In the (unlikely, in my belief) event that the courts don't permit a gubernatorial revote, there's always Plan B.
The King County Council districts have been redrawn to accommodate the shrinking of the council from thirteen members to nine. The new districts were gerrymandered to protect some of the incumbents, including Democratic Council Chairman Larry Phillips (he of the magical mystery ballots fame).
As it turns out, Larry Phillips will now represent Precinct 1823, home of the King County Administration Building, 500 4th Ave, where everybody and their dog is allowed to register to vote in the State of Washington, no questions asked.
So here's Plan B. Let everybody who voted for Dino Rossi in November re-register to vote giving the King County Administration Building as their residence. We can then all vote in this year's elections for both a Republican to unseat Larry Phillips, giving the council a 5-4 Republican majority, and also for a Republican to replace King County Executive Ron Sims. Visualize the housecleaning that will ensue when we win.
If every Washingtonian who is sick and tired of being disenfranchised by King County simply plays the game by King County rules and registers and votes in Precinct 1823, we can't possibly lose. Tell all your friends in other states and countries to "move to" Precinct 1823 too (as long as they're U.S. citizens, of course).
Now there's an election that will be a "model to the rest of the nation and the world". And surely the Democrats will help us fight to count every vote!
I'm just saying...
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 14, 2005 02:19 PM | Email ThisI will provide an update when I return!
Posted by: bmvaughn on January 14, 2005 02:21 PMA very wise man once told me that the way to change a rule is not to break it - it's to follow the rule to the point that it becomes ridiculous.
Posted by: Larry on January 14, 2005 02:33 PMIf you take the time to read the explanation of the law on my blog, you might not be so sure that the courts have jurisdiction to decide a contested gubernatorial election in Washington.
http://crokersack.blogspot.com/2005/01/can-wa-courts-decide-contested.html
If The Seattle Times correctly reported the issues raised in court by the Democrats on Wednesday, it appears that they did as I expected: They waited until Gregoire the Pretender took the oath of office before submitting a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The contested election "shall be decided by the legislature." --Article III, section 4, Washington State Constitution
Posted by: Micajah on January 14, 2005 02:39 PMGuys...I think he was kidding (I hope he was kidding) but it just shows how ridiculous 1823 really is because would they really even know? Ok...maybe hundreds and hundreds of folks going to register there might raise a flag...but then again, it is KC!
Posted by: megs on January 14, 2005 02:45 PMCliff, you make some good points, however, King County will never be moot as long as they maintain an empirical advantage through sheer numbers...and as long as the Director of Elections remains an appointed, rather than elected, official in King County. As long as the Dems remain in control of the County Executive's seat and maintain a majority on the council, IMHO the Director of Elections will remain an appointed position.
Apparently it IS within the law. Didn't Sam Reed virtually say as much when he certified the election of LewdiChris?
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 14, 2005 02:48 PMIf your question ("What does the law say?") refers to the authority to decide a contested gubernatorial election, click on my name below, where it says "Posted by Micajah at...."
If you're asking about some other law, then never mind.
Posted by: Micajah on January 14, 2005 02:57 PMAccording to Logan, Reed, et al, it's not cheating.
Posted by: South County on January 14, 2005 03:08 PMI can say this. The democrats have not only lost my respect and my vote, but they have also turned me into a generous campaign contributor to their opponents.
Watch as before your very eyes, Washington turns from blue to red. Midterms are going to be rough for the blue meanies.
Posted by: Andy on January 14, 2005 03:23 PMI do have a suggestion though....We need to keep pressure on those dishonest legistators in Olympia. If EVERYBODY e-mailed them once a week until the next election with the simple phrase "I know what you did and I have not forgotten" It may, and I say may just keep them off their toes.
Posted by: Stevenantony on January 14, 2005 03:32 PMStart the URL posted below, and you can find the laws about voting at the precinct assigned to you (or not voting there -- Washington law is very liberal about where you can cast your vote) --
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.08.430&fuseaction=section
Don
Posted by: Don C. on January 14, 2005 03:55 PMIt all depends......Do you want the law as it's written? Or King Countys interpretation....
(There seems to be a wide margin of difference there...)
Does anyone has a list that includes the people that were responsible for this election mess?
I mean the leaders like: Gregoire, Berendt, Reed, Sims, Logan, Bill H...who else? Got to be at least a dozen or so that need to go to prison.
Posted by: throw thebumsout! on January 14, 2005 04:01 PMThe contested election "shall be decided by the legislature." --Article III, section 4, Washington State Constitution
should we all be sending our email's, from all of the democratic legislative reps.,stating this isnt "their job" and it is best left for the courts to decide- to the Rossi camp???
Posted by: darcy on January 14, 2005 04:02 PMThis is NOT the time to start talking Plan *B*....
The Dems and their lawyers are literally burning the midnight oil right now searching for legal maneuvers in this election contest!
(hint hint....You know the Dems are in trouble when they appear on TV, talk radio and in liberal newpapers to 'splain their side of the story....A story, by the way, that was merely being investigated in a blog!...........I guess we were getting close to something!)
Snicker.......
Posted by: Deborah on January 14, 2005 04:19 PMFunny, but bad.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 04:22 PMMicajah hits the first issue that will be decided in this case. But please read the entire sentence of the state constitution that is cited by Micajah.
"Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law."
It is that last phrase "in such manner as shall be determined by law" that gets this case into court. The legislature determined that the way it would decide contested elections for the state officers was through a court of law.
Micajah is correct in that this will be the threshold argument in the legal case. Good lawyers can argue this both ways and the arguments will be good ones. If the Rossi campaign wins this threshold issue and there is no further explanation for the provisional ballots, then its "game, set, match" and there will be a new gubernatorial election. The unverified provisionals are illegal votes under 29A.68 By the way, that new election may not occur until the regular election cycle with a primary in September and a general in November of 2005. Frankly, thats what the constitution contemplates and I think you'll find it in Art 3, Section 10.
Posted by: John on January 14, 2005 04:27 PMI believe that there have been previous posts on this subject on other threads (here at SP).
If memory serves, the gist was that the Legislature has an option to decide a contested election. If they decline to act (perhaps I should have said "When..." - is anybody surprised that they ducked another important issue?), the authority to decide passes to the court. Or perhaps the tracks are parallel, and defined in different sections of the RCW.
Posted by: ewaggin on January 14, 2005 04:30 PMBORING!
Posted by: ZZZZZZZZ on January 14, 2005 04:31 PM'Peace' yourself, you piece of filth.
If you remember, the moron who the Democrats ran this year also said 'Bring it on!' The only difference is that a week later he was pleading for it to stop.
Regardless of what happens with the contest, we're bringing it in 2006 and 2008. You better be on your A-game. You saw this year what we can do - more votes for a President than any in history, election of a Republican AG in this state, and a tie for Governor. You're toast.
Posted by: Larry on January 14, 2005 04:32 PMLarry said sometimesyou need to push a law to it's limits of absurdity before everyone recognizes how absurd it is. Let's get the Voter Registration Law re: where you must register BEFORE ignoring Plan B.
And why should we call this Plan B??? The outcome of the election is pretty much mutaually exclusive from the precidt that is your "residence". The bottom-line is it's supposed to be pretty much where you lay your head at night from what I understand. The law may be might broad here. Certainly it is wrong to register and vote more than once. But everyone who qualifies ought to be able to at least vote once.
THE ISSUE HERE IS WHERE???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 14, 2005 04:53 PMLet's get into the Voter Registration Law and see what is POSSIBLE not simply assume something is impossible.
Remember, one of the reasons we are currently in this mess is that Chris Vance wasted a day or so assuming 3rd Party partisans couldn't go out and get voter affadavits...remember? I know firsthand there are a number that could have gotten in IF we had started a couple days earlier...ie: Arizona/California snowbirds that stop their Washington mail when they are gone. A lot of Republicans in that Group.
WE WERE TOO LATE DUE TO ASSUMPTIONS AND A LATE LACK OF AGGRESSION
RCW RCW 29A.68.020 says that "Any registered voter may contest... All election contests must proceed under *RCW 29A.68.010"
RCW 29A.68.010 was repealed and replaced by RCW 29A.68.011. .011 say "Any justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, or judge of the superior court in the proper county...whenever it is made to appear to such justice or judge by affidavit of an elector that: ... (6) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in the issuance of a certificate of election."
Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the Constitutional provision "shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law." has been fulfilled by the legislature. They have delegated election contests to the court.
The constitutional issue would seem to be whether this is a constitutional delegation of power. Since the Constitution expressly allows the legislature to determine the matter in which election contests would be heard, it allows for the legislature to delegate the hearing of contests.
The law provides that any superior, appeals, or supreme court judge can hear the contest. That allows the registered voter to choose the venue. Superior courts are generally the place where findings of fact occur open which they render conclusions of law. The appeals and supreme courts generally reserve themselves to the review of those conclusions of law based on the findings of fact. If the appeals process finds the findings of facts insufficient, they will remand the case to the lower court to supplement the facts.
It makes sense to start a contest in superior court so that the factual record can be built to support the conclusions of law. Then the appeals process can determine if the conclusions of law were properly drawn.
Comments?
Thanks! That was convincing to me...hope 'Plan B' is not necessary, but it still may be an option...
Posted by: smegma on January 14, 2005 05:17 PMThere is more than enough evidence for the contest to gain standing before the court. The outcome will be determined on how the court interprets certain words in the applicable laws, primarily whether the word "procure" requires the showing of intent to change the outcome of the election or whether unintentional errors are sufficient cause.
The other big issue is how the court will determine if it has to be shown to whose benefit errors and illegal votes benefited, or if is sufficient to show that there are enough errors and illegal votes to make the actual result unknowable.
Posted by: north clark county on January 14, 2005 05:26 PMAnd would probably be more effective than we could ever imagine!
To Micajah and others:
Micajah hits the first issue that will be decided in this case. But please read the entire sentence of the state constitution that is cited by Micajah.
"Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law."
It is that last phrase "in such manner as shall be determined by law" that gets this case into court. The legislature determined that the way it would decide contested elections for the state officers was through a court of law.
John (and others), please read my explanation on my blog before you assume that I haven't read the entire sentence.
Here, I've made it easy for you -- just click my name down there where it says "Posted by Micajah." That will take you to one of the pages that discusses it. If you click the hyperlink at the beginning of that entry, it will take you to the first entry that discusses the law. Don't worry, this isn't like the old joke: "Pull my finger." It's safe to click my name.
Posted by: Micajah on January 14, 2005 05:40 PMIf you read my explanation at my blog, you know that I explained the point you make.
You think "shall be decided by the legislature" is rendered meaningless by "in such manner as shall be determined by law."
I think the authority to decide cannot be delegated by the legislature to the judiciary.
I also think "in such manner as shall be determined by law" means the legislature is not free to decide the contested election as a purely political matter.
In other words, the legislature is supposed to decide the contested election by following the law -- not by simply putting it to a vote and letting their partisan nature control the outcome.
That may have been too much to expect of them, but it is what the people who adopted the constitution put into the constitution -- and it hasn't been changed since the beginning.
But, whether you think I'm right or not, the important thing to keep in mind is this: There is a good chance this contested election is going back to the legislature for a decision, so the legislators should be reminded as often as possible that we expect them to uphold the laws and constitution -- just as they swore to do.
Posted by: Micajah on January 14, 2005 05:51 PMI read it. I like the time you put in on it. I think there are a number of ways to interpret it. I believe (no law school hopeful am I), that the law has not been challenged in this way (Rossi's case) before. Why else would the 22 Jan deadline be part of state law? Further, the Challenge was filed prior to inauguration of the pretender.
No case like it, my friend...
Posted by: smegma on January 14, 2005 05:54 PMYou can expect thou that if several hundred orange-cheeky looking guys and gals start showing up to register at the KC building that the council will be passing a new ordinance or nullifying their old rule. They will have months to drive us off the rolls (cleaning them up, cleaning off the 'lawless' rascally republicans) to protect Larry Phillips.
So this probably wouldn't work.
Here is another idea. Show up to vote provisional in that district. Even if you already voted. Once you voted provisional in a Larry Phillips precinct, walk out the door, walk back in and ask to vote provisional again. When they ask, "Weren't you just here?" you can say, "No, I don't think so. Must have been somebody who looked like me."
If they ask for i-d, just tell them that is against the rules/statutes.
Do this three or four times until they call the cops. :-)!
Actually what civil disobedience is - is lawful behavior against unlawful statutues. History is replete with examples going back to Christ
Here are some of the more modern examples. The freedom riders of the early 60s. Unlawful statute - blacks have to ride in the back of the bus, use seperate Trailways/Greyhound waiting rooms, etc. Lawful behavior against the statute - freedom riders whites sitting in the back, freedom rider blacks sitting in the front. Black and white freedom riders both going into the whites only waiting rooms. Remember when these guys reached Montgomery several both black and white (Johns Lewis among them) were nearly beaten to death, then the freedom riders were arrested by the cops who showed up after the white riot was over.
I'll save other examples for later posts.
Remember Civil Disobedience is a lawful response to an unlawful law, rule, or practice. One needs to think through how the authoritities are likely to respond. In the case of Stephans idea they are likely to change the rule long before we can vote Larry Phillips out.
Phillips is definately a girlie giy I would like to see go, but there are bigger fish to fry like the Right to life, pursuit of happiness, etc.
I imagine that if there is ever a big scale civil disobedience in this country again it will be generation 1/3 dead demanding an end to the murder (abortion). The kids will fill the jails and the feds will have to respond like they did to the blacks in the 50s and 60s or they will have to crack down hard on the kids, guns, etc. which of course would mean civil war. The other option is that the kids cave early - I don't think that is a likely outcome.
Gandhi was upset that the British were taxing something as necessary as salt and using the revenue to keep control of India (does that remind you of colonial America). His response, an impractical one for the masses was to walk from his city to the ocean and make salt from evaporated sea water. It of course was not directly against the law to do this, but it made for a galvanizing spectacle to see this gnarled old guy walk hundreds of miles to make himself enough salt for a pot of soup. Hundreds of thousands of people along the route got to see Gandhi rub the Brit's noses in it.
It galvanized the Indians around the idea that a simple lawful response could paralyze the Brits efforts to continue to oppress India just for England's supposed economic benefit, but really for British pride for the Brits well knew that the agge of colonialization was ending.
In this sense Stephan's idea is a good one: It will get a lot of publicity, it will get KC to address their ridiculous rule of allowing registration for all takers at the elections building, it will keep the microscope on KC elections rolls. It will probably not result in Phillips ouster for they will move to protect him from you 'lawbreakers.'
Posted by: Jericho on January 14, 2005 06:11 PMI believe the statute you refer to, which allows a contest of an election so long as it is made by the tenth day after a certificate of election is issued, probably wouldn't be held to apply to a contested gubernatorial election.
The statutes all are based on the idea that the court would be deciding the contested election, which would mean the offices being contested aren't the ones listed in Article III, section 1. For those offices in section 1, section 4 says the contested election must be decided by the legislature.
Had the previous legislators given it any thought, they would have realized that they wouldn't want to be in the mess we are now in. They wouldn't want a contested gubernatorial election to be permissible once they have issued a certificate of election to the person who appeared to win the election.
The reason the election returns are delivered to the legislature and announced there is that the contest, if there is to be one, must be raised and decided before the certificate is issued.
The Republicans probably did enough to raise the issue in the Senate on Monday and at the joint session on Tuesday.
The Democrats dodged their responsibility.
I believe the court will probably require the legislature to do its duty -- and will rule that the certificate of election they issued is null and void -- since they didn't even come close to deciding the contested election before issuing the certificate of election to Gregoire the Pretender.
The only way to avoid making the legislators uphold the constitution and laws is to torture the words of the constitution to arrive at the construction others have argued -- that is, a construction of the meaning of those words which would allow the legislature to delegate the authority to decide the contested election.
The legislature is authorized to determine the manner in which the contested election will be decided by law. That would include, for example, enacting laws which set the standard which must be met in order to set aside the election and which establish the process by which the contest can be brought to the legislature for decision. It wouldn't include passing the buck to the judicial branch of government.
Posted by: Micajah on January 14, 2005 06:12 PMWould Stephan's idea work? Don't know? But it is worth considering it. One thing for sure about Civil Disobedience - to be successful it needs a leader - a high profile one.
Not suggesting this is the course, but imagine Dino Rossi taking up Stepan's idea - then asking thousands to do likewise - thousands wouldn't but scores might - maybe even hundreds. That would force the government to respond. Actually I don't think Rossi has the personality nor the disposition to lead a civil disobedience campaign, but he makes an effective example.
Posted by: Jericho on January 14, 2005 06:19 PMI am lowercase(smegma: see http://www.usefulwork.com/blog/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3487 )
I am also lower class when law is discussed. I have no legal training.
I like your enthusiasm, speaks volumes for our nation as a whole...Keep us posted on your findings...did not mean to impugn you if that is how you took it.
And I agree, the legislature failed to do their duty...
Posted by: smegma on January 14, 2005 06:58 PMSomething spanked me from one of your sentences...can the legislature decide that "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is a valid tool to use in contested elections? I seem to recall that a number of elections (usually local) have been decided by such measures.
Posted by: smegma on January 14, 2005 07:11 PMThe second part of my argument did address the issue of whether the Constitution allowed the delegation to the courts. I repeat my contention: "The constitutional issue would seem to be whether this is a constitutional delegation of power. Since the Constitution expressly allows the legislature to determine the matter in which election contests would be heard, it allows for the legislature to delegate the hearing of contests."
I find nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the delegation, as long as it done "in such manner as shall be determined by law." Since the direction by the legislature was done "by law", it should be valid.
Also, I do not see anything persuasive in your discussion of Becker. Are you saying that the court was inviting a constitutional challenge to the contest statutes? I read it as saying that her attempt to try to find a right to contest in the Constitution through Gold Bar might have been supported by a Constitutional challenge. But since she didn't challenge, she couldn't use Gold Bar.
Posted by: north clark county on January 14, 2005 07:53 PMApparently we have to agree to disagree about the grammatical structure and meaning of that sentence in the constitution.
My point about the Becker opinion is simply that it cannot be cited as authority for the argument that the courts have been constitutionally delegated authority to decide contested elections when an Article III, section 1 office is the subject of the contest.
The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the statutes which sent the matter to the courts. It simply ruled that the petitioner in that case had relied on a law which didn't apply to her situation. Thus, she had no legal basis for her petition, and the court didn't need to consider the constitutionality of the statutes.
Yet, that is apparently the only court opinion which dealt with such a contest -- since it is the only one cited by the GOP in their petition.
In other words, there apparently is no Washington legal precedent that would establish as a matter of stare decisis that the legislature can delegate to the courts the power to decide a contested gubernatorial election.
When the issue is raised in this litigation (and the Democrats have already raised it in their argument about expedited discovery), it will be a case of first impression in Washington.
Posted by: Micajah on January 14, 2005 08:51 PMAnd figuring out the grammatical structure and meaning is what the court does. I guess we may see what they come up with. It will be interesting.
Posted by: north clark county on January 14, 2005 08:59 PMThat was great, Stefan!
Posted by: Cyd on January 14, 2005 09:35 PMUse some imagination. How will King County respond? How CAN King County respond?
It's brilliant.
Posted by: South County on January 15, 2005 07:22 AMcarla@preemptivekarma
Posted by: carla on January 15, 2005 08:36 AM