The Washington State Supreme Court announced this morning that they will hear the state Dems request to issue uniform guidelines for the recount. Oral arguments will be heard before the full court, Monday Dec. 13, at 1:30PM.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Made my day – have a large collection of Dr. S. which I read constantly, even all thease years from grammor sckool…..bravo, it is really good.
I would correct some of Bob’s spelling errors….but that may make Bob feel bad and lower his self-esteem! It would be uncivil. Rather, let’s all applaud Bob for making the effort to communicate. There is no right or wrong…just like their is no winning or losing. Why when a basketball score is 84-42….hell, it’s a tie!!! I have vowed to turn over a new, less Cynical leaf. Why? Because it feels so much better. Everyone has a point, no one is ever wrong, no one ever wins and certainly no one ever loses.
Mr. C- is the kinder and gentler personna a seasonal thing? Sort of Dickens a la partisian politics?
Actually, I think I need a new keyboard. And, yes, spell check is nifty.
Mason county will be done today, back to the recount. The curtain rises as someone said. Will be interesting to see trends in the first ten smaller counties. And, reassure the public that no nuclear phenomena is impending, contrary to Mr. Vance.
Smooth, orderly, visible, routine, just accurately counting votes, legal. This is Washington not Florida or Ohio. Right Mr. C? We do want this to be smooth and orderly and open.
Yeah, wait to go, lil Crissy loses, so let’s change the election rules right in the middle of this mess, wait to go Dems., you make me sick. And, it’s NOT a tie-period.
Mark… um… yeah… I guess, if you say so. Way to support an argument.
Hey… could we have a little less cheerleading here, and more discussion. These comments are begining to get as boring as those on (un)Sound Politics.
There’s nothing to discuss. The Dems are trying to win this thing by changing the rules in the middle of it. Crissy has lost twice, what more do you want? Lawyers, ho-hum. What do you throw a drowning lawyer? Her partner.
(I posted this late last night at the bottom of an old thread; so yes, I’m repeating myself. But it’s more appropriate here.)
I’ve read the briefs, and I think the Republicans have the better of this argument.
Reed and Rossi both hammer home the point that a recount is, under Washington law, a retabulation and not a “re-canvass” that would include re-evaluating ballots that had previously been rejected. (Washington is thus different from other states that reexamine ballot validity in their recounts.) Kudos to Jim King for knowing his stuff — he told us so last week. The Dems point to the statute that says recount “all votes cast,” but the Rossi brief cites State vs. Clausen (Washington Supreme Court, 1913) which states EXPLICITLY that rejected ballots aren’t included in “total votes cast.” Sure, it’s a 90-year-old decision, but I’ll assume they checked to make sure it’s still good law before citing it. And Rossi also points out statutes governing the recount procedure itself; by the way it’s done, it can only include previously tabulated ballots. So I can’t see the Supreme Court requiring a recanvass as an elemental part of the hand recount.
The Democrats have a stronger case on the issue of a uniform statewide standard for rejecting ballots, but it is by no means a slam dunk. There was a uniform standard — that signatures “match.” At least, there was a uniform rule on paper. The issue is whether there was a uniform standard in practice. Reed correctly points out that counties could employ “different systems for signature verification,” as long as the rule was followed; but the Democrats allege that some counties didn’t enforce the signature verification rule at all (unlike King County, which enforced it aggressively), which would make the landscape decidedly not uniform. I don’t know whether they’ve cited some specific instances.
But even if there’s solid evidence that happened, the Court may be reluctant to intervene; it’s properly a challenge to the conduct of the election, not the recounts. So this might not be the right procedural posture, or the right timing. And the remedy could be messy, expensive and slow — my guess is that affected counties would have to recanvass all their votes, including absentees (which might be a problem… weren’t the envelopes discarded?). Relief here is possible, but I bet the court will stay out of it.
The Dems’ strongest argument is that the Secretary of State did nothing to order a recanvass or other corrective action when faced with obvious inaccuracies like vote totals allegedly not matching the sum of ballots counted + ballots rejected. That’s his obligation, so if the facts bear it out, the court could mandate that Reed require a full recanvass in such counties.
Wait and see what happens (don’t forget to bring the popcorn)…
David–In Jefferson County, there is a very experienced Auditor & Election Supervisor. Ballots were already sorted by precindt and total ballots counted previously reconciled to voter registration list totals. Ballots were organized today and count begins tomorrow at 8:00. Staff counts…observors shut-up and watch. Rossi lost 4 at the last machine recount and Gregoire gained 1 for a net 5. Most likely Rossi will pick up 1 or 2 this time…put that ought to be it.
In theory, it ought to be quite simple to re-count what has already be counted twice and if County Auditor’s followed procedures in the 1st recount. If a machine counts the same 20,000 ballots twice…the 3rd handcount ought to be somewhere between the 1st & 2nd count, don’t you think??? The only major changes ought to come from new additional ballots, altered ballots etc. The total ballots counted by hand ought to be the smae total counted at the recount. If not…then there better be a clear reason to reconcile the difference.
My guess is that in the punch card counties, a small percentage of the “under vote” should disappear, resulting in a handful of additional votes for both candidates. Assuming a random distribution of these “tabulation errors”, one would think this would advantage Rossi.
This court recently intervened in a number of death penaly cases -think not, they are concerned about polls and public opinion, I thnk they are a brave/independent bunch. Nobody’s claque.
90 year old decisions are an antique show, not working laws. This might be one of the few places any attorney would dare, lacking anything else, to cite a 90 year old case. Judges like to talk history, but the whole of our system and assumptions is the living body of law. Changed landscapes, changed needs, changed interpretations.
Judical ego, impertience, history all might ring in here. Don’t cout out the Supremes. ALSO, many decisons have a little for everyone. Blanket dismissal is refusing to hear the case, simple refusal to proceed, they do it all the time. Denied with no explanation.
Surprised not to see the ACLU, Leage of W. – other interest groups not interceding.
Interesing to see that R’s conced their right to their own partiaian/independent observers at election countings. Big change if it stands. Observing a la King County system for this count is administrative and not independent. The R’s may have dampened their own needs in future elections by this case. Of course, they can change their mind in the next suit.
Have a couple of retired attorney friends, going to solicit their help in a class action civil suit on behalf of disenfranchised votes. Too strict interpretation and vast difference in counties. Can’t let that crap stand in King county or anywhere else- in the state.
Three counties admit out front they did not check any signatures on any absentees or provisional ballots, just counted them all. Walla Walla, one of the no checking, is conservtive to the max, and 3rd tier population wise. Voter friendly is OK in Walla Walla, why not elsewhere? Don’t those crusty conservatives in WW auditors office know what they are doing? Ask a R, I guess.
FiIRST county reporting in manual recount- Garfield- 0 change in all races. Mason next? Garfield is wheat country north of WW. Sunning country hills in early spring and just before harvest
SECOND- Mason reporting- news here, new count is increased by 21 votes, 9 for Greg. and 12 for Rossi.
Big change for small county and new votes found by hand. What does that portend for accuracy?
Keep counting till Chris gets it right, right?
Bob, where can I find the results you are stating? Thanks
jim p – google – washington secretary of state. These results are off that site. Beat King 5, but they just reported 4 other counties are counting today.
Angry Republican Voter- like it or not, the curtin is rising. And no mattr what you think, King County will either confirm Rossi or change the total to Gregoire. And we will in the hard lessons of traditions of Ohio and Florida – live with the resuts. or glower nd growl for years.
Can we start gathering signatures to recall her now?
Bob, Good luck with the class action suit on behalf of all disenfranchised legal voters! Slade Gorton will sure be surprised to learn that he won in 2000.
Goldy- I find it interesting- no, I find it nauseating- that the idiot neo-cons are still touting the memo from Ralph Munro, based on information from Ken Eikenberry, and cannot bring themselves to admit that-
1) The Rossi campaign researcher should be summarily filed- one does NOT make mistakes like that at a critical juncture like this, and anyone who knew what they were looking at would have known that the memo was not a formal or informal AGO, and that it had not come from anywhere near the AG’s office.
2) They have all just proven that they have no clue about the process, the details, or the actors.
And the most significant detail in the filings seems to have been missed- the top state constitutional lawyer in Washington state- and a liberal Democrat to boot- is on the Sam Reed legal team…
Jim, I assume you are referring to Hugh Spitzer? Great guy, too. And a champion of tax restructuring to boot.
Yeah, like I said, I thought it was a very convincing brief.
Goldy- yes, I am referring to Hugh Spitzer- I saw that, and doubled up my bets in Vegas…
Goldy- did you see the part at the bottom of page 11 of the SOS brief about timeliness of pointing out problems to the canvassing board… I’m grinning…
And Bob- the 90 year old cite is the oldest- we have much more recent cites in the SOS brief- it is well-put together. Is going to be interesting at 1:30pm Monday. Court ruled right after hearing on the new primary law (that we repealed in November)- I’m wondering if they are deliberately giving themselves enough time to be conferencing and preparing a quick decision right after oral argument, barring major surprises…
Notice of discontent is offered the Dem lawsuit in King, and letter to the Sec of State. There is also the refusal of co-operation- from King and I think another office…..
Given the scope of the case and the impact, if the Court choses to act, they will not offer any apology about notice issues.
J K – the possible of quick decision is a good hunch, if not from the bench, one or two days. They understand the King County nexus, and plenty of time for King to comply if asked.
This is real saga, the court and counting commonly cumlative, concurrent and compelling. Let us continue, avec bon coeur and cognac.
I noticed it, but I’ve learned not to predict the courts. I do agree, that there will be a quick decision, but I doubt they’ll rule from the bench.
You all, I frankly would like the State Supremes to insist on the standards that were printed on the ballots or on the voting booth. I agree with Mr. Connelly: If you couldn’t comply with them, tough luck. Toss out all the enhanced ones and stop this disenfranchisement of honest votes from honest people. It gives the Gregoire people the satisfaction of the Supremes running the election and the Rossi people the joy of justice… until you get to those illiterate and room temperature-IQ parts of the state!
Also, Permanent Defense at http://www.permanentdefense.com/forum has a new forum where you can debate all you want about the great recount.
Angry voter-
Good comment. I’m with you!