January 10, 2005
Bust the Democrat Spin Machine

As noted, the incoming Democrat-controlled legislature is poised to certify Governor-pretend Fraudoire's "victory" tomorrow. Democratic legislators are circling the wagons to defend their impending vote. The Democrats who live in swing districts that voted for Dino Rossi find themselves in a very difficult position. Their arms are being twisted by caucus leadership to toe the party line, even though it means betraying their constituents.

The reality is these folks understand very well that a great majority of their constituents want a revote and don't think that Fraudoire's victory should be certified. They're responding by reading off the same script of sleaze, dishonesty and disinformation. They're saying, in essence, "we can't have a revote, because there's no proof of [pick one] (a) an organized conspiracy to steal the election for a revote, (b) election fraud, etc." In fact, this is all a red herring. Setting aside an election does not require proof of fraud or conspiracy, only that there are enough illegal votes and/or other irregularities that the "actual result of the voting cannot be ascertained' [Foulkes v Hayes].

Two things to do here, especially if you live in a Dino District and you're represented in Olympia by one or more Democrats [if you're not sure if this applies to you, check this list]

1. Contact your legislators and tell them that you have seen enough indications of irregularities that you do not believe Gregoire was legitimately elected. You do not believe her election should be certified and you demand a revote.

2. If your legislator came/comes back to you with the "no evidence of fraud" excuse, call them on it. Tell them that you know better and are disappointed with the way they're changing the subject and spinning a tainted election into a victory.

FLOOD THE ZONE. But in any case, be positive and exceedingly courteous. But you should also leave a subtext that betraying one's constituents on this important issue should have devastating consequences.

In the extended entry, I've posted some example quotes from the disingenuous emails that these Democratic legislators have been sending to their constituents. It would neither surprise nor disappoint me if some of these people had their political careers aborted on account of the transparently ridiculous statements they've been making.

Rep. Geoff Simpson 47th:

If there is evidence of fraud, the GOP should ask for the appropriate law enforcement to take place. That's why we have a criminal and civil justice system, to correct wrongdoing and to bring justice to the injured party. In most instances, election fraud is a felony. If such fraud exists and it can be shown that Gregoire's election would not have happened if the fraud had not occurred, then I agree that a revote should occur. If anybody is guilty of election fraud, I will call for them to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Absent any credible allegations of fraud, the laws of Washington have been followed and the people of Washington have elected their new governor and I intend to vote to certify the election.
Rep. Judy Clibborn, 41st:
Thank you for sharing your opinion on the Governor's race. I appreciate your concerns, but I will not support a revote. Unless there is legal evidence of election fraud or government wrong-doing, this election must stand. We can't justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars to hold an unnecessary election because some people are unhappy with the outcome.
Rep. Sam Hunt:
We Finished the Most Accurate Vote Count in State History....There have been no verified charges of fraud or violations of law substantiated by anybody to date. All 39 counties certified their elections and none of the people involved in counting ballots have presented any verified challenges. No court cases have been filed. No county elections officer has questioned the election process in his/her county.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 10, 2005 02:21 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Might I ask why, if the vast majority of their constituents want a revote, the latest PI poll of the day indicates that 2 to 1 voters would give no more credibility to a revote than the old vote?

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 02:39 PM
2. Hi Stefan - I live in the 44th district of SnoCo, and was finally going to get around to contacting Hans Dunshee and John Lovick, but the links on your page about them do not work. I can find the info elsewhere, but thought you'd like to know.

Posted by: Scott on January 10, 2005 02:44 PM
3. Probably because the homeless voters and felon voters have been sitting there clicking the freakin button all day.

it's an internet poll. It's as accurate a reflection of the real world as, say, King County election results.

Posted by: SnoCo voter on January 10, 2005 02:46 PM
4. It is odd that the Democrats argue that there is no "proof," since there hasn't yet been a hearing at which evidence could be offered to prove the facts.

Perhaps people should point out to their legislators that the questions should neither be swept under the rug nor tried in the media.

Before voting to issue a certificate of election declaring that Gregoire is the governor-elect, the legislators need to decide the contested election consistent with the law -- not their own political preferences.

Posted by: Micajah on January 10, 2005 02:50 PM
5. SnoCo--your suggestion of homeless and felon voters applies to revote enthusiasts as well--which answers your question as to why they shouldn't be taken seriously.

Stefan, your cite of Foulke v Hayes is unlinked, and contains only the barest part of a sentence. Moreover, it is contradicted by the statutes as written in the RCW. Could you expand on your impression that uncertainty is simple enough to allow a revote? Even Rossi's petition includes a line from that case, that indicates remedy of the problems is a prerequisite to setting the election aside--something a new election cannot do based purely on procedural errors that appear in all elections.

Your post is beginning to take on a tone of desperation, taking personal shots at Gregoire, and using a word to describe the election that Rossi has specifically discounted.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 02:51 PM
6. Mr. davis,
Not that this would be important to you, but a re-vote wtith King county carefully monitored would ensure:
1. Members of our armed forces would get to vote and have their votes counted.
2. Convicted felons would not be able to vote in the new election.
3. Dead people would not be able to vote and have their votes counted in the election.
4. Provisional ballots would not be allowed to be jammed into voting machines by undocumented people or by complicent election workers.
5. No one would be allowed to vote more than one time.
Remember, no one disputes that all of the above
took place in king county in the last election.

Are these standards just to tough a line for you and your party to tow?

Posted by: Brad on January 10, 2005 02:53 PM
7. Stefan,

I have contacted Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen from the 10th district. I told her beause of the inconsistencies of this election, that I and many others in her district no longer have faith in the election process and that we will remember this in 2006 and in 2008. She responded as you said, "No proof, No evidence of fraud..."
Has political power blinded them so much they can't see what everyone else can?

Posted by: Raylene on January 10, 2005 02:53 PM
8. Also, it's not "betraying one's constituents" to vote your conscience if you believe the vote was within the bounds of uncorrectable human error, and that electoral fraud is the normal bar needed to set aside.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 02:55 PM
9. I think the correct cite to the case is actually: Foulkes v. Hays, 85 Wn.2d 629, 537 P.2d 777, 1975 Wash. LEXIS 912 (1975)

Posted by: SoloD on January 10, 2005 02:57 PM
10. Flood the zone.

When's the last time such an effort worked? Can't think of any...what a collosal waste of time and energy (not to mention the demand to spend tons of government's (I mean OUR) money on this)....

Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 03:00 PM
11. Don't feed the trolls. They'll be out in greater numbers.

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 03:02 PM
12. If the election was fraudulently conducted (fraud being a broad brush here for unreliable and unverifiable voting/ballots/counting), then just saying "waste of time" means "I don't really care that I've been effectively disenfranchised by the ones who do the counting. Nope, it's OK for me to put my ballot in the box, and for thousands of others, and for candidates to work their tails off -- because in the end, some group of people, incompetent or malign, have so thoroughly screwed up the process that my vote doesn't count. And I'm happy with that. Yee-haw, turn on 'Desperate Housewives.'"

Posted by: steve miller on January 10, 2005 03:05 PM
13. I understand that in the recent past, a governor took office (in Minnesota or Wisconsin or one of those cheese-states), but after a recount and AFTER being in office for a few months, was found not to be the real winner; he stepped down and the real governor was sworn in.

And if I recall correctly, the governor who stepped down was (R) and the real governor was a (D).

The vote margin was about the same, if I recall -- around a hundred or so.

Will Gregoire have the courtesy to do the same? Or will Dino have to repair the scratch marks on the governor's desk left by her desperate attempts to retain office?

Posted by: steve miller on January 10, 2005 03:08 PM
14. Scratch marks for sure

Posted by: Brad on January 10, 2005 03:12 PM
15. A Democrat office-holder knows only one loyalty--to the Party. To them, the people are a tool to be used. The Party is all. (For further reading, see "The History of the Soviet Union.")

Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 10, 2005 03:13 PM
16. What is it with the troll comments? Because I have a different, broader scope of election processes than you?

Very enlightened...

I find it hard to believe it's such a difficult concept to grasp that if the election was indeed as close as any of the counts or recounts indicated that a new vote would offer any credence to the process at all...

It appears to many that this is a case of very selective sour grapes...

That's all...

And it's my money too that is being *wasted* verifying that we have a very split electorate which we all knew to begin with...

Brad, I care very deeply about my state and country...I detest the partisanship I see everywhere concerning the election process...

Do we know that the *irregularities* you listed didn't occur elsewhere in the state? Has anyone bothered to examine the other counties with the magnifying glass the most populous county got?

Can anyone verify who voted for whom in Snohomish County?

An honest conversation on how to really solve all these problems rather than slinging names and mud around would indeed be refreshing...

Hoped to find that here...

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 03:15 PM
17. torridjoe,

You have been arguing that one must prove the distribution of illegal votes. That one cannot use math to assign a reasonable count to each candidate. I have read the RCW about illegal votes and it says no such thing. Also the courts use statistics all the time to come to reasonable conclusions.


Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 03:15 PM
18. When Democrats in office are criticized, their typical response is to start whining, crying, or complaining about "hypocrisy" or "censorship."

To a Democrat, a "broad perspective" is just a code-word for muddying the waters, or fuzzy thinking.

Hey! The Democrats stuffed the ballot box and they got caught! Well, duh.

Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 10, 2005 03:21 PM
19. I didn't mention any names...someone seems to think they're being accused of something. Why is that?

How convenient...we have a post about the spin machine, and they deliver...

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 03:21 PM
20. Doug, read .110.

"No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person's legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person."

specifically the phrases "am amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested," and "after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person."

Probability theory is math only in the most technical sense. There are no known values to make an algebraic construct. In other words, if we had the total votes and the total Rossi votes, we could get the total Gregoire votes. Rossi + G = total. In this case, however, you have R + G = total votes. That's not math, that's hopeful guesswork. It's suitable as a contest provision, but not to set aside.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 03:22 PM
21. The trolls are getting desperate. All they can spit out is the same old rhetoric.

I still believe some high ranking military officer should threaten Washington State that if the state keeps doing what they are doing to the military ballots (example: not sending them out in time, etc.)the military will leave the bases in Washington State.

Posted by: Lookout-Wife on January 10, 2005 03:23 PM
22. "There have been no verified charges of fraud or violations of law substantiated by anybody to date."

This seems to be the Dems' standard lie.

Fron AP:

"Another problem in King County: Nearly 350 provisional ballots were fed directly into vote-counting machines before election staffers could verify whether they were valid, [King County Elections Director Dean] Logan said."

Of course, counting provisional ballots without verifying them is a violation of law, as Rep. Hunt (like certain slimy trolls around here) knows very well.

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 03:24 PM
23. Lookout-wife: by the testimony given here, it appears the ballots were sent on time. Oct 13 would be on-time according to the federal settlement, and that's the date the Post Office apparently has for a large mailing of absentees.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 03:25 PM
24. It looks like this could get quite expensive for KC. Any legal costs to do with a contest will be paid by the losing party in the contest. I am sure the other counties with minor errors will sue KC to cover most of the costs. Also, I hope citizens of the state will sue KC for the cost of the hand recount and a re-vote.

I guess this would mean that the $4,000,000 cost of a re-vote complaint by some people (unless the are from KC) has no merit.

Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 03:27 PM
25. Steve and others,
Yes, in Minnesota in 1962 a Republican was in office for 3 months; a recount showed his Democratic rival had actually won by 91 votes. The Democrat then took office. A good article for everyone to read today is one written by John Fund at Opinion Journal:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006139
That's where I read the above info.

Posted by: Susan on January 10, 2005 03:27 PM
26. Doug, all counties appear to be named in the petition. On what basis do you suppose other counties could get relief for their mistakes--because in their view KC made more?

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 03:28 PM
27. Steve: you are right, if there was fraud we have an issue. After all the hot air posturing here (and by Vance), for months, claiming fraud, stealing, cheating, etc. -- guess what the republicans came up with by the time the lawsuit was to be filed: NOTHING!

No fraud!

So...waste of money (that tired old Republican phrase furthered by those who support administrations that increase spending MUCH more than Democrats) is totally applicable.

But your funniest part is about disenfranchised voters...after all, when the Ds suggested this after the vote was originally counted, the Rs were fervent in their "you lost, get over it", "if voters can't follow rules, forget 'em", "voter responsibility" comments. Now, they fight for the exact voters they dismissed before -- since counting all the votes actually showed Rossi lost!

Also, maybe Rossi would figure out a way to follow the US Senate Rs and relax ethics rules...his total disregard for the law (which he voted for) is an ethical disgrace on its face.

Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 03:29 PM
28. To a Democrat, a "broad perspective" is just a code-word for muddying the waters, or fuzzy thinking.

I think it means, "I'm smarter than you."

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 03:29 PM
29. I live in Bellevue and wrote my Dem. Rep. She replied with the "No evidence of fraud or Government error" line. I wrote back with the evidence of the 350 provisional ballots as government error. I don't think I will get another reply. I will be interested to see what happens with the mailed dates for the absentee ballots. I can add government error and lies to my next email.

Posted by: Citizen AY on January 10, 2005 03:30 PM
30. G Davis,

Question for you.... did you worked in the state of Washington Govs office somewhere around the early 90s? If the answer is yes then I think I know who you are.

S.

Posted by: SB on January 10, 2005 03:34 PM
31. Torridjoe,

The phrase “maybe shown” can easily mean using simple math. Like taking the difference between DR and CG in KC of 18% times the number of illegal votes in KC. I will us a number of 1500 (I would guess this low) – 1500*.18 = 270. This is far more than the 129-vote difference. I would expect a better way would be to do this by precinct. We will see how this works when the court gets to this.

The better argument for Rossi is the equal protection argument and misconduct by election officials. This effected many more ballots and the court are very likely to rule voters rights were infringed so much so as to make the election void.

Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 03:35 PM
32. G,
This has to be a watershead.
This is broken and it needs fixing. Whatever comes of this, it can't be same thing,same time next November. Lets tear it down and build it right. Lets spend what it takes to get one form of voting machine that we can all accept.
Lets throw the old man in jail who sent in his deceased wife's ballot.
Lets fire election workers who had provisional ballots stuffed in their precincts.
I have no confidence in the election process as it stands now. "Irregularities" seems like a nice word for some of the above.
Sure some of this could have happened in other counties. Lets look into it. Lets not call legit questions about double voting,dead voting,ballot box stuffing, etc mud slinging.
You seem sincere, just admit that there are those who run the dem machine who crossed the line in King county and I'll be standing there with a noose when/if we find voter fraud in Chelan or Snohomish co.

Posted by: Brad on January 10, 2005 03:37 PM
33. torridjoe,

It is common in suits that awards are divided up by a % relating to how much a given party contributed to the damage. Also, those counties that have few of no errors could sue KC for their part of the court costs.

Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 03:39 PM
34. Doug, sorry but you're taking "may be shown" out of context, and suggesting a procedure that doesn't meet that standard. "may be shown" refers to the votes that were identified in the first clause as having been erroneously awarded to a particular candidate. There must be an amount of votes that HAS been given, not MAY be given.

Your recitation of probability theory is EXACTLY what I indicated would be insufficient. On what grounds can you conclude that the 348 provisionals, or any unknown group of ballots for that matter, followed the pattern of votes overall in King County? You can't. You call it simple math, but it's only guesswork.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 03:44 PM
35. Torridjoe said:

"specifically the phrases "am amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested," and "after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.""

Convieniently, you left out the three words before that:

"No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that..."

All Rossi has to prove is that there could be enough illegal votes to change the outcome, not precisely how many (which can never be known).

When he has many times the 129-vote "victory" margin in probable illegal votes, I don't think any analysis is necessary. Besides, as you conveniently keep ignoring/forgetting, the fact that hundreds of provisional ballots were counted without being verified and the number of ballots counted exceeds the number of voters are sufficient reasons alone to throw out the election.

Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 10, 2005 03:47 PM
36. Doug--there are no "awards" to be made in this petition, since there are no damages to be awarded. And here's a tip: there ARE no counties where there were no errors. Such an entity does not exist in an election.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 03:48 PM
37. torridjoe,

I guess you will have to wait until the court rules to see that they will use some calculation like the one that I have shown. It is quite reasonable to use the %'s by precinct.

You seem to have ignored the equal protection and misconduct arguments. Again these are much stornger than the illegal votes.

Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 03:48 PM
38. "The trolls are getting desperate. "

They certainly seem that way. If they were confident that Rossi had no case, they'd be busy making sure the DNC was prepared.

Instead, they're here, repeating themselves endlessly and consuming Stefan's bandwidth.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 03:51 PM
39. torridjoe,

Yes there are awards. The winning side will be awarded their court costs. RCW 29A.68.060


Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 03:51 PM
40. scott--how would it APPEAR that an amount has been given, without any knowledge of how they WERE given? The court must assume that every unknown but contested ballot is potentially a ROSSI vote. Your conclusion is a hopeful one, but it doesn't match the wording of the statute, particularly in the clause at the bottom, which specifically notes that votes must be DEDUCTED, which they cannot be unless they are previously identified.

You are incorrect that hundreds of procedurally illegal votes, exceeding the margin of victory, is enough to set aside the election. It is only enough to CONTEST it, not to prevail. I have cited the part of the RCW where it shows what is necessary to set aside the election: illegal votes cast for the person the appellant claims did not win, in an amount sufficient to overturn the result.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 03:53 PM
41. I contacted my State Senator of the 46th district ,Ken Jacobsen, last Friday and again today with two totally different letters and received the same canned response each time.Actually the reply today came so fast I don't think anyone actually had enough time to read my letter.
What was that old saying about "taxation without representation " ?
Here's "Kens" reply
Some names have been omitted or changed to protect the unrepresented


Thanks *****, for contacting me regarding your concerns with the
recent Governor's race.

At this time, I feel that legislative action is not the course to take.
To put forward a bill supporting a revote will only insert partisan
politics further into this already very contentious issue. This action
additionally could create an alarming precedent that the legislature can
change the results of future elections if the result is not to their
liking.

Legal challenges on the validity of the results or voter fraud need to
be decided by the courts, not the legislature.

You can expect to see many legislators come forward this session with
their efforts to correct this problem and reassure our citizens about
the process. I am willing to support legislation that may improve the
election process in the future.

I appreciate your participation in the election. Feel free to contact me
again with any additional concerns.

Ken

***** = Insert name here :)

Posted by: N Seattle Mike on January 10, 2005 03:54 PM
42. Yep, everything that has been said about Dems towing the party line is true. I just got done watching the legislature in action. 25 yeah, 24 no to proceed to ratify CG tomorrow. There was some laughter when a comment was made about Locke having his boxes ready so he can get on with his move. I guess that is what it is all about, moving forward so he can move out. There was also rhetoric about "we need to have a governor in place", from what I read in front of the guy with the gavel in his hand, we could still have a governor in place. His plaque said Lt. Governor. Doesn't that mean anything?

It is really nauseating to watch, but I had to in order to put names and faces together. Now I know who not to vote for in the future.

Also, my mom received a message on her answering machine yesterday stating something to the affect of those OPPOSED to a revote meeting at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. Looks like we'll have more competition for parking.

This is one of those times where it seems that it will never end, but have faith, it will and it will be CG who has to "move on".

See you all tomorrow!

Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 10, 2005 03:54 PM
43. I should have noted that Tim Sheldon (D) was in support of delaying the ratification. I applaud him for that.

Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 10, 2005 03:56 PM
44. Jim, thanks for addressing my post, although I was careful to use "fraud" in a large sense. I don't know of a good container word that can describe all the shennanigans of lost ballots, missing ballots, delayed ballots, changed ballots, ballots from dead people, from felons, from non-citizens, ballots that don't match to any voters, unverified ballots slipped into the pool of valid ballots so that we don't know what ballots are valid or not, and so on.

As others have pointed out, it's not that a conspiracy or fraud is alleged - if you read the filing, I believe it points to specific acts that should lead to the vote being thrown out and a new vote ordered.

If an operative goes up to a homeless person and pays him to vote for Dino or for Chris, then that's likely fraud, but that isn't alleged. (Nor are other specific acts of like fraud alleged.) What is alleged is that the vote is compromised by incompetence and malfeasance. The incompetence and malfeasance may not be a result of bias or conspiracy - but the vote is compromised so that we cannot know who's really governor.

I changed my mind from a "move on" to a "throw out the vote" because I didn't see fraud. But I do see dead people voting. And non-citizens voting. And people voting fraudulently (not as a result of conspiracy, mind you), such as that lazy judge who registered to vote outside her district - and refuses to answer whether she voted for candidates and issues that she doesn't have the civil right to do so.

The vote as a whole is screwed up. If it were thousands of votes for the margin, perhaps the error rate wouldn't affect it. But we have enough incidents to suspect that through incompetence and malfeasance that the vote was compromised.

I heard that a few hundred military voters have claimed they received their ballots too late to post them due to the incompetence of the people mailing out the ballots. We're OK with that, apparently, because it's just too bad.

Because the margin of 129 votes is so small, and there are so many people who are not eligible to be voters in Washington State, the vote is compromised. That's my issue. If dead people are allowed to vote, doesn't that alarm anyone? If ballots appear and disappear - even if they are held in a glass safety box in Rainier Square - doesn't that seem very, very troublesome?

If the election is simply a coronation of the selected candidate, and the candidate is assured of victory through the incompentence and malfeasance of the ones counting and assembling the ballots, then we voters are disenfranchised - our votes literally do not count.

Doesn't it seem troublesome at all that King County is so reliably "Democrat" and is so reliable a source of extra votes for the "D" column? As if ballots and votes are assured to be found?

Posted by: steve miller on January 10, 2005 03:58 PM
45. Doug--that's not really an award in my estimation, it's a recovery. But it's not worth quibbling about.

Why do you suppose it's reasonable to use percentages to ajudicate the election? The statute neither references any such procedure, and in fact states otherwise--that the votes must be particularly identified. It makes no rational sense to do so, because there's no basis for assuming that a certain set of ballots will mimic the entire set. Some KC precincts went 70 or 80% for Gregoire IIRC, while others were assuredly less. Since we don't know where the ballots came from, we have no way of setting a standard for their theoretical allocation.

Please let me know what intentional misconduct or equal protection arguments you see. Rossi has ruled out the former, and the latter will be a dangerous tack to take if it makes it to the Supreme Court, where just a month ago Rossi argued NOT to accept the votes of some counties while accepting them from others.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 04:03 PM
46.
RCW 29A.68.011

Prevention and correction of election frauds and errors.

Any justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, or judge of the superior court in the proper county shall, by order, require any person charged with error, wrongful act, or neglect to forthwith correct the error, desist from the wrongful act, or perform the duty and to do as the court orders or to show cause forthwith why the error should not be corrected, the wrongful act desisted from, or the duty or order not performed, whenever it is made to appear to such justice or judge by affidavit of an elector that:

(1) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in printing the name of any candidate on official ballots; or

(2) An error other than as provided in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been committed or is about to be committed in printing the ballots; or

(3) The name of any person has been or is about to be wrongfully placed upon the ballots; or

(4) A wrongful act other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been performed or is about to be performed by any election officer; or

(5) Any neglect of duty on the part of an election officer other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has occurred or is about to occur; or

(6) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in the issuance of a certificate of election.

An affidavit of an elector under subsections (1) and (3) above when relating to a primary election must be filed with the appropriate court no later than the second Friday following the closing of the filing period for nominations for such office and shall be heard and finally disposed of by the court not later than five days after the filing thereof. An affidavit of an elector under subsections (1) and (3) of this section when relating to a general election must be filed with the appropriate court no later than three days following the official certification of the primary election returns and shall be heard and finally disposed of by the court not later than five days after the filing thereof. An affidavit of an elector under subsection (6) of this section shall be filed with the appropriate court no later than ten days following the issuance of a certificate of election.

(Emphasis added.)

Seems to me this gives the courts rather wide latitude in ordering errors by election officials corrected.

As I've said before, if someone can come up with another way to correct the wrongful acts of conty officials (including 348 illrgally-counted provisional ballots and an unknown number of ballots illegally enhanced to obscure voter intent), I'm willing to listen.

If you can't come up with another remedy, then you should stop opposing the only remedy thus far proposed.

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:04 PM
47. ScottM--who is the electoral official charged with error, wrongful act or neglect in the petition? I do n't see one. Furthermore, even if there were, the cite you have given gives the court latitude to order the OFFICIAL to correct the error. No electoral officials can correct any errors at this point. Again, please refer to .70 and .80 to see what the standard is for setting aside by virtue of electoral malconduct.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 04:11 PM
48. I had to leave in the middle of the Senate arguments for the ammendment to delay Gregoires certification for 2 weeks....

Can someone give me the run down on what happened?

Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 04:11 PM
49. Cry babies cry, I haven't seen such sorry losers since my 6 year old threw the board at his 8 year old brother after he lost a board game. lol Keep dreaming up conspiracy theories, maybe they will do another X-Files movie that you will be getting good practice in.

Posted by: Rob Kaufman on January 10, 2005 04:19 PM
50. torridjoe sez "ScottM--who is the electoral official charged with error, wrongful act or neglect in the petition? I do n't see one."

Really? I found it right away. It's on page 4 of the petition:

"Respondents and their agents have failed to perform their obligations under the
constitutions of the State of Washington and the United States and election laws, they have
made errors and been negligent, and they have committed other wrongful acts that render
the true results of the election impossible to determine."

(Emphasis added.)

Perhaps you should read more slowly and sound each word out.

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:20 PM
51. Here's my take on the math for proving the "errors" in King county rise to the level of requiring a new vote:

There are four possible assumptions to make about those ballots.

1. They all went to the Democrat
2. They all went to the Republican
3. They broke down roughly along the percentage of the rest of the King County voters with no spoiled ballots
4. They were a mixture of votes for all three candidates with a 2% vote spoilage rate (which mirrors the overall King County no vote for governor rate)

Given that those votes were found across the county it is unlikely that they all went for one candidate and it is also unlikely that a court can assume that all ballots had a vote for governor. Therefore we use option four.

Take the 350 provissional ballots that were fed in error factor in the 2% spoilage rate and divide the remainder by the percentage of voters Dino and Christine got from King County this and then subtract that from the vote totals Christine (58%) loses 197 votes while Dino losses 136 (40%) votes, and the rest go to other candidates. Then the gap shrinks to 68 votes, down from 129.

So Dino then needs to find 68 illeagal votes from other sources--the dead, felons, double votes, etc. . .

Anyone have any tallies for those?

warning--I'm not a lawyer and have no idea what courts would actually do. And I'm not sure if the 2% rate is correct as that does not seem to account for write in candidates.

Regards from Juneau

Oh, and off topic here--Fire Holmgren!

Posted by: Grey on January 10, 2005 04:23 PM
52. Which respondents (which include non-persons and officials uninvolved with the actual processing of ballots) are connected to which errors, negligencies and wrongful acts? Is Rossi alleging that Dean Logan put 348 ballots through the machine himself? That he personally mailed absentees late? That he ehanced some ballots himself?

Furthermore, how would the court direct Logan and others to correct their mistake?

If you're going to be snarky, at least make a useful point. You cited an inapplicable part of the statute, as it refers to the standard for setting aside an election.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 04:25 PM
53. Torridjoe,

First, many of the illegal votes can be identified by precinct. The court has wide latitude to use the %’s for precincts to assign the illegal votes the each candidate. The code does not specify and when leg. do not specify they leave it open to the courts interpation. This is what will happen here. The court will assign the votes using a calculation like the one I have suggested. Feel free to suggest how you think the court would assign these votes. Just stating that they will not because they cannot know is not enough. If one can contest an election because of illegal votes than the court can assume the votes changed the election and rule how to assign those votes.

Second, you added the word intentional. That is not in the code. By adding intentional you are trying to make the standard fraud (intentional misconduct is fraud). Misconduct defined simply is not doing what one knows should be done (like maintaining a up to date registration file, mailing military ballots in a timely fashion, etc. – see Contest Complaint) or doing what one knows should not be done (enhancing ballots improperly, vetting ballots with different standards, etc).

The Rossi complaint and admissions by KC make it clear that many thousands of ballots were handled in such a way that misconduct is easily established.

Both sides have used the equal protection argument. Many of the items in the complaint clearly show where equal protection can be applied to many items. Your statement that because Rossi argued NOT to accept the votes of some counties while accepting them from others really is just an effort to avoid the issue. Either some ballots (voters) were treated with preference or they were not. I believe it is obvious that many were.

Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 04:28 PM
54. I just heard the Dems ad on the KLSY. O MY GOD! I actually heard people laugh in my office. It is so TRANSPARENT! They keep saying that there was no fraud, but the re-vote and Republican's didn't even mention that in the lawsuit. They said "iregularaties and mistakes". (even though I do beleive that there was fraud).

Anyhow, just thought I would share that. I hadn't heard it before.. but it was sure good for a laugh.

Oh... after 3 emails to my Senetor (Rasmussen-D 2nd Leg Dist) I finally got a response telling me that she would come out with a response sometime today (I got this AFTER the vote to deley and had asked specificaly to hear BEFORE...) Hmmm.. think she will loose her position next term. 58% of this dist voted for Rossi.

Posted by: Cascadekid on January 10, 2005 04:30 PM
55. Don't feed the trolls!

Posted by: Benny on January 10, 2005 04:31 PM
56. Grey--there were other candidates on the ballot, so you need more options. But it cannot be safely said that the ballots in question did not all go to one candidate. What if it were indeed intentional misconduct on the part of voter(s) or official(s)? Did it ever occur that perhaps there was a concerted effort to sneak those ballots in on behalf of ROSSI?

I'm not saying that's what happened--I think it was relatively random--but it cannot be discounted. Surely if fraud can be alleged about these ballots being deposited illegally for Gregoire (as I've seen speculated on here), it can be alleged equally so as Rossi ballots. Since we don't know, we cannot say.

And the spoilage rate would be 0%, wouldn't it?--since they all made it through the machine?

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 04:32 PM
57. Doug, I really wouldn't bother; he has made this argument repeatedly for days. And this is the same guy who thinks that "overenfranchisement" is a more appropriate word than "disenfranchisement."

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 04:32 PM
58. Oops, left this comment on the wrong post when it belonged here.
----------------------------------------
Stefan,

I received the form email response from Clibborn that you excerpted. I also received this one from Fred Jarrett R - 41st district:

Max,

Thank you for your note regarding the re-vote and petition efforts.

I have been closely watching the process the counties and Secretary of
State have been going through to determine who, in fact, won the
election. While it has been a difficult and messy process, it has
followed the law as passed by prior legislatures, and it seems
appropriate for it to follow that process to the end.

I anticipate the Rossi campaign may ask the legislature to overturn the
Secretary of State's certification and declare a second election in
February. If so, the request is an appropriate one, however, the burden
of the case for the re-vote rests with the Rossi campaign. And the
responsibility for judging their case will rest with those of us in the
legislature.

I am prepared to make that judgment, but only after the evidence has
been laid out by the campaign. That has not been done yet. Until then,
I view the legislature's role in making a judgment as being
"quasi-judicial", or simply stated, similar to that of the courts and
one where appearance of a fair process is lost once an opinion on the
outcome is given.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write and share your views and
concerns. Please stay in touch as we work through the next phase of
this process. The history of this election certainly suggests it will
have more surprises!

Sincerely,

Fred Jarrett
State Representative
41st Legislative District
---------------------------

I don't get it, Fred.

Posted by: max on January 10, 2005 04:32 PM
59. A whole lot of people need to be fired, very publicly.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 04:33 PM
60. One day---and you'll need a new issue.

Posted by: headless lucy on January 10, 2005 04:34 PM
61. Oops, forgot in my cruel glee to respond to torridjoe's other points.

"Furthermore, even if there were, the cite you have given gives the court latitude to order the OFFICIAL to correct the error. No electoral officials can correct any errors at this point."

Sure they can. They can run a new election. That's who runs elections, you know. Officials.

"Again, please refer to .70 and .80 to see what the standard is for setting aside by virtue of electoral malconduct."

Well, .80 specifically relate to county elections. That's why it starts out "When any election for an office exercised in and for a county is contested..."

As for .70, the whole point is that we don't know. It's perfectly possible--eve probable--that the misconduct was enough to swing the election to Gregoire.

And .110, which I believe you also mentioned, relates specifically to allegations of illegal votes.

The whole point of this contest is that we can't possibly know how many illegal votes were cast. If we could, we'd want the courts to overturn the election and install Rossi as governor. Instead, we merely ask them to order the correction of official error in the only way possible (as I say, I'm willing to discuss other possible remedies, except you people won't ever propose any).

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:34 PM
62. Bostonian,

Your are right. Just wanted to make my point. I guess he will find out in a few weeks what the court is going to do.

Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 04:35 PM
63. Doug,

Well, it's not a bad thing to get exercise, and occasionally it's just too too tempting....

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 04:38 PM
64. Well, torridjoe, now you seem to be suggesting that if known misconduct cannot be tied to a specific person by name, then it must be ignored and can never, ever be corrected.

That is, of course, ridiculous, but I understand why it would appeal to a Democrat. It would make coverups much, much easier.

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:39 PM
65. I wonder if there's a federal civil rights case in here?

If the government of a state permits its citizens to be disenfranchised, then how is that to be corrected? Didn't some of the 60s voting cases go to federal court?

Anyway, it's clear that the Democratic politicians in this state have no regard for Republican voters.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 04:44 PM
66. Doug:
Do you have an example of this latitude to estimate, that you have given the court? The code DOES in fact stipulate how they must be assigned--by showing who they are for. Read the clause again:

"unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested"

Absent identified votes, that amount is presumed to be zero. There is no frame of reference that may be used to estimate the ballots, because the ballots cannot be produced. There is no reason at all why they could not be all Rossi votes, or 60% Rossi votes, or 90% Gregoire votes, or all Gregoire votes. Similarly, there is no way to show which possibility is correct or most likely, since they are all plausible. You said:

"If one can contest an election because of illegal votes than the court can assume the votes changed the election and rule how to assign those votes."

On what basis can they assume it? Please cite either current code or state legal precedent to support that argument. I'd argue you are putting the cart WAY before the horse--you can't assume they changed the election until you assign the votes.

I added the word intentional because it's a clear part of the standard for setting aside based on misconduct. Again, refer to .70 and .80:

"No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of any election board or any member of the board amounts to such malconduct as to annul or set aside any election unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes." (that's .070)

...unless the improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office to be declared duly elected. To procure is to actively bring about. What the code says is that you can't annul based on mere misconduct--it must be shown that the misconduct occured in order to elevate the loser to be the winner. Procurement is intentional, it cannot be by accident or serendipity. That is an acquired result, not a procured one.

Which voters were treated with preference in this election? I don't mean who, I mean which groups of voters?

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 04:44 PM
67. Anyone see this from the Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002146612_opened10.html

I am confident that under Rob McKenna, we will see government becoming much more transparent. Perhaps we should petition his Administration for an investigation into King County Elections, but more specifically the Public Disclosure compliance.

Furthermore, I think this whole fiasco has reached the level of political ripeness for a favorable decision by the State Supreme Court. But besides the court challenge, we need to work on the local levels across Washington to keep public opinion positive towards Rossi.

The kindling grows drier everyday, and a fire should be fairly easy to start, given all of the irregularities exposed by SP and others. In closing, write you local editors, councilman, etc. and let them know Fraudoire is not, and never will be your governor.

Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 10, 2005 04:48 PM
68. Joe - The military vote was treated with indifference. Maybe that was the preferred way to treat the military vote.

Posted by: Mike J on January 10, 2005 04:50 PM
69. There is no reason to expect that fraudulent ballots will be created/cast in the same proportion as legitimate ones. Indeed, it is likely that they will be heavily skewed toward one side or the other.

There is clear documented misfeasance if not malfeasance on the part of King County election officials. Although it is vaguely conceivable that Democratic election officials might want to help the Republicans, it seems rather unlikely.

Perhaps Gregoire won legitimately, perhaps not. Because of the improper acts of Democrat officials, however, anomolies exist which are indistinguishable from fraud. In general, when a party acts illegally to destroy evidence, the presumption is that the evidence that was destroyed would have been detrimental to the destroying party.

Actually, in asking for a re-vote, Dino Rossi is in a way being generous. Given that King County improperly "enhanced" ballots during the handcount, thus destroying any evidence of its legitimacy, it would be perfectly reasonable for King County's hand-count to be thrown out entirely, allowing to stand the previous machine tally. Although Dino Rossi's reasons for not seeking such a remedy are not purely altruistic (he wants to avoid any charges of being 'selected not elected') the fact remains that his willingness to accept a rematch is generous compared with what he could demand.

Posted by: supercat on January 10, 2005 04:50 PM
70. torridjoe: First of all, please provide evidence to back up your claim on the legal definition of "procure."

Secondly, I think you're misinterpreting the law.

Clearly, if the only error we knew about was that, say, 15 provisional ballots had been unlawfully counted at poll sites, then RCW 29A.68.070 would require that the election stand. The misconduct would not have swung the election to Gregoire.

Your interpretation, on the other hand, is an engraved invitation to election fraud, delivered by an elegant butler on a silver salver.

A poll worker could stand at the poll site machine feeding in dozens of illegal provisional ballots, and the election results would still have to stand because the illegal ballots couldn't be sorted out from the rest? That's what you're claiming, but I seriously doubt that such was the intent of the legislature.

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:56 PM
71. Whew! Hot around here...

Let torridjoe burn himself out. I don't doubt the court will grant relief from his obvious misunderstanding (or ignorance) of the law.

Perhaps one day he will pass the Bar, but until he stops frequenting the bar, ain't gonna happen...

Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 05:03 PM
72. ScottM--they can RUN a new election, but they cannot ORDER one. You cannot run one until it is ordered. At this stage, the electoral officials can do nothing. Their jobs are finished. The court must correct any errors at this stage, obviously. That's why the cite is irrelevant to determining the standard of annulment.

.080 may be a predominantly county-based citation, but the contest naturally affects county elections, since entire ballots are being alleged as invalid.

Your comment on .070 is curious. Funnily enough, my point is also that we don't know. Which means that Rossi cannot gain relief on this point--if we don't know, too bad. According to statute, it can only be set aside if we know.

.110 indeed refers to allegations of illegal votes, and how they may be treated in contest. Specifically, if you can't show that a certain number were given to a candidate who did not deserve them, sufficient to change the result, you're out of luck.

How does a revote correct the error? By law, it cannot--the same procedures will be used, by largely the same people. You've touched on exactly the point Rossi should grasp: THERE IS NO REMEDY. There is no step that can be undertaken, that would show us who won on November 2nd. That day has passed.

As for your interpretation of the "elections officials correcting errors" section, I don't agree with your conception. I said that you can't have someone fix an error that you are unaware they have committed. And I'm not a Democrat, thank you for presuming.

Doug and Bostonian--if you feel I am wrong, cite the statutes and refute my points. There's a reason few give the petition much chance if any of passage; the grounds do not currently exist. I am simply pointing out exactly where that argument comes from. Saying "nuh-uh" is not sufficient as a counter to that.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 05:03 PM
73. KING 5 reports that a D vote with the Rs today in the Senate to block certification! But the Ds still prevailed...

See: http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_011005POKcapitalopens.9751a9d7.html (registration req)

KING 5 is also onto the protest, and I think it's safe to say that there will be good coverage of the "protest"! Make BIG signs, bring bullhorns, streamers, American flags, noisemakers, etc. BUT ABOVE ALL, BE THERE OR BE SQUARE!

Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 10, 2005 05:04 PM
74. OK..I found that most of the media is reporting on what happened in the state senate today - with regard to delaying the Gregoire certification..

Here is a snippet from KOMO:

"Washington Legislature Convenes 2005 Session

January 10, 2005

By KOMO Staff & News Services
Tools
Email This Story
Printer-friendly Version

OLYMPIA - Washington's new legislative session opened on a sharply partisan note Monday as the Democrats rallied around their embattled governor-elect, Christine Gregoire, refusing to let Republicans block certification of her narrow election.

By the narrowest possible margin, Democrats in the Senate rebuffed efforts by minority Republicans to force a two-week delay in issuing Gregoire a certificate of election. She needs the certificate to be inaugurated on Wednesday.

The vote was 25-24 to reject the Republicans' motion. Maverick conservative Tim Sheldon was the only Democrat to vote with the solid bloc of Republicans. Sheldon supported the Republican candidate, Dino Rossi, the former Senate budget chairman.

Republicans said the election was riddled with errors serious enough to undermine voter confidence and to throw the outcome in doubt. Democrats said Rossi and the Republicans are correctly taking their challenge to the courts, and not getting the Legislature involved.

House Republicans planned a similar effort Tuesday in the Legislature."

I watched most of it on TV..I was truly amazed at the blatant disregard of the Democrat Senators for the common sense arguments made by the Republicans to delay the governor's certification for 2 weeks! They just told the people of this state that they don't give a damn! They want their *D* girl to be Governor and legal votes be damned!

Let's see how the House does tomorrow.......

Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 05:04 PM
75. Dino Rossi's letter to Christine Gregoire is a clear and honest assessment of why a revote is important to our state.

Regardless of outcome, Dino recognizes this election is flawed. Some will say that contesting the election is sour grapes. But, it must be done. If not Dino, it would of been Christine contesting the election. Some will accept and promote the courts ruling as the final say, but others won't.

That is the irony. Without a re-vote nearly half (if not more) will feel the result was illegitimate. No healing tour, hand holding or "let's move on" mantra will fix that result. Dino is being generous and respecting what needs to happen to start any measure of "healing".

The first stop in the "healing tour" should be the courts decision. There's nothing wrong with just waiting till then. Next stop, some spring cleaning in King County.

Posted by: Mike J on January 10, 2005 05:05 PM
76. torridjoe:

"ScottM--they can RUN a new election, but they cannot ORDER one."

Well, duh. That's why Rossi has asked the court, and many of us have asked the legislature, to order one. I'm not even sure what point you think you're making here.

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 05:07 PM
77. ScottM,

Oh, please don't pull that string in his chest anymore...I can't take it! AAARRRGG!!!

Cheers,
Shaun

Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 05:10 PM
78. Shaun:

Well, at least he's trying to construct arguments ad build a case for himself. He's even citing law. That's better than most of his ilk do.

I've given up, for example, trying to talk to "jim" and "Magnum Serpentine."

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 05:12 PM
79. This was Posted by max at January 10, 2005 04:32 PM --

Stefan,

I received the form email response from Clibborn that you excerpted. I also received this one from Fred Jarrett R - 41st district:

Max,

Thank you for your note regarding the re-vote and petition efforts.

I have been closely watching the process the counties and Secretary of State have been going through....

I anticipate the Rossi campaign may ask the legislature to overturn the Secretary of State's certification and declare a second election in
February. If so, the request is an appropriate one, however, the burden of the case for the re-vote rests with the Rossi campaign. And the
responsibility for judging their case will rest with those of us in the legislature.

I am prepared to make that judgment, but only after the evidence has been laid out by the campaign. That has not been done yet. Until then, I view the legislature's role in making a judgment as being "quasi-judicial", or simply stated, similar to that of the courts and
one where appearance of a fair process is lost once an opinion on the outcome is given.

Again, thank you....

Sincerely,

Fred Jarrett
State Representative
41st Legislative District

---------------------------

I don't get it, Fred.

Posted by max at January 10, 2005 04:32 PM


Max --

Your representative just gave you the best answer you could possibly hope to receive.

He said the evidence has to be examined by the legislature before the legislature makes a decision.

I was surprised to see that -- but then I looked back at the beginning and saw the "R".

Happily, Rep. Jarrett seems to understand the law which he has sworn to uphold. He knows that the evidence must be heard, and the contest must be decided by the legislature. He also knows that he shouldn't be expressing an opinion about how the contest should be decided until he has actually heard the evidence.

Give him a big hug! You are fortunate to be represented by someone like that.

Posted by: Micajah on January 10, 2005 05:12 PM
80. A poll worker could stand at the poll site machine feeding in dozens of illegal provisional ballots, and the election results would still have to stand because the illegal ballots couldn't be sorted out from the rest? That's what you're claiming, but I seriously doubt that such was the intent of the legislature.

torridjoe: To amplify ScottM's point, suppose that 100 people voted in an election and the final tally were 1,001 votes for Candidate #1 and 99 votes for Candidate #2. Should one rule candidate #1 the winner because the "extra" ballots presumably appear in the same ratio as legitimate ones (i.e. Candidate #1 got 91 legitimate votes and 910 "extra" votes, while Candidate #2 got 9 legitimate votes and 90 "extra" votes)?

In the above example, even though it's clear that something is fishy, the only things that can be proven are (1) that Candidate #1 probably got at least one real vote (though if a voter abstained, even that might not be provable); (2) Candidate #1 got at least 901 dubious votes (the margin of victory, though, is 902). Since it can't be proven that 902 or more of the dubious votes were cast for Candidate #1, is there any reason the election shouldn't stand?

Even in extreme examples like the above, there won't be proof that a particular person was elected by fraud (even though a casual observer seeing the above numbers would probably guess that Candidate #2 got 99% of the "real" votes). How, then, could one ever expect proof to exist that bogus votes did, in fact, tip an election?

Posted by: supercat on January 10, 2005 05:14 PM
81. ScottM,

True, true. But the updated Geneva Convention has statutes covering this kind of blogging activity, and clearly it has exceeded the refined definition of "torture"...something about virtual organ failure, I think....

Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 05:14 PM
82. Hooray for our leglislature!

They have voted to unhold the law!

We should rejoice...we don't live in anarchy after all (don't like the law....try to avoid it).

Everyone here should celebrate....this is a great sign for our state government. We don't let election losers change the law, after the fact, to benefit themselves.

Phew! All this blogging had me nervous...but sanity rules! Democracy rules!

Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 05:19 PM
83. ScottM--the legal definition of procure would be highly similar to the dictionary definition. It is an active verb, meaning to get by special effort, obtain or bring about. As to the intent of the legislature--don't get me started on the unintended consequences of legislation. The law is quite clear: bring hither the illegal ballots, such that we can determine that the winner in fact lost. That cannot be accomplished. As for invitiations to fraud--laws don't prevent fraud; they proscribe it. A human system will always be subject to fraud, no matter how many laws you write.

And then you claim you don't know what my point is. My point was that the statute you brought up was totally irrelevant to the question of annulment. It refers to the court being able to order named officials to correct errors they have committed. Since you seem to stipulate that ordering a new election is not part of an election official's powers, why do you believe the cite is relevant at all? There are two very specific points in 29A 68 that indicate what is necessary for annulment: malconduct that PROCURES a different result; and illegal votes IDENTIFIED such that their total exceeds the margin of victory when taken away from the putative winner. If they can't be identified as Gregoire votes, she can't have them taken away. And it is unknown in the vast majority of cases, which were votes for Gregoire. Could be all, could be none, could be anywhere in between.

Failing one of those two circumstances, there is no provision in the RCW to set aside.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 05:21 PM
84. jim-bo,

Enjoy it while it lasts. See you in court!

Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 05:21 PM
85. Jim,

You said,

"Hooray for our leglislature!

They have voted to unhold the law!" UNHOLD the law, how appropriate.

Sit back and watch the court case(s) as all of this unfolds. Then you will really have the opportunity to witness the law being UPHELD.

Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 10, 2005 05:23 PM
86. A fool wrote:

"They have voted to unhold the law!"

No kidding...

Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 05:23 PM
87. Orange Robyn,

Unhold the law! I love it! :)

Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 05:25 PM
88. supercat--your analogy is a little confusing. 100 ballots yields 1100 votes for a candidate? I'm not sure how to parse what you're saying. But whatever the final count is, unless you can show specific ballots that change the result, or an attempt at fraud to change the result, the final count is the final count.

Can you restate it if I've missed the point?
Thanks

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 05:28 PM
89. Gross incompetence by election officials is offensive. The cover-up of incompetence is much worse.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 10, 2005 05:29 PM
90. torridjoe: You seem wedded to this notion that no known error can be corrected unless the names of the people directly responsible are known, and so long as those names can be hidden, the error must be ignored. I think the silliness of this notion is obvious.

And here's the relevant dictionary definition of "procure": "2. To bring about; effect."

One des not "acquire" someone else's election, one brings it about (I knew you were going to cite the wrong definition as soon as I looked it up). And one can certainly bring something about unintentionally.

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 05:31 PM
91. Shaun: Maybe you're right. At least he tries, though, God bless him.

Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 05:33 PM
92. Please - don't let what happened in the legislature keep you from being present tomorrow morning. Wear orange! Smile, knowing that this is just a step in the process. Take a cue from Dino (although this is about much more than him now), keep your chin up, smile and keep composed, unlike C.G. who last time I saw a clip of her was obviously nervous and worried. It was she on election night that told her supporters "victory comes to those who wait." She, likely will end up eating those words.

Still Orange (maybe now more than ever),

Robyn

Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 10, 2005 05:34 PM
93. Torridjoe,

Check out the particulars of North Carolina's recent revote. Like it or not, it will become relevant. If Rossi's case is tossed out because of the [fradulent] issues you have raised about the RCW, it will end up in the Supreme Court with that case as precedence.

Posted by: Kristan on January 10, 2005 05:35 PM
94. supercat--your analogy is a little confusing. 100 ballots yields 1100 votes for a candidate?

King County's actual figures are rather less extreme, but they report at least 1,217 more ballots cast than people voting. In other words, there are known to have been at least 1,217 illegal ballots counted. In my example, the number of real voters was much smaller than in King County, but my point was that once illegal ballots have been added to the ballot pool, it will be impossible to definitively prove that they in fact tipped the election even when it would appear obvious that they almost certainly did so.

BTW, I misstated the margin of victory in the above example; it was 1002, not 902.

Posted by: supercat on January 10, 2005 05:35 PM
95. torridjoe,

The saying "One who does not want to seek the truth will never find it" applys to you.

Once the contest is settled I hope you will come back to this site and admit your narrow mind ness.

Until then you should quit trying to act like you know the law better than anybody else. My limited experience with the law has shown me that courts will listen to the arguments and then in cases like this will rule in favor of protecting the people’s right to equal protection (check the complaint for the equal protection actions).

Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 05:38 PM
96. Well, the worst I was called is a fool...that's an improvement!

See you in court is right! Given that the Rs claimed "fraud, cheating, stealing" for 2 months and couldn't even come up with one example to put in their case....the court battle will be easy!

Time to call it a day...save your money...run a better candidate in 2008.....does Arnold have a younger sibling? Perhaps he could move here and resurrect the republicans....this experience (constant flip flopping by Rossi/Vance such as "concede TO no i won't concede" or "bah humbug to disenfranchised voters" TO "hey what about all our disenfranchised voters!" or "don't change the rules" TO "change the biggest rule, the election law!") has left the republicans with not only no branch of state government, but also the biggest hole they've had in a long long time here.

Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 05:47 PM
97. Everyone who is surprised that the Democrat-controlled state Senate chose to ignore the violations of the law in this election... raise your hand.

If they think the voters will forget this, they're mistaken.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 05:54 PM
98. "(constant flip flopping by Rossi/Vance such as "concede TO no i won't concede" "

Gregoire could have conceded after losing two counts. But then after finding votes on 9 occassions - granted, the numbers changed...(thanks in large part, I believe, to illegal votes)...why on earth would he concede after realizing that the election was fixed?

or "bah humbug to disenfranchised voters"

Are you referring to our response when the provisional voter list was handed to the dem operatives so they could try to gather signatures of people who hadn't followed the rules? Or are you referring to the efforts made later to include other disqualified ballots?

TO "hey what about all our disenfranchised voters!"

Good point! Why should you get to hold on to your disenfranchised, while we can't have ours?

or "don't change the rules"

For instance,keeping them straight across the board? Statewide? You have a problem with that standard?

TO "change the biggest rule, the election law!")

You can't possibly be referring to the "whoever finds the most ballots in the third count wins" law?

If it weren't for double standards, you'd have none at all.

Posted by: Julie on January 10, 2005 05:59 PM
99. Very disappointed in the senate vote but not surprised. Nice to know there is one democrat, Sheldon, who's got guts. I assume it was straight part line - did any GOP members vote yes?

Posted by: CP on January 10, 2005 06:07 PM
100. They may railroad her in. But we will all be there when she is kicked the hell out!

Posted by: GS on January 10, 2005 06:07 PM
101. jim,

Remember, no matter what happens here in the state of Washington...you'll have to look nationally and contemplate - FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 06:08 PM
102. What is the breakdown of GOP and dems in the state house. Maybe we have a better chance there?

Posted by: CP on January 10, 2005 06:10 PM
103. Any idea when the the court in Chelan County will be coming down with a ruling?

Posted by: Canadian Conservative on January 10, 2005 06:22 PM
104. Torid Joe - I must say Joe, you are presently an idiot, a word I do not use lightly.

Your arguments above that 1) unless an individual can be identified who commmitted fraud or mismangement then there can be no remedy and that 2) since the ballots in question cannot be identified as to the voted candidate there can be no remedy leaves me wondering if you have the capacity to reason.

With such 'logic' one might say if a business is robbed an insurance company would make no bond payment if the criminal and money were not found.

You seem to have no sense of justice Joe. Wrongs have been committed which in their degree very well could have resulted in a different election outcome. That is all that is needed to be shown under the contest case.

The actions of KC appear on their face to be misfesance allowing for distributed fraud, but I do not rule out the possibility of out right top down fraud from Sims office. There is definately a cover-up going on to cover at the least incompetence, ie the changing of the by mail ballot date late last night on the KC website - likely to avoid federal heat. (Didn't Martha go to jail for trying to deceive the feds? Maybe we could sew together our orange outfits after the rally to fit out Sims, Logan and a few other KC big dogs in orange jumpers.)

Well Joe, j-u-s-t-i-c-e find out what it means to me, else the republic is lost. :-)!

Posted by: Jericho on January 10, 2005 06:25 PM
105. I got a very nice response from Pat Sullivan - D. I was impressed. He said that at this point, it should be decided by the court - not a partisan legislature. He put it nicely though.

Posted by: Julie on January 10, 2005 06:27 PM
106. I just want to make one thing clear. When I started posting here, I was using "Jim" only. Then I saw posts by "jim" and had to change to my current posted by.

So, please don't confuse any of my first posts with the troll.

Thank you for your consideration. :-)

Posted by: Jim in Clark County on January 10, 2005 06:31 PM
107. Methinks some of you think more of yourselves than you ought.

Let us not quibble over some arcane and abstruse legal codes.

Polls...trolls...schmolls Votes...goats...boats.

What does it matter?

Plan to see me on my Great Washington State Healing Tour. Starting soon.

Just gaze into my eyes and you will feel better about everything.

Don't forget to bring your wallets, as I will be asking for donations for the next four years!

Repeat after me, "I feel better now, I feel better now, I feel better now."

CG the great healer

Posted by: thegreatone on January 10, 2005 06:42 PM
108. Responses with *** below

"(constant flip flopping by Rossi/Vance such as "concede TO no i won't concede"

Gregoire could have conceded after losing two counts. But then after finding votes on 9 occassions - granted, the numbers changed...(thanks in large part, I believe, to illegal votes)...why on earth would he concede after realizing that the election was fixed?

*** ROSSI was fine and dandy with every part of the election as long as it stopped before all the votes were counted. He didn't want the process to finish...even though HE HIMSELF voted for just that process!! Fixed...The Rs could come up with ZERO examples to put in their own lawsuit! Yet Us e incomplete, selective statements enough and expect people will believe they are true (like Rs believe in fiscal responsibility -- our deficit says otherwise; like Rs believe in smaller government; government grows much bigger than uder Ds...etc. etc. etc.) which is a strategy O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Medved, Savage, Coulter, etc. have perfected.


or "bah humbug to disenfranchised voters"

Are you referring to our response when the provisional voter list was handed to the dem operatives so they could try to gather signatures of people who hadn't followed the rules? Or are you referring to the efforts made later to include other disqualified ballots?

*** I am referring to the line from Rs that demonized the Ds for wanting all votes to be counted -- including those that followed all the rules but didn't have their votes count. At the time the Rs said tough....their votes didn't count because they didn't follow the rules (as you point out). Even though they DID follow the rules! PS...both sides tried to get signatures...I had a friend contacted by an R operative who asked who she had voted for (her vote was one of those posted on the web as not having been counted), she said "Gregoire" and he hit the road.

TO "hey what about all our disenfranchised voters!"

Good point! Why should you get to hold on to your disenfranchised, while we can't have ours?

*** When Rossi was ahead, the line was from the Rs that there are NO disenfranchised voters (just stupid voters who can't follow rules). Now that he's behind...lo and behold, there they are! How can you have it both ways?

or "don't change the rules"

For instance,keeping them straight across the board? Statewide? You have a problem with that standard?

*** I have a problem for inserting new rules instead of following the existing ones! If that was the law...great. But it's not. And again, Rossi had NO problem until he fell behind. He wanted Gregoire to concede. You may not like the law. But it is the law and it was the law during the election (and Rossi voted for that law!). Going to the courts is an attempt to go around the law. Yes, I have a HUGE problem with that. As did Rossi until all the votes were counted and he was behind. Change the law in the future....but you can't change the law after the fact because you don't like the result. Rossi has said "gregoire wants to keep counting until she wins" when she wnated all votes counted. Now that they've been counted, Rossi wants to count nearly 3,000,000 more! Because he lost...of course. Hence, all the Rossi flip-flops...

TO "change the biggest rule, the election law!")

You can't possibly be referring to the "whoever finds the most ballots in the third count wins" law?

*** Yes, I am. It's the law. Hand recount included. Rossi voted for it . Let's respect the law, please. It what makes our state great. You know if Rossi were ahead 100 votes, you'd be fine and dandy with following the law and chiding the Ds if they brought the exact same lawsuit the Rs brought.

I'm not too naive to think you care about any of these items. You want Rossi elected so badly (even though he received fewer votes) that you want to do a revote. I understand that. But it's just not the law. We'd be in anarchy if our wants superceded the law whenever we chose. Don't you agree?

If it weren't for double standards, you'd have none at all.

*** And thanks for not calling me names...it's refreshing. Excpet for that attack on my standards...

Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 06:43 PM
109. Jim from Clark County calls me a troll.

Can't people who believe in what they say not resort to name calling?

It gets tiresome...

Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 06:45 PM
110. Misfeasance, malfeasance and the occasional Rep entreaty for others to recuse themselves all sound very half-smart and slightly amusing-- like a 10 year old who has more words at his command than he knows the meanings of. I'll make it simplefor you : 01/12/2005

Posted by: headless lucy on January 10, 2005 06:48 PM
111. Does anyone recall the Al Gore quote on the election fraud (Clinton election fundraising fraud that is). Something about how it wasn't a crime for him to violate the law about raising money under the rubric of the vice-president's office because there was "no controlling legal authority" to tell him he couldn't? Even though it is written law.
Same-O Same-O it sounds like. Washington state has the same issues we labor under in the "cheese" state of Wisconsin. Milwaukee (city) had more votes cast than elegible voters. Gee, and it went for the Democrats. No noticable connection there, just a (happy?) coincidence.

Posted by: Chris on January 10, 2005 06:48 PM
112. Anyone know where I can buy a can of "Troll Be Gone"? The comments are growing exponentially, not the least because trolls are being given undue attention.

Engage where you will, but it's usually a waste of time.

Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 10, 2005 06:50 PM
113. I'm in Tenn, will call my senator. We cannot allow "behavior" like this to enter our election system. We RISK letting others learn how to corrupt and take over our system. I suggest CALLS to the DOJ about the military ballots and asking them what they think about what you found...regarding the dates. IF anyone addressed this I haven't read it yet, It wasn't about the governor's race it was the Presidential race. How close was WA . . . any internal polls???

Posted by: Soupy2 on January 10, 2005 06:54 PM
114. jim,

Your logic is circular and convoluted.

Since you like laws so much, I noticed one you have not mentioned - it is against state law to enhance a ballot while permantently obscuring the original vote/ballot.

King County did this repeatedly during the recounts, and this alone could get the whole thing thrown out.

Why do you keep saying there are zero examples? I don't believe that the Republicans have to show evidence yet - they're not in a court of law. Do you have to provide evidence that you were hit by an uninsured driver in order to sue them? Nope - that's what the court case is for.

The Rossi campaign and the Republicans have more than enough evidence to present at the RIGHT time. At the moment they are letting all interested parties, including Ron Sims, Dean Logan, and even Sam Reed, twist in the wind, giving them just enough rope to hang themselves.

I refer back to one of my earlier posts - the woman in the homeless shelter in the 36th district who voted 8 times. How? Moveon.org obtained ballots for her, filled them out for her, signed them for her, and mailed them in! The lawyers have interviewed this woman. This is called 'electioneering' and it is evidence of illegal ballots - but have you heard about it? Nope! So much for zero evidence. Time will tell, and it will be telling you a LOT.

Posted by: Larry on January 10, 2005 06:56 PM
115. Whew! I was worried jim was going to cite something useful. Never mind...

Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 07:02 PM
116. well back to the topic, I emailed my Rep. Ross Hunter (D) 48th Dist. a couple days ago and still haven't heard back. Could it be that he's actually taking my words into consideration??? doubtful... I think we are pretty heavy rossi here though, anyone know?

Posted by: kristen on January 10, 2005 07:04 PM
117. The sad part is the dems know all this and just love to engage in circular arguments. Quoted from a wise poster on this site - "don't argue with fools, it will just drive you insane."

Posted by: CP on January 10, 2005 07:04 PM
118. Maureen Walsh 16th. District took Dave Mastin's place (she was also his L.A.) in this last election. She changed from the Democratic to the Republican party 2 weeks before she filed. Please add her to the list

Posted by: max on January 10, 2005 07:10 PM
119. CP -

Sorry, got drawn in again. How does one ignore an idiot? Well, my Dachsund ignores me...dang! Just proved a point, didn't I :-)

Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 07:10 PM
120. CP

"circular arguments".

yep, that's exactly what's going on. tiring, eh?

Posted by: kristen on January 10, 2005 07:11 PM
121. So the Democrats in the Senate prevailed by 1 measly vote. Very pathetic for a new governor !
Would it have been a different story and would the vote have gone against swearing in Commisar Gregoirovich if the Rossi campaign laid out the case for the Senate ? Possibly yes...Could they do that for the House tomorrow ? Would it help if they did ? It could.

Does it matter in the scheme of things regarding a revote if Commisar Gregoirovich gets sworn in on Wednesday ? According to what happened in MN in 1962, yes or not really ? These are questions to ponder..

Posted by: KS on January 10, 2005 07:23 PM
122. Remember folks..
Gross incompetance but election officials is bad.
But the unveiling of a cover-up can be much, much worse. File this away.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 10, 2005 07:30 PM
123. 01/12/2005. I'll have a can of "bogus issue be gone". Since you all seem to love being in a state of righteous indignation with zero justification, I wonder what the Reps will dig up to get their attack poodles yapping again?

Posted by: headless lucy on January 10, 2005 07:30 PM
124. Headless Lucy,
I'm not a Republican.

People like you are the reason I am no longer a Democrat.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 07:36 PM
125. CP - I believe that Solomon called it casting pearls before swine.

Posted by: Jericho on January 10, 2005 07:37 PM
126. Larry,

Thank you for a meaningful post with substance. So much nicer than the attacks calling me a troll, an idiot, a fool, etc. because I disagree with them. This doesn't help the case...it just makes the folks arguing those points look like they have less subatance. Kudos to you for rising above that. Calling my logic convoluted is fine -- calling me an idiot does little to advance what is supposed to be a well reasoned case.

You have valid points.

The evidence you mention, if shown to be true in a court of law, will be used to determine the outcome. Given that the proof hasn't been brought forward yet (as you point out), it's hard to judge it. Good thing we have courts.

The alleged illegal behavior evidence will be used...let's let this legal process run (just as we should let the election legal process run). If ballots were illegally manipulated, the republicans will prove it and the courts will act.

Until then, it's clear the Republicans have been flipping and flopping regularly as have the Democrats. Both parties took the opposite side on arguments as soon as the hand vote count finished.

Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 07:40 PM
127. Lovely Jericho - I'll have to remember that. Very poetic and prophetic.

Posted by: CP on January 10, 2005 07:42 PM
128. i am watching this from British Columbia. I am rooting with you all for a revote- the only way to legitimate an obviously flawed election.

My sister, Jennifer, is a democratic gov. in Michigan. I have not polled her on the question of a revote, but what if you asked her and/or other democratic gov's to also call for a revote? Would that help sway some of the on-the-fence dem's? Of course, it is to late for this to be done by the certifaction tomorrow...

Posted by: bob granholm on January 10, 2005 07:43 PM
129. Bostonian:If you're young enough to be drafted you may rue the day you made that decision--- unless you are related to the Bush's, in which case you'll be well out of harms way. Are you a "fortunate son"? You'd better hope you are because you very well may have to live your rhetoric.

Posted by: headless lucy on January 10, 2005 07:46 PM
130. Welcome Bob - I think the governors are in general a very close school. I don't know your sister's political givings but as a dem that's not a Washington state hack, I would be interested to know her feelings. Though in view of the mess out here, I doubt if she'd want to share them.

Posted by: CP on January 10, 2005 07:48 PM
131. """G Davis,

Question for you.... did you worked in the state of Washington Govs office somewhere around the early 90s? If the answer is yes then I think I know who you are.

S.

Posted by SB at January 10, 2005 03:34 PM """

Sorry...I've been self employed for over 30 years...don't trust politicians, would never work for a politician...


And to whomever made comment on my reference to mudslinging, I was referring to the use of labels in this forum...folks come in that don't follow the party line and they're called every make of name...that's sad and very unfortunate...and what I meant by mudslinging...


Back to topic...impressive batch of reading...fairly predictable, but good reading nonetheless...

I am encouraged that the legislature saw fit to not cave to the vocal pressure...it isn't appropriate to postpone CG's ratification with what they have at hand...

Perhaps some good will come of this one way or another and that's a national conversation on how screwed up the way this country votes is...

If that gets accomplished and the party in the majority does something to correct the situation, I will be happy...

If not, and this turns into just more selective culling of races that don't suit the majority, I will be a most unhappy camper...

If that's trolling, I'm sorry...

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 07:51 PM
132. Off topic - Click my name to read a heart warmer from Iraq.

Posted by: Jericho on January 10, 2005 07:56 PM
133. OK I'll bite. Isn't is the MAJORITY that elects the winner? I believe that's called democracy.

Posted by: CP on January 10, 2005 07:57 PM
134. Thanks once again Jericho - Wonderful story about a remarkable Iraqi boy helping the troops. He lives what he believes. Very comforting to hear right now.

Posted by: CP on January 10, 2005 08:08 PM
135. The Dems in the Senate may have shelved the request by the Republicans to delay Gregoires certification....BUT....

Tomorrow the House and Senate meet - And the argument will be taken up again!

I will be watching it!!

It is a very appropriate day to rally!

Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 08:13 PM
136. The Democrats seem to think they have a right to cheat.

There is no way they will ever take the high road. Only a court order and/or arrests will do.

Posted by: B Knotts on January 10, 2005 08:15 PM
137. Anyone in their right or left mind has to honestly realize this election was a "statistical tie". Matriarch-elect Gregoire has spoken it.

Flip a coin and we'd have better confidence. Just don't use a Dean Logan minted coin with Ron Sims face on two sides. Let's face it, we are here because KC couldn't deliver a close election for "We the People". KC screwed up and their painted by the numbers election isn't pretty.

Christine Gregoire recognized, before the hand count, it was a "statistical tie". After the hand count Dino had to accept her "statistical tie" mantra because the quality of KC elections was so flawed and suspect. Of course, Matriarch Gregoire flip-flopped on it being a "statistical tie".

A revote is simply the only recovery course to start any "healing" for our state. Although, I just shiver at the thought of more write-ins for Ron Sims.

Posted by: Mike J on January 10, 2005 08:24 PM
138. Canadian Conservative...

The court in Chelan County has scheduled a hearing for this Friday. I believe this will be to set the procedure for the actual "trial."

Posted by: TomP on January 10, 2005 08:44 PM
139. Ok help me out here, is there not a tactical manuver that the R's can do tomorrow to stop the certification? I know in the US Senate you must have a quorum in order for business to occur on the floor, there is also the filibuster. Can the R's just not show up for work? There has got to be something that will protect the minority party. Rossi is playing hardball and it is time for the legislature to do the same. Lets admit that calling will not do any good. The democratic machine has threatened all of these people with their political future, they will not give in to us! They know that 2 years is a long time and most people will forget, so they go with there party. The Republicans need to do everything NOW. Any thoughts?

Posted by: jordanc on January 10, 2005 09:12 PM
140. G Davis - You are a partisan progressive, because you think and believe that the Dems in power will do something to correct the voter imbalance - yeah right ! Sam Reed would do more about it than any Dems put together and Reed is a RINO, which is like a conservative Democrat.

You won't give any credit to the Republicans - who are attempting to do it now and who would do more to correct this problem than the D's would ever consider doing - it will never be perfect, but alot less flawed. Face it, you progressives are out of touch with the people this time and its more about hanging on to power with the D's than it is with the R's. Why would the Dems have any incentive to change the system that has worked well for them much of the time over the last 20 years ? They are sorry in King County, sorry that they were caught ! (they want to be just like President #42 - and they are showing it). REVOTE !

Posted by: KS on January 10, 2005 09:22 PM
141. Troll alert
Please stop trying to have an intelligent conversation with torrid joe.
Just click on his name and he will tell you all you ever want to know (and then some)
about torrid joe, and what he thinks. He is just another self absorbed pseudo-intellectual. He is the kind of guy that talks all about himself and what he thinks, and then says "enough of me talking about me, why don't you talk about me."

Just being blunt, not cruel. He is here under false pretenses. He doesn't want to know the truth, or cares what true conservatives think. If you doubt this, read his ALL of his posts, and then click on his name, and read some more.
If I am wrong, I will retract.

Posted by: cool bob on January 10, 2005 09:24 PM
142. jordanc--just relax and show up for the rally. The Dems have already stepped so deep into the poop trap...and they still don't know it.
When they certify tomorrow, every YES voter will be branded with literally give only 1/2 of the "Peace sign" to honesty and the majority of citizens who want a revote. Politics can be viewed as long- and short-term. Attempted to validate something that is clearly flawed is amusing. Watch them fall all over themselves trying to leave wiggle-room when the Court sets this election aside...."We were just doing our jobs as prescribed by law" they will say.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 10, 2005 09:26 PM
143. Here's a no brainer for a certain biker-bitch amongst us:

Dykes on trikes are so out of style!

It is a certainty that she voted for CG, the only uncertainty is why she persists in posting here...other than the fact that hardly anyone reads/posts on her blog :( Poor silly troll, posting insults here won't make you popular.

Posted by: Head Securely Fastened on January 10, 2005 09:46 PM
144. Thank you cool bob! Yes, everyone please do click on my name. There you'll read the blog I produce in partnership with a conservative Christian. We don't shout at each other, we don't call each other idiots, we don't pump up everything "our" side does and demonize everything "their" side does. I'm not sure how I can be here under false pretenses, when I never established any pretenses to begin with.

Too many of you are moving from conclusion (the election was fixed and/or totally out of control) to justification, instead of the other way around. You appear to be basing arguments on what the litigants have to say about it, which is ridiculous no matter who you support. If I want to decide what kind of a case Rossi has, I'm not going to ask Chris Vance--I'm going to look up the code and case law. If you think my argument is "circular," it may be because I continue to repeat it for the benefit of others who make the same argument as people before. It's all we have to return to: what the conditions are for contest and annulment. So when people say, "Why can't they do that?" or "surely they wouldn't ignore..." I can only return to the statutes as they are laid out. You can contest based purely on sufficient numbers of questionable ballots or practices to change the result, but you cannot WIN without a specific amount of ballots that you can PROVE should be taken away from a particular candidate. Relatedly, an election official can committ all kinds of incompetence and neglect, but once those errors cannot be corrected during the election process, the only thing that sets them aside is if the misconduct is an attempt to elevate one candidate over another. Not an effect, an attempt. (btw, on procurement: it was said triumphantly above that it means bring about, not acquire. Which is exactly what I had said--it must be brought about, not allowed to happen, for it to be procurement).

It's so very easy to simply dismiss someone who doesn't agree with you, and as a nation we yielded to this temptation in endemic proportions in 2004.

You can disagree with me all you like. Tell me why--I'd prefer that, actually. If you're treating me like you think I believe I'm the final word, that's your misread of the situation, not mine. KING-TV, the P-I and Powerline are not going to give me useful information on a subject. I'm simply hoping someone (and there have been one or two, for whom I'm grateful) is interested enough in being serious about the subject, to the point that I can debate the issues and learn from the perspective of others. If I wanted mindless feedback in support of the points I'm raising, I'd go spread the word at DailyKos or something. Sometimes I do. But I'm not going to learn as much about what's out there, as I am here.

You are not a troll just because you ask hard questions. The people who pretend they're not real--they're the ones living under the bridge.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 10:02 PM
145. Mark my words: if the Democrats succeed in this repugnant enterprise, Democratic leadership in other states will be emboldened to do the same. They cannot be allowed to get away with robbing us of our right to a fair and just election.

We are the voters. WE have the authority, not them. It is time to give the Democrats a little "two-by-four counseling".

My only hope is that at the end of the matter, the back of the Washington State Democratic Party as we know it will have been irreparably broken. I will be the first to dance on its grave.

Posted by: AjalonVox on January 10, 2005 10:07 PM
146. Sorry, got drawn in again. How does one ignore an idiot? Well, my Dachsund ignores me...dang! Just proved a point, didn't I :-)

I think of trolls as wanting to play fetch...only they're throwing the stick and they want you to chase it and fetch. Just as it's a lot more work to fetch than to throw, systematically disproving nonsense is a lot more work than throwing out nonsense.

I read an article that stuck with me...it said that the left has become so powerful because we've allowed them to become the arbiter of morality and reason. I will prove a troll wrong if I think someone reading needs to see it...otherwise I give them the respect they've earned. I don't need to take them seriously if they don't want to be serious. I smell lefty lawyers when I sense a moot debate going on. They can't believe all the cr@p they spout.

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 10:09 PM
147. "You can disagree with me all you like. Tell me why--I'd prefer that, actually." torrid joe

Sorry, I didn't mean to hit a nerve.

I'll list a couple thoughts for you to consider:

1. You use 50 words, when 5-10 would work.
2. You repeat.
3. You repeat-already said that one.
4. You don't seem to listen to other people.
5. You don't appear to want to listen to others.
6. Your tone is condescending.
7. You are a leftist in denial.
8. You MONOPOLIZE the discussion.
9. You have to be correct about everything.

It is difficult to listen and TALK at the same time.

But like I said I could be wrong about all of it.

I certainly do not control who says what here, and I am not trying to attack you personally, but maybe I have. If so, I apologize.

Most of us can dicern the difference between facts and opinions. I am expressing an opinion.

Posted by: cool bob on January 10, 2005 10:57 PM
148. If this wasn't such a serious matter, it would be laughable...

One goes from forum to forum of different political bents and one hears the same things over and over again...the names are switched around for whichever forum you're in at the moment but the content remains the same...

Sad...

Doesn't anyone anywhere wish to engage in a serious conversation about real election reform? Not the typical *my side got robbed* nonsense that both sides spew, but serious conversation about how to fix it?

Y'all here claim to have the smoking gun of disparate votes in King County...what of the disparity in 1005 overvote in Clark County, distinctly Red in persuasion if I'm not mistaken?

Or the 1700 overvote the Republicans claimed in Snohomish county, another red one I'd bet?

Or the 1640 claimed in Pierce county, certainly not a liberal bastian...

So who here is working to find out those facts?

Or what of the military ballets that didn't get sent out in Island county until after the Fed deadline? Anyone looking into those?

Or the failed military mail delivery system? Or the lack of educating the military personell that they could vote via email or fax and not wait for their ballots? Is that the state of Washington's responsibility and/or the taxpayers of this state's responsibility to add to our already short budget to recreate another virtual tie?


What makes any of you think a revote would be any less close than the original election? What do you do then? How far do you take this?


The simple answer is to use this once in a million election to push REAL election reform through so we can all be comfortable with the outcome...

The Reps came up short this time...don't let it happen again...get real reform pushed through that is transparent, verifiable and accessible...nationwide....

Posted by: G Davis on January 11, 2005 12:46 AM
149. Regarding the circular arguments of the trolls that are trying to waste our time and energy, I saw a great saying on a t-shirt one time:

"Never wrestle with a pig... You both just get dirty, and the pig loves it."

Posted by: Clint on January 11, 2005 03:19 AM
150. Imagine that...some guy comes onto a political website, lectures and condescends, and doesn't like the response...

Will wonders never cease?

Posted by: South County on January 11, 2005 05:31 AM
151. Headless Lucy, you are so out of touch with the world.

The draft proposal that went to Congress came from two DEMOCRATS, one of whom even voted against it. It was completely voted down, by R & D alike.

Also, before you get onto this, the moon is NOT made of cheese.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 05:40 AM
152. G Davis,
We've actually spent quite a lot of times considering ways to make elections more secure. If you read in addition to posting, you'd see that.

For a start though, we had this novel idea: follow the laws that exist. NO VOTES FROM THE DEAD.

If you take a look at recent history, you will see that when a Democrat narrowly wins in a *lawful* election, the Republican doesn't ask for 47 recounts.

If WA election officials ENFORCE THE LAW in a revote and if Chris Gregoire wins by 1, it's hers.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 05:49 AM
153. South County, I told you I'm fine with the response. It's some of you who are going apoplectic when faced with factual material. Your responses indicate you have little answer for them.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 06:57 AM
154. tepidjoe, on his blog, says the following. I think the hypocrisy speaks for itself. But self-awareness is something the left has never suffered from.

The whole point was that the irregularities and improprieties were so numerous, pervasive and seemingly intentional that, while there were no votes to elevate John Kerry, there was no confidence in a full and fair election for President in Ohio. If thousands were intentionally suppressed by long lines, how do you count them? You can't, but you can recognize that it impugns the integrity of the process. Put enough shenanigans together, and you start to wonder if you have a duly elected officeholder.

Posted by: flenser on January 11, 2005 07:14 AM
155. Didn't Dino sue to stop legal votes from being counted?

And isn't he now saying the election is bad, in part, because he believes all legal votes were'nt counted?

I just can't figure it out.

Oh yeah...he was ahead when he did the first thing and behind when he did the second....all is explained. It's not about the law...it's about winning.

Posted by: jim on January 11, 2005 07:38 AM
156. Jim:
1. No.
2. No. He believes that TOO MANY votes were counted. Were you not paying attention? There are votes from dead people, more ballots than voters, etc.

If you can't figure it out, you're not paying any attention at all.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 07:51 AM
157. Jim.

No.

He's not saying that all legal votes were not counted. At least, not just that. He is saying that lots of illegal votes WERE counted.

And you know, he is right.

But I'm sure this is all too nuanced for the typical liberal to comprehend.

Posted by: flenser on January 11, 2005 07:55 AM
158. G Davis, I agree completely.

The electoral debacle that we are contesting right now is not the problem, but merely a symptom of a much more malignant disease. If we treat the symptom and do nothing about the disease, then the disease will continue to spread. The operation may succeed, but the patient will still die.

This is an amazing time in our history, and we are in a place where we can reform the way business is conducted- not only in our capital, but also in our counties, cities, and districts.

In a democracy, the responsibility to remain vigilant and to hold elected leadership accountable for misrepresentation lies with the individual citizen. That means that each one of us has to watch his or her elected officials closely. Until we invest ourselves in that civic duty, we will continue to abdicate our authority to treasonous and subversive political action groups such as NOW and moveon.org.

What we do today will have a great deal of influence on the degree to which we will retreive our authority from those who have robbed us of it, and to run them out of all places of influence and power tomorrow.

This is the taxation without representation that our nation's founding fathers rose up against. We are obligated as free citizens to root out the corruption and laxity that has choked our government at all levels. We cannot hope to win the day unless we all stand together.

Let this day mark the beginning of a revival of American Democracy in Washington state.

God bless you all, God bless Washington State, and God bless the United States of America.

Posted by: AjalonVox on January 11, 2005 08:06 AM
159. AjalonVox - That was beautifully written!

Posted by: Julie on January 11, 2005 08:13 AM
160. G Davis,
I do not speak for all, just myself. I am glad you point out discrepancies on both sides. Do you believe with confidence that CG won? In a fair election? Do you feel confident that Mexico has a better accuracy rate than Washington State? Do you believe that the countless soldiers of before and now died so that our foundational American right can be inacted without any kind of proof that it was done according to law?
I voted for Rossi, I never believed he would even get close. I don't know if he won or lost though. Nor do you if 1/3 of the allegations have merit.
I am proud to live in this country. But I do believe it is imperative that our elections are without flagrant flaw. What is going on in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida (in the past and present) along with Washington only make it clearer that the people and the peoples government cannot with accuracy perform an election. This is truely a problem.
I find it interesting that it is required for banks to be audited, business to be audited, persons to be audited and yet the election process is suppose to be above reproach even if we hear allegations such as these.

Posted by: Shari on January 11, 2005 08:14 AM
161. I have been reading the posts on this website for days and have not delved in to respond to either Republican or Democratic comments, but I can’t take it any longer. Most everyone here is referring to the United States of America as a democracy. That was not the intent of our founding fathers; if you are lost then you should read the U.S. Constitution, Article IV Section 4 for the correct founding principles. For those of you that don’t want to take the time to look it up, here it is: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

A website I ran across (http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Republic.html) states it better than I can. There are a couple of quotes on that site that are also worth reading.

Just 2 ˝ cents from someone that is fed up with politics as usual and having elected officials represent the interests of their party and not the people that put them in office.

Posted by: Allen on January 11, 2005 08:38 AM
162. Allen, I stand corrected. Thank you for your clarification.

I made the error of using the word 'democracy' (which describes mob rule) when I should have used the word 'republican' (which describes a government by the people and for the people).

I also agree with your statement (paraphrased here) that we should not confine our attention to a single party or group, but that we must closely examine all parties, all offices, and all positions in order to make well-informed and objective decisions that are in the best interest of our free society and in keeping with the Constitution of the United States.

Well said.

Posted by: AjalonVox on January 11, 2005 09:09 AM
163. Thanks AjalonVox and Allen.

Allen, beware Headless Lucy doesn't like that kind of discussion.

Republicans are not always right, and Democrats are not always wrong. There has to be a starting point in cleaning house, and we can start here will an obviously flawed election, and clean up our governmental system. Whether this election for governor was fair will be decided in court.

If we ignore this particular election, and try to press for reforms for the next election many people will think that they have been disenfranchised once again. There has been some things said on both sides of the political spectrum that are counter-productive to a healthy Republic.

Posted by: JG on January 11, 2005 09:42 AM
164. flenser, you should read more carefully before launching into reckless namecalling. That piece notes the inconsistency of challenging electors, without believing that the election was truly in doubt. That's what many Democrats did last Thursday--speak in favor of the objection without voting for it.

My position on Ohio is EXACTLY the same as it is in Washington, although things were decidely worse in Ohio. A campaign chairman for one of the presidential candidates wasn't running the WA elections, for one thing. A manual recount was performed instead of illegally avoided, for another. But without a showing of malfeasance that specifically indicates the wrong result was achieved, there was no choice but to certify the electors.

It's clear that you don't have any real argument against my reading of state law. Otherwise you wouldn't bring out the tired labels and knee-jerk hyperbole. You'd make a case for setting aside the election, backed up by relevant legal information.

also, to you and Bostonian, Rossi DID sue to prevent legal votes from being forcibly counted. He won 7-0 in the Supreme Court in December, remember?

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 09:48 AM
165. Torrid Joe,

If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Rossi did not sue to prevent legal votes from being counted; he sued to prevent ballots that canvassing boards had previously rejected from being included in the manual recount.

Are you implying that the Supreme Court has abdicated its authority to Mr. Rossi?

Posted by: AjalonVox on January 11, 2005 10:04 AM
166. Torrid Joe,

If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Rossi did not sue to prevent legal votes from being counted; he sued to prevent ballots that were previously rejected by the canvassing boards from being included in the recount- a legal statute that was upheld by one Christine Gregoire during her term as Attorney General of this state.

Your statement erroneously implies that the Supreme Court has unanimously abdicated its authority to Mr. Rossi.

With all due respect, I submit that perhaps it would serve you well to take a refresher course in civics in order to better grasp the constitutional roles, limitations and functions of our branches of government.

Posted by: AjalonVox on January 11, 2005 10:10 AM
167. AjalonVox--some of which were legal votes, assuredly. I don't understand your question, however. The Court ruled that counties do not HAVE to correct their mistakes, but should be allowed to before certification of a recount.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 10:15 AM
168. King County is a piece of work. Their elections supervisor says they handled almost 1M ballots (uh, thats 900,000) and that they are 99.9% accurate, and that its "pretty good" that we are only off 1,800 votes versus voters. Uh, pretty good with a 100 voter margin is not going to cut it buddy. On top of all that, they will not be able to produce a list of voters who voted on Nov 2nd because they are updating the registration lists for the next election and can't provide that point in time information. An election department who can't even balance (and don't expect to by their comments) the number of votes to voters wants us to consider this a valid result?

Posted by: Marc on January 11, 2005 10:17 AM
169. apparently it's good enough for Washington state elections, since counties aren't required to reconcile. There are several counties with wide discrepancies of the manner King shows. It happens. If you don't want it to happen, change the laws. But it's too late for this election.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 10:29 AM
170. My previous post ended with: "There have been some things said on both sides of the political spectrum that are counter-productive to a healthy Republic..."

It should have also have included the last part of my sentence

"...but I find the constantly repeated drone from the left wing for the most part mean spirited and meaningless."

Hey, I composed these words myself, yet somehow they were lost when switched to web code.

Dean Logan might be a victim after all.
(Please remove that last sentence from your memory banks).

Posted by: JG on January 11, 2005 10:42 AM
171. Here's a response I got from Rep. Cody and my reply:

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Cody, Rep. Eileen"
Subject: 34th District Constituent
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:56:42 -0800
Dear 34th District Constituent:
Thank you for your recent e-mail message regarding the 2004 Gubernatorial election. As you may know, Secretary of State Sam Reed, 39 county auditors - both Republican and Democratic - and local canvassing boards across the state were unanimous in their decision to
certify the election.
At this point it is the court's job to determine if there was election fraud or government wrong doing. They will decide if the election must
be overturned, or if the results stand. As with any process, there is always room for improvement. The Secretary of State and the Legislature will work together to resolve identified shortcomings in the process
that this historically-close election has revealed.
Thank you again. Please feel free to contact my office in the future.
Sincerely,
Eileen
Representative Eileen Cody, R.N.


Dear Representative Cody,

Thank you for your response. I respectfully disagree with your position. Government fraud and/or wrongdoing are not the germaine issues. The statute provides for setting aside the election in the case of significant error. I'm disappointed that you have chosen to take the partisan position over what is right, legal and the will of the people.

Sincerely,

Joe Iannarone


Posted by: Joe Iannarone on January 11, 2005 11:37 AM
172. Here's a response I got from Rep. Cody and my reply:

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Cody, Rep. Eileen"
Subject: 34th District Constituent
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:56:42 -0800
Dear 34th District Constituent:
Thank you for your recent e-mail message regarding the 2004 Gubernatorial election. As you may know, Secretary of State Sam Reed, 39 county auditors - both Republican and Democratic - and local canvassing boards across the state were unanimous in their decision to
certify the election.
At this point it is the court's job to determine if there was election fraud or government wrong doing. They will decide if the election must
be overturned, or if the results stand. As with any process, there is always room for improvement. The Secretary of State and the Legislature will work together to resolve identified shortcomings in the process
that this historically-close election has revealed.
Thank you again. Please feel free to contact my office in the future.
Sincerely,
Eileen
Representative Eileen Cody, R.N.


Dear Representative Cody,

Thank you for your response. I respectfully disagree with your position. Government fraud and/or wrongdoing are not the germaine issues. The statute provides for setting aside the election in the case of significant error. I'm disappointed that you have chosen to take the partisan position over what is right, legal and the will of the people.

Sincerely,

Joe Iannarone


Posted by: Joe Iannarone on January 11, 2005 11:37 AM
173. I have stated before and I'll state again, I have no problem *fixing* any ill gotten election...this year, last year, future years...

Whoever rightfully won should win...that should go without saying...

My qualm with the hyperbole here is twofold:

1) Very little constructive cross communication...it's always us -v- them from all sides...

2) How does a revote *fix* anything? Aren't the same rules, the same systems in place for any revote that so many here claim are so skewed? How will that change with simply recasting ballots in a flawed system?

Set aside the idea that the state is already running badly in the red budgetwise..and a revote would only add considerably to that burden all of us must carry...

Set aside the idea that partisan politics will likely prevail from all sides no matter the outcome of this or any future actions...the populace is just too divided to join in serious conversation on how to heal the divide...

Set those things aside and explain to me and my vapid supposedly liberal mind how a revote will *fix* anything?

How will another vote that turns out as close as this one remedy anything?

How will the counting mechanisms suddenly change in a revote?

If you can simply explain all that to me, I will gladly join the movement to revote...

I don't see anything in all the readings I've done here that would rectify anything to do with the process...Snohomish County votes will continue to be unverifiable...military votes will continue to be hung up in any number of ways...voter rolls will continue to mismatch in virtually every county statewide...

So please...how does a revote under the existing conditions *fix* anything?

Posted by: G Davis on January 11, 2005 11:52 AM
174. G Davis

1) You assume that the result of any revote would be an almost exactly equal number of votes for each side. It's more likely that there would be a definite shift towards one candidate.

I think we can reasonably speculate which candidate that might be.

2) The issue is not whether "the same rules are in place" The problem is that the rules already in place were not followed. In a revote, we would expect the rules to be followed. If they continue to be violated, then perhaps it's time somebody went to jail.

Posted by: flenser on January 11, 2005 12:09 PM
175. tepidjoe

So, let me see; a campaign chairman for one of the presidential candidates was “running” the elections in Ohio? And this is somehow “worse” in your eyes than, say, actual dead people voting? Or than more ballots being counted than votes were cast? That’s an interesting perspective you have on things.

Of course, Blackwell did not “run” the election in Ohio in the sense that your smear attempts to imply. In Ohio, as in WA, elections are run at the precinct and county level. In D counties the election workers are Democrats. As usual, you are not saying anything substantive, just throwing mud and hoping it sticks. If you have any evidence, any at all, that Blackwell was involved in the vote count in Ohio, and did so in a manner that aided Bush, you should present it.

The problems in WA are orders of magnitude greater than those in Ohio. And the margin of victory is miniscule by comparison. So please explain your casual dismissal of the actual invalid votes cast in WA, in light of your grave concern about even the appearance of impropriety in Ohio.

Posted by: flenser on January 11, 2005 12:32 PM
176. flenser...why would you assume there would be a distinct shift in either direction vote wise?

Where in any of the counts or recounts do you find evidence of this?

What indicates to you that we have anything other than a completely polarized populace just like the rest of the nation?

And lastly, how would the procedures that are in place now change in a revote? Would the military vote be any less subject to the elements of a war zone and inadequate federal government mail systems? Could our local election officials mediate that in any way? Would touch screen votes be any more accountable or verifiable in a revote than they were in the last vote?

Would absentee voter errors be any less prevelant, our electorate any more educated in how to mark their ballots in a revote than the last vote?

Would any of you be willing to look into the incredible variances in all the other counties besides King then than you are now?

The entire system, nationwide, is screwed up....fix it...make it transparent, accountable, verifiable and accessible and maybe then revotes would work...

To do other would simply repeat the errors of the past as well as deepening the current philosophical divide all across the land...not to mention put our great state further in debt...

How does any of this change in a revote?

Posted by: G Davis on January 11, 2005 12:39 PM
177. G Davis, repeat after me:

CHEATING IS WRONG

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 12:52 PM
178. Very clever Bostonian...

Here I am looking for honest reconciliation about how a revote would change anything, how discrepancies in all counties statewide are to be rectified, and I get that sort of answer?

Hmmm...

Since my previous questions remain unanswered, let me ask one simple one...

The dead voters seem to be a big issue with y'all...so I ask, for whom did those dead people vote?

Posted by: G Davis on January 11, 2005 01:47 PM
179. "The dead voters seem to be a big issue with y'all...so I ask, for whom did those dead people vote?" G Davis

And the answer is: we don't know! They are dead, they can not talk to us.

WHO they voted for is not as important as the FACT that they were allow to vote at all.

I just hope that they will be allow to continue paying taxes, too.

Posted by: JG on January 11, 2005 01:59 PM
180. I have to echo previous comments that if the voting population matches the number of votes counted you will see a different total than in the previous election. The other thing to consider is that, unless I am missing something here, this would be a run off election between Gregoire and Rossi.

The vote totals were:
Gregoire 1,373,361
Rossi 1,373,232
Bennett 63,465

These 63k+ votes combined with the thousands of vote discrepancies would hopefully set a clear winner. And it also appears that you are assuming everyone will vote the same way they did last time. Having engaged in a lot of conversations, my take on the last point would be that folks would not vote as they did previously.

I DO AGREE with you that there will need to be better oversight of the revote than we had this time, especially in those counties that had the huge discrepancies. If memory serves there were several counties that did not have more votes cast than signatures obtained. Maybe they can help the inept individuals in King county that did not follow election law when they permanently enhanced ballots. Review Paragraph (2) of this site http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.60.120&fuseaction=section as it states that the original must be maintained if the ballot is damaged (incomplete marks are included) and a ‘true’ duplicate is to be made.

You are also assuming that individuals are going to vote the same way if we get another shot.

Posted by: Allen on January 11, 2005 02:19 PM
181. A lot of assumptions being made here...

A revote would not include Bennett? Why? What of the disenfranchisement of her voters?

As a staunch independent, I would prefer a 3rd party to vote for that hasn't engaged in all the hypcracy and hyperbole the other two camps have...

So how would a revote work folks?

And in all the investigations going on here, is there no way to find out which dead people, felons, double voters voted?

Is there no evidence in any of the investigations that went on here that other counties were just as flawed proportionally as King?


My point remains that there were screw ups, but that redoing the same screw ups will just serve to polarize us all the more...

Why is it that all of us can't sit down and figure out a model the rest of the nation can follow to make for truly verifiable, transparent, accessible elections so nothing like this happens again here or anywhere in the nation?

Why is it we can't spend that 4mil+ to fix it once and for all rather than rehash the same quagmire?

Fix the system...

Posted by: G Davis on January 11, 2005 02:56 PM
182. toridjoe: some of which were legal votes, assuredly.

'Some'? Is there any reason to believe it to be all, or at least 'most'? If I take decide to add to the vote counts a stack of ballots that contains 10 legitimate ballots and 15 illegitimate ones, five more voters will be disenfranchised than if I don't count the stack.

Posted by: supercat on January 11, 2005 03:30 PM
183. And in all the investigations going on here, is there no way to find out which dead people, felons, double voters voted?

In the case of felons and double-voters prosecution may be possible in cases where voters actually signed and filled out voting materials. If someone voted without filling out anything, and then voted again, there would be no way to identify who it was. As for finding out which dead people "voted", what's the point of that? Are you going to suggest that if someone voted in the election despite being dead, their body should be dug up to stand trial for vote fraud? What matters is who marked the ballot in the dead person's name, and in many cases there will be no way to discover that.

Posted by: supercat on January 11, 2005 03:33 PM
184. I would like to try to answer G Davis' question:
"Here I am looking for honest reconciliation about how a revote would change anything, how discrepancies in all counties statewide are to be rectified regarding how a revote would change anything."

There are two primary ways that a revote would change things, both of them good:
(1) A revote would change things because the people of this state will be able to rectify the errors that were so prevalent in this election. That in itself would be reason enough to hold one.
(2) A revote will change things because it will restore the badly-shaken confidence of Washington voters; the very act of holding the revote serves two purposes: (a)to remind disillusioned citizens that control of this state lies squarely in the hands of the people, and (b)to give notice to the political hacks in state and local offices that their way of conducting business will no longer be tolerated by those who gave them their jobs in the first place.

The people of this state sorely need to be reminded of the constitutionally-provided power that we possess.

Regarding the question of rectifying discrepencies between counties:

It would appear that the counties that have the most glaring discrepencies are King, Pierce, and Snohomish. Rectifying them would be simple:
(1) Update the voter registry, clearing dead people, illegal immigrants, the criminally insane, axe murderers, and felons from the list.
If King county elections can change the date that absentee ballots were mailed with the stroke of a pen, surely updating the registry would be simple as well.
(2) Standardize the voting method statewide. In the case of a revote, we would have to utilize an easy to produce media; the scantron forms that so many schools use for tests would do nicely.
(3)Send out absentee ballots to overseas military personnel eight weeks prior to the revote, and do not 'close the window' for overseas ballots until two weeks has elapsed since receipt of the first filled overseas military ballot. Do NOT begin the election until this window is closed. These men and women are protecting us. Let us give them the consideration they deserve.
(4)Do not give a ballot to any person who shows up at a voting station without proof of residence in Washington state or with a home address that is the main office of a government agency, or whose name is not on the revised register.
(5)Provide clear instructions. For example:
"Fill in box 'A' for Gregoire. Fill in box 'B' for Rossi. Fill in Box 'C' for Bennett. COMPLETELY FILL IN ONLY ONE BOX. DO NOT MARK ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE SCANTRON"
Before receiving a ballot/scantron, the voter would have to FIRST repeat the instructions back to the official (thus proving his/her understanding of the instructions) and THEN sign his/her name on the register.

Hire a security agency, such as Brinks, to provide oversight at each of the voting stations. How hard is it to guard a ballot box and ensure that nobody is trying to stuff it with more than one ballot? (Oh, wait. Apparently it was impossible in urban King County.)NOTE: PAC activists need not apply.

Look: it really is not as complicated as it has to be. It is the people who are most afraid of losing who are fighting this the hardest.

I hope that my attempt to answer may have helped. If it has not, at least I tried to do so in a purely objective and nonpartisan manner.

Posted by: AjalonVox on January 11, 2005 04:04 PM
185. Thank you Ajalon...I sincerely appreciate the civility...

And I agree with much of what you write...the most glaring flaws in your discourse (to me) are as follows:

"""(1) A revote would change things because the people of this state will be able to rectify the errors that were so prevalent in this election."""

You will not find me arguing with the concept that all of our elections MUST be made simpler, more transparent and accessible. I hope I've made that more than clear. But tell me, how do the people rectify mistakes made in one election by voting in another election under the same legal structure, management?

To me, your statement oversimplifies and understates the magnitude of the problems in the last election. I see your point(s) about guarding the ballot boxes, which should have been done statewide before, but I still don't see how you can circumvent current state law(s) and current state held offices with a simple revote...

Are you proposing changing the laws that govern our elections currently? Are you proposing removing the current administrators of the different counties? How do you do that under the guise of a revote?

Even if that were possible, how do you decide who administers the respective counties voting so that all parties involved are happy? Who decides that, the courts?

Has anyone of any politcal consequence even intimated fraud? Have any of the votes ULTIMATELY accepted violated state law and to whom did those votes go to?

The reason I keep asking who these proported dead people, felons, non voters voted for is to see if there are any patterns...without patterns, we're back at human error which is not sufficient reason to revote....at least by my understanding...

It is my understanding that each county had overvotes sizeable enough that COULD have changed the outcome of the election. It is my understanding that each of these counties can account for SOME of their supposed overvotes, but not all...to me that makes it apparent that the problems with the last election will not be simply solved by scrutinizing King County...

It is also my understanding that King County delivered it's military ballots before the negotiated Federal deadline, but Island County did not...where did those votes go?

And once again I'll go back to Snohomish County who's votes are COMPLETELY unverifiable...there is no paper trail, nothing to track or stand guard over...how can you guarantee the taxpayers that those votes aren't tainted? Or should we disallow the touchscreens altogether and go with your paper votes? Is that in violation of current state law and does that take the vote out of a revote and into a new election? Would that not swing the gates open for more parties to throw their hats into the fray? How do you disqualify that if it's a new election without again violating state law(s)?

"""(4)Do not give a ballot to any person who shows up at a voting station without proof of residence in Washington state or with a home address that is the main office of a government agency, or whose name is not on the revised register."""

This is a really sweeping entry...you're essentially saying no one who is homeless can vote, along with anyone else that doesn't have a street address...is that correct?

Again, isn't that contrary to current state law(s)?


As a side note, you also give more credibility to many that I'm not entirely willing to give...that they will indeed read the directions... ;0 ...I can't believe that folks can't follow the simple instructions available on today's ballots...just a personal note there, sorry...


My overall point continues that I don't see a clear path to any sort of certainty in this that can be brought about by a simple revote...

IMHO, the only way to *fix* the whole thing is to *fix* the whole system...top to bottom...do away with all the county variances, make the vote simpler, more transparent, completely verifiable and accessible...

Short of that, we could carry this on ad infinitum...what do you do if the revote IS as close and CG decides she'll take it to court and start the whole mess all over again?

That possibility must be taken into account as all the evidence indicates close rather than defined...

Help me out here...


Posted by: G Davis on January 11, 2005 05:23 PM
186. Bostonian: Any "fact" that you tell me I immediately doubt its veracity or the context in which you use it in relation to the point that you are trying to make. Citing fraudulent facts when your opponent has no way to verify or disprove them is a debating trick as old as the hills. My opinion is that you will see a draft before this whole thing is over and I hope you really believe in this war because you may get sent there against your will to possibly be put in mortal danger---- and given that fact I don't give a flying farthing which "side" decides to go for a draft.

Posted by: headless lucy on January 11, 2005 06:08 PM
187. heedless lucy, shame on you! You are taking torridjoe's tactics away from him with that kind of reasoning...

Posted by: smegma on January 11, 2005 06:18 PM
188. G Davis, you wrote:

"IMHO, the only way to *fix* the whole thing is to *fix* the whole system...top to bottom...do away with all the county variances, make the vote simpler, more transparent, completely verifiable and accessible...",

To which I wholeheartedly agree. But earlier on, you stated:

"...but I still don't see how you can circumvent current state law(s) and current state held offices with a simple revote...".

It is not a matter of merely circumventing state law. It is a matter of CHANGING state law to reflect what is right and just for ALL and that bureaucrats (and their legal counsels) will themselves be unable to circumvent.

If our representatives are unwilling to do it, then we DO have the constitutional authority to do it for them, so long as the constitution is not violated in the process.

This is what Washingtonians have had to resort to during the last eight years of Gary Locke's tenure, which was easily one of the most spineless, ineffective and milquetoast governorships in state history.

It is called "the initiative process," and it has worked to the overwhelming benefit of Washingtonians by overturning unfair racial preferences and bigotry ('Affirmative Action') in our colleges, and eliminating unfair taxation for programs that lined our representatives' wallets while stripping our own. It has also given Washington citizens the power to do what the party hacks in Olympia have consistently failed to do- enact legislation by majority rule without caving in to partisan pressure.

It is not a perfect system, but it is a far cry more effective then our alternative in Olympia.

You are right- we cannot reform all that is wrong through a simple single revote. But a simple revote would be a great place to start.

Posted by: AjalonVox on January 11, 2005 06:40 PM
189. Ajalon...again, how can you expect to get this election revote or redo or whatever you want to call it without reworking the current state law?

And how do you justify reworking state law for a past election?

You and I seem to be on the same page about the ultimate long term goal of revamping the whole system...what the other members here seem to be focusing on is the LAST election and how to *fix* it...

If all the current state laws were followed as apparently all the politicos, including the Rossi camp have said, what grounds are there for a revote?

Because we want one?

Because it would start the reform process?

In the scope of this past election, both naive and foundless, especially now the courts are involved...

Unless some pattern of malicious intent can be found by examining the overvotes, irregularities in ALL the counties that reported same, I fail to see any grounds for a simple revote...

Would the courts be inclinded to throw the whole thing out and start over? Would the citizenry stand for an entire new election cycle?

I'd be surprised if either were true...

The only grounds the court has to call for a reelection would be election fraud or government wrong doing, correct?

Assuming *wrongdoing* would have to be malicious, patterns must be discerned...

So...does anyone here have any info on who the questionable ballots voted for? That would include overvotes, dead folks, felons, phantom voters...with that info for the whole state, patterns would gradually emerge if there were malicous *wrongdoings* going on, right?

I can't find that sort of info as readily available....perhaps in the FOIA materials the owners of the site could supply same?


If it's just willy nilly nonsensical errors, the SC would have a hard time overturning an election I would think...

It would raise enough ruckus, though, that those of us that care about permanently fixing the system would have a great platform...if that happens, I'll be happy...

Posted by: G Davis on January 11, 2005 07:27 PM
190. G Davis,

What I have gathered from our mutual exchange so far is that we both agree that there has to be some way for Washington citizens to come together without partisan pretense for the purpose of reestablishing order and accountability in our government. Do you agree with that idea?

The problem does not lie in the desire to restore justice; the problem lies in each political affiliate's fundamental definition of 'justice'. As long as that essential difference is not reconciled, any effort one group exerts will be countered by other groups who feel that justice as they define it is threatened.

This is why we have a representative government. But this begs the question: if the government does not work, and the party that controls the representative government is refusing to act on behalf of the non-partisan majority will of statewide constituents to fix what is wrong, what recourse are the citizens left with?

As Paul Newman said in the movie Cool Hand Luke: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Posted by: AjalonVox on January 11, 2005 07:49 PM
191. Ajalon...I agree completely with your first paragraph and will do anything I can to forward that...

As to your observations about justice...I don't think it's the definition of the word that's in question, but more the timing...

Justice is the rule of law, correct?

If the rule of law says that CG won this election, however convoluted, she won...we can't go back and rework the rules to fit each of our sense of *justice* or we have anarchy...the rules are what they are, and sometimes we win under them sometimes we lose under them...

The point I have always stood on is that this is the same thing that millions of voters across the nation have been facing for years, but most notably since the 2000 election...

So why are the Republicans suddenly so interested in *justice* when their boy lost but shrugged off all the other elections where their boy won? and don't kid yourself that this push is coming from anywhere but the RNC...

The Dems have been hollering for years...that's not terribly a news flash...but this sudden interest by the Repubs smells to me of selective *justice* and I won't stand by for that any more than what the Dems do...

This election, by all accounts, is lost...give it up...

But DON'T give up on the feeling of being on the short end of the stick...use that feeling to FORCE our representatives to rework the systems...all of them across the nation...so that they're all accountable, transparent, verifiable and accessible...

It's completely mickey mouse the way it is...and as a highly polarized populace, races are not going to get anything else but closer with time...

To selectively pick and choose which elections to cry foul on is not justice...it's partisan politics...

I've had enough of that for a lifetime...haven't you?

Fix the system...

Posted by: G Davis on January 12, 2005 01:38 AM
192. Whoa. Hold on a minute.

Looking at the voting records and policies enacted by the Democrat majority that has held sway over this state throughout the last twenty years, I am hardly led to believe that Democrats are a beacon of justice and reform.

Democrats have demonstrated a record for butt-covering, back-room dealmaking, and overt attempts to circumvent the will of the people that smacks of a degree of elitist arrogance that defies belief.

The Democrats really do believe they can get succeed with their overt attempts at stripping constitutional authority from the people of Washington. They simply cannot believe that we are smart enough to catch them, and that we have no idea what they are up to.

You cannot argue with the record. It is all right there. Democrats have openly defied the will of the people through ignoring initiative measures that the majority of Washington voters approved, or that they are still attempting to reinstate policies that Washington voters have clearly spoken out against.

They have oppressed religious freedoms. They have enforced racist policies. They have undermined core American principles. They have robbed from the poor and called it a lottery. They have misappropriated billiond of dollars from DSHS that should have gone to improving the lives of children and families, and have vigorously obstructed every audit that has been attempted. They have exacted huge taxes from us for an education system that is criminally inadequate, and the money never seems to get to where it needs to go. The policies they have enacted have been for the sole purpose of more firmly entrenching themselves and their anti-family, anti-religion, and anti-republic agenda.

No: Democrats have been many things; a beacon of justice and truth is not one of them.

But you also omit the fact that many Democrats have joined Republicans and Independents in the call for a revote. This is not a case of Republican sour grapes as you have inferred. The majority of pro-Gregoire people at the rally yesterday were anarchists, union thugs, and militant leftists.

So we know who stands for Gregoire, and they are a minority.

Posted by: AjalonVox on January 12, 2005 08:30 AM
193. Ahhh...where in my posts have I extolled the virtues of the Democratic party?

I haven't...and I won't...if anything in my previous post I summarily dismissed them...

The only reference I've made to my personal political bent were that I was staunchly independent and wished to have a viable 3rd party candidate to vote for after all the belly aching of both sides...

So please...try not to pigeon hole folks...

As to your other comments, the state history is not in question here...what's in question is the results of the latest election...

It would be a stretch to say that a vote that seperates the top two vote getters by a few hundred at best has a minority at all...

I don't know where your last reactions came from...care to explain?

Posted by: G Davis on January 12, 2005 10:42 AM
194. GDavis

I agree in principal with your statement about Justice and law.

I disagree that the rule of law says that CG won this election, however convoluted, she won... Election rules were not followed, period. There is no disputing that. The enhancement of ballots in King County did not follow the procedures outlined in the RCW (affidavits have been filed by election observers regarding this issue). The co-mingling of provisional ballots (last count 348) in King County did not follow the procedures outlined in the RCW (admitted to by King County election officials). The certification of the results in King County with only 94% (King Count announcement) verification of provisional ballots does not follow procedures outlined in the RCW for 100% research and verification of the provisional ballot.

Further, as I understand it, there are additional remedies that are provided in the statutes; namely a court decision on the lawsuit filed by the Rossi campaign, which is completely within his rights outlined by election law.

I have listened to the calls of the Gregoire supporters for her to exercise her rights to a recount and then another recount and agreed with them that it should be done to ensure that the next governor had the support of the people of the State of Washington. I also heard from the Rossi supporters during that time for Gregoire to concede, a nice thought but not realistic.

Now I am hearing the Rossi supporters calling on him to exercise his constitutional rights and now the Gregoire supporters want him to concede, again a nice thought but not realistic.

I also share your concern that the pathetic way in which this last election was handled (again not following the rules outlined in our election laws) may happen in a re-vote, if one is mandated by law, however that is the system we have in place at this point.

For anyone out there that would insist on Rossi folding up his tent and going home because they want to "move on", this simply doesn’t make sense for a great many people who believe that there were enough procedural errors to call into question the validty of this election; Republican, Democrat and Independent (which I am staunchly in this camp) alike.

Finally, I hope this fiasco wakes the masses up and gets them involved in the process of ensuring that the power WE have given to our elected officials is used to clean up the stench that has for so long been tolerated.

Posted by: Allen on January 12, 2005 11:00 AM
195. Allen...I agree with most of your sentiment...

I do think the good folks in this forum are entirely too focused on King County and it's affects on the election...

Should Rossi prevail it will be because ALL the irregularities, statewide, would affect a different winner...

I haven't seen anything here to prove that when all statewide irregularities are taken into consideration, King County would stand out so...

Perhaps there is proof of that in the FOIA numbers...I just haven't seen them...nor have my repeated requests for those sorts of comparisons been acknowledged...

Too bad...could be another convert in the making if anyone was willing to take the time to outline the state as a whole...

Posted by: G Davis on January 12, 2005 02:08 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?