restored, had cast a ballot in the November election, and… actually voted for a gubernatorial candidate.

As David Postman reports in his updated article in the Seattle Times, Judge Bridges acknowledges that this won’t be easy.

“I recognize that it may just simply be impossible to come up with all of these elements I have referred to,” he said. But he told the attorneys, “come up with all you have.”

And it won’t be made any easier by the fact that they have only three weeks to compile their evidence, and only four days each to present it. And if that’s not hard enough, Judge Bridges ruled that he will require a relatively high standard of proof — “clear and convincing” — and not just for the felon ballots, but apparently, for the entire case as a whole. Indeed, my fly pointed out that the Judge “spontaneously” indicated that there seemed to be a theme to Rossi’s arguments, that somehow all they needed to prove was a bunch of errors… and he went out of his way to make it clear that they had to prove — by clear and convincing evidence — that Rossi actually won the election.

So those are the facts as I know them. I’ll post a few observations of my own, after a good night’s sleep.

Wow… it’s amazing what one can learn listening to the BBC.

As reported yesterday in The Sunday Times (still the UK’s paper of record, despite the fact that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch,) a secret memo, conveniently leaked during the final frenzied days before parliamentary elections, has thrown a wrench into the campaign of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his ruling Labour Party. Marked “Secret and Strictly Personal — UK Eyes Only,” the memo discusses a July 23, 2002 meeting between Blair and his top advisors regarding the impending war with Iraq. I say “impending” because it is clear from the contents of the memo that both the US and Britain had already decided on their course of action, at least eight months before the invasion, at a time when President Bush was routinely pooh-poohing talk of war as media speculation.

The big scandal for Blair is that he apparently ignored warnings by his Attorney General and Foreign Office that the war might be illegal. But Americans should be outraged that a President who likes to portray himself as a “straight shooter” was, surprise… blatantly lying.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

(Emphasis added.)

Of course, as we now know, Saddam had no connections to Bin Laden or 9/11, and had no WMDs. As to the lack of discussion about the war’s aftermath, well, I think this fact was made abundantly clear by the war’s aftermath. But the truly criminal revelation confirmation is that the Bush administration was fixing the intelligence to fit the policy. This war wasn’t the result of an intelligence failure… it was made possible by a complete and utter disregard for the intelligence we had.

The other scandal this memo reveals is its nearly total lack of coverage by the US media. One Murdoch mouthpiece, The Times, is eager to plaster it on the front page if it helps bring down a Labour Party prime minister. But here in the US, where the memo could harm a Republican president, another Murdoch mouthpiece, Fox News, apparently has never heard of it. Nor has anybody else.

So much for “fair and balanced.”

A real reporter, David Postman of the Seattle Times, gets the scoop on the real news, although it’s not really much news after all:

In Chelan County Superior Court, Bridges denied a Democratic Party motion to exclude the evidence, saying he did not see anything in law or court precedent that would prohibit the use of expert testimony to show how illegal votes were cast.

But Bridges said he was not yet accepting the statistical analysis as valid for the trial set to begin May 23. He said the Republican evidence is subject to a separate hearing where Democrats can challenge its scientific value.

So the general consensus of HA’s comment threads was borne out. Judge Bridges has not ruled out a statistical analysis, but he has not ruled it in. He will hear the evidence and then decide.

Still waiting to hear on the Republican motion to exclude offsetting votes. That’ll be the doozy.

UPDATE:
Postman has updated his story, and thus so shall I. In a potentially significant ruling, Judge Bridges has said that he will not accept voter-credit records as evidence that someone voted.

In granting a Democratic motion, Bridges said that any party alleging illegal votes will have to produce in court a copy of the voter’s signature in a polling place book or on the envelope of an absentee or provisional ballot.

Bridges said crediting is a “post-election administrative exercise” and “does not bear upon the authenticity of election results.”

This not only puts the burden on the parties to show that their respective felons actually voted, but it also eliminates much of the basis for Rossi’s “total mess” argument, the discrepancy between ballots counted and voters credited.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Stick a fork in it:

On another issue, Bridges sided with Democrats, saying he would allow them to introduce evidence of election errors that benefited Rossi. Republicans had made a motion to prohibit Democrats from introducing evidence of any of those “off-setting errors.”

I cannot overstate the degree of confidence to which the Democrats’ attorneys believe they have enough offsetting errors, so that Rossi cannot prevail even given the most favorable “proportional deduction” methodology.

Also from Postman’s latest update:

Bridges denied motions from both parties regarding the burden of proof that will be required at trial to show illegal votes had been cast by felons. But he set a standard much more to the liking of Democrats.

Republicans said it was enough to show a voter had been convicted of a felony and that there was no evidence in the court file that the felons’ voting rights had been restored.

But Bridges said Republicans will have to present “clear and convincing” evidence that a felon voted, a higher standard than Republicans had hoped for.

Bridges also set out six standards, similar to what Democrats had proposed, that will have to be shown for the court to consider a vote illegally cast.

“Clear and convincing.” Hmmm. If Judge Bridges requires clear and convincing evidence that a felon voted, doesn’t that also hint that this might be the standard for proving that Rossi won?

More analysis later.

For those who long for the dulcimer sounds of my voice (Stefan describes me as “sweet”), tune in to The Kirby Wilbur Show, 570-KVI, Monday morning at around 6:30 AM. Kirby and I will be discussing tomorrow’s hearing in Chelan County, which has the potential to make or break Dino Rossi’s election contest.

There are two major issues at stake: whether the court will accept the GOP’s “proportional reduction” method of subtracting illegal votes from the candidates, and whether it will consider offsetting illegal votes uncovered by Democrats. As is his wont, Judge Bridges will likely issue a ruling from the bench, but I’m not entirely sure that it will be definitive. For example, he could leave the door open to some sort of a statistical analysis, but not necessarily accept the GOP’s precinct-level methodology.

In any case, this is an issue that will ultimately be decided by the Supremes, so no one should get their undies in a knot by tomorrow’s ruling, one way or the other.

UPDATE:
Well, it was short (and as Stefan would say, “sweet.”)

One point I don’t think I emphasized on the air was that really, the R’s need to prevail on both issues to stay alive in this contest. If Judge Bridges allows the D’s to put offsetting illegal votes into evidence, it’s all over, even with a precinct-level proportional analysis. By fighting the admission of offsetting illegal votes from pro-Rossi precincts, Rossi is essentially admitting that he lost.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
News is coming out of the Chelan County Courthouse, and I am reporting it here. So far, nothing earth shattering… Judge Bridges will consider a statistical analysis, but has not yet ruled it in or out, and votes by non-citizens will be excluded.

All snideness aside, after reading some of the comments on the previous two threads, I thought it might be time to once again summarize and reiterate my position on this election and the subsequent contest.

As I have repeatedly and consistently stated since before the hand recount, this election was a statistical tie… the margin of victory too far within the margin of error to confidently determine the outcome. Ties happen, statistical or otherwise.

A tie does not result in a so-called “revote” (a new election.) When an actual numerical tie occurs for most offices, the winner is determined by lot; in Washington state, when a numerical tie occurs for an executive office, the winner is determined by the Legislature. If neither of these tie-breaking methods strikes you as particularly fair… too bad. The collective wisdom of the world’s oldest democratic republic is that settling things and moving on is more important than absolute certainty. And these are the established rules for settling things and moving on.

Likewise, there are established rules for settling the outcome of a statistical tie: one or two recounts. The very presence of a recount statute is an implicit acknowledgment that vote counts are never entirely accurate, but that a recount — being more carefully conducted — is less inaccurate than the count that preceded it. The very fact that the statute specifies a limited number of recounts, is an implicit acknowledgment that we are willing to accept some degree of uncertainty in the final results. Our statutes clearly consider a hand recount to be the most reliable tally (a position supported by the scientific literature, if not common sense) and thus a hand recount is specified as the final remedy to an extremely close election. So those are the rules for settling a statistical tie: count, machine recount, hand recount.

Christine Gregoire won the hand recount. Thus, by the rules both candidates agreed to prior to the election, Christine Gregoire won.

Of course, there is also a contest statute, and Dino Rossi has every right to utilize it to press his case. But we must be clear that the purpose of this statute is not to settle close elections, and not to provide certainty… for all extremely close elections are uncertain. Rather, the contest statute is intended to provide a remedy when it appears that illegal votes and other irregularities actually changed the outcome. It is not enough to show that the outcome is uncertain; we already know that, and our election statutes have no qualms with this. To set aside an election, it must appear that due to illegal votes and other irregularities the wrong person was declared the winner. That is Rossi’s burden in this contest.

And it is, admittedly, a very high burden of proof.

I have read comments here and elsewhere that express disbelief that a court could possibly permit the election results to stand when the number of disputed ballots is apparently so much greater than the margin of victory. I have been told that it would “offend common sense,” that it would be “unfair” and “unjust.” But I hate to break it to you: nobody ever said justice was fair, or vice versa.

TV crime dramas are chock full of story lines where some miscreant is set free on a technicality — often the inadmissibility of illegally gathered evidence. While it does indeed offend our sensibilities to see a clearly guilty criminal avoid justice, the entire system relies on the rule of law, and without strict adherence to it, the whole justice system could collapse. No judge has the power to determine when the rules should or should not apply.

Similarly, an individual election contest is not about fairness… it’s about following the rules set out in the contest statute. Mistakes alone — even the failure by officials to follow the letter of the other election statutes — are not enough to set aside an election. To prevail, Rossi must prove that he was likely the real winner, or that there was the intent to fraudulently swing the results towards Gregoire, or perhaps, that the margin of error was so far outside the accepted norms, that there is no way we can reasonably accept this as a free and fair election (the “total mess” strategy.) To date, I have seen no evidence to strongly support any of these assertions.

This election was a statistical tie; fortunately for those on my side of the aisle the coin toss came up Gregroire, but it could easily have flipped the other way around. Did the hand recount provide a significantly greater degree of certainty than determining the winner by lot? In this election, no. But then, as I have stated again and again and again, our election statutes prefer finality over certainty, and for very pragmatic reasons… because otherwise, every close election would end up being settled by the courts, a policy that would be costly, disruptive and untenable.

While many die-hard Rossi supporters can’t imagine the courts ruling against him, I haven’t talked to single attorney who has studied the statute, who believes the courts would be willing to set such a dangerous precedent.