This can't be good for Governor-for-the-time-being Gregoire. Robert Mak's Sunday newsmagazine this week was titled "What went wrong?".
Neither Dean Logan nor Sam Reed seem to have much confidence in their work product:
Mak: "Do you think we really know who got more votes in this race, statewide?"It's not exactly the "biggest display of democracy" the world has ever seen if the people responsible for running the election have no idea who actually won.
Logan: "Statewide, you know I think that perhaps we'll never know the answer to that because of it being as close as it is."Mak: "Secretary Reed ... Who do you think got more votes in this last governor's race, Gregoire or Rossi?"
Reed: "It's still hard to tell ... the variables are such that it's hard to say for sure exactly who won"
The best part of Mak's show is his interview with Dino Rossi, who shows, as always, that he is a man of grace and aplomb and why he will, in all likelihood, soon be elected governor. Again.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 17, 2005 12:51 AM | Email ThisFortunately, Stefan, we already have an elected Governor.
Governor Christine Gregoire.
Dino Rossi is a former real estate salesman who is like a false front: lots of charm and not much else. He's an extremist, and he would have been a disaster. Again, fortunately, the election is over, and Rossi is not governor.
Go on and pray for a revote. It isn't going to happen.
Why in God's name aren't these questions asked on every interview and every time a hearing is conducted and why aren't the dems made to answer?
By allowing these questions to be ignored, the republicans are allowing the "it just happens" excuse to prevail. If it just happens, then this election is no more wrong or invalid than any other. We could get to the bottom of this and we could cause a revote but we the citizens are being stone walled by politicians and party bosses who stick together regardless of affiliation. It's the 11th commandment of politics.
Sam Reed is their enabler.
Posted by: Baynative on January 17, 2005 06:42 AMThen ask Reed:
"Sam, why did you certify this election without having all the required documentation to do so?
Everyone is frustrated by the lack of the Election Officials to be more forthcoming about the problems and with the Dems "cheerleading" for tolerance of obvious gross incompetence. None of this matters to the Judge. Many people will speak under oath...that is why the Dems are trying to stop this Court case (after repeating over & over again that the Court is the place to settle this). The Dems are in a corner....and they will fight until the death on this...stonewalling to prevent a trial and every detail of that trial thinking the longer they drag it out, the better. REALLY? For whom?
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 17, 2005 07:10 AMThis election was no more wrong or invalid than any other. It was closer than the margin of error for the process. It has certainly driven out the need for some election reform. And while I believe a coin flip would be as fair and accurate as anything, it has followed the legal process for recounts and challenges and a winner was declared avoiding the constitutional crisis.
But there was not evidence of massive fraud and King County is not the most corrupt Democratic 'machine' since Mayor Daley. Kirby, John and Hannity need to whip people into a frenzy to build ratings which attract advertising dollars and determine their paychecks. The Builders Association needs to throw gas on the fire so they can build more cul de sacs which is what determines their paychecks. But when it gets to court there just isn't a compelling case that the November election was invalid.
Posted by: Jackass Hippy on January 17, 2005 07:11 AMHippy--Did you know that smokin' pot combined with Prozac can lead to early Alzheimers?
I said, did you know that smokin' pot combined with Prozac can lead to early Alzheimers?
NEVER MIND...TOO LATE!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 17, 2005 07:19 AM"But there was not evidence of massive fraud and King County is not the most corrupt Democratic 'machine' since Mayor Daley."
I'm sorry, did they already have this in court and make a decision?
Let's wait until a judge looks in detail at what we have seen before pronouncing things squeeky clean.
Posted by: Larry on January 17, 2005 07:33 AM"It was closer than the margin of error for the process. "
I believe your "Bingo" answer is appropos only on this point. The rest is typical drivel from a person who feeds at the CG trough. Did you interview with her? She needs good temporary staff...
Posted by: smegma on January 17, 2005 07:40 AMAnd to respond to Jackass Hippy, the attitude that "Sh*t happens, the margin of error is acceptable . . . close enough for government work," as smegma points out, just doesn't fly. Come on, how many friggin' computer programmers live in King County? We do have the technology to make entirely accurate elections, we just need to make sure that our elected officials have the will.
The Mak interview was good, though I was a bit appalled that he re-hashed with Dino with some of the stupidest arguments against the re-vote that the trolls have been putting forth on this site. One example, "How can we have a re-vote when it won't be the same electorate, people have died and others have come of voting age?" Huh???? If that argument held water, then every general election would be illegitimate as the primary winners would not be voted on by the same voters. Dino did a classy job, however, being peppered with such inane questions.
Jackass Hippy, yes, the system is broken and election reform is needed. But 60% of Washington voters have no confidence in the results of the last election, and for the people to have faith in our Democratic process and the governor to be considered legitimate, a re-vote is an absolute necessity.
Being a native Washingtonian but having lived in 5 states and 4 countries in my lifetime, since moving back I am generally appalled at how Washington state government conducts itself and am not surprised that this whole mess happened - we are a true Banana Republic. The only place that I've lived that would make us look good is DC city government - and that's a pretty pathetic statement. If anyone will be organizing a sit-in in the governor's office, let me know and I will be there.
Posted by: LoneWolf on January 17, 2005 08:22 AMDino Rossi is nothing but a class act and is also standing up for whats right for Washington.
The left is obviously threatened and the hippy post is evidence. Burning down homes on culdesacs is only what the extreme left does and that is why the Democrats are imploding.
I want to agree, but I don't see what I'd like to be hearing. Maybe I'll be proven wrong and the legal team is a lot sharper that they are letting on.
I like your two questions for Reed and Logan. My hope is that Logan has been served with a subpoena to provide the affidavits and the signers of the 400 mystery provisional ballot voters, along with the elections workers who found them in only 48 hours after the first election to fill in their missing signatures.
BRAD -brilliant perspective
Posted by: Baynative on January 17, 2005 08:28 AMOh yeah: when you have illegal voters, it doesn't matter how many times or how carefully you check their votes.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 17, 2005 08:33 AMYes, I'd be happy if Rossi won a revote, but I'd also be satisfied if he didn't, as long as the process itself was not in question.
Posted by: Jason on January 17, 2005 08:42 AMLeftist drivel is getting more and more drivelish every minute.
Posted by: Mannalamancha on January 17, 2005 09:16 AMAND then they claim the election is accurate and the AG who oversaw 12 YEARS of investigation of previous fraud to give us the current system sits her sorry rear in the govenor's chair?
YUP! THE MOST ACCURATE ELECTION IN HISTORY!
Right.
Posted by: Victor on January 17, 2005 09:21 AM[1] Elections - Contests - Statutory Authority - Altered Ballots. RCW 29.04.030 constitutes an implementation of the court's general equity power to inquire into and correct election errors. The general equity power, which is granted to the superior courts by Const. art. 4, § 6 unless vested by law exclusively in some other court, applies to a claim of altered ballots, and includes the right to order whatever remedy is necessary to correct an error, including a new election where appropriate.
Nowhere is the word fraud or even misconduct mentioned. It just says to “correct election errors”. It appears that the reason for the errors is irreverent. What seems to be relevant is that there were errors and enough to put the election in question.
To be sure the RCW has been updated since the 1975 case, but it looks like the only real change was in the numbering (i.e. RCW 29.04.030 is now RCW 29A.68.11). If anybody knows of any other changes please let us know.
There seems to be little argument about the presence of errors and many of them. Also, after hearing both SOS Reed and Dean Logan say that the real winner cannot be determined, the court should have ample evidence and testimony to call for a new election.
Posted by: Barry on January 17, 2005 09:22 AMThis is the Washington Administrative Code that was used to allow the homeless to vote for the Governor's race, as well as other state offices and legislative positions. I can find no statute passed by the legislature that would have allowed this WAC, but it clearly violates the Washington Constitution Art.6(1A) "Voter qualifications for presidential elections. In consideration of those citizens of the United States who become residents of the state of Washington during the year of a presidential election with the intention of making this state their permanent residence, this section is for the purpose of authorizing such persons who can meet all qualifications for voting as set forth in section 1 of this article, except for residence, to vote for presidential electors or for the office of President and Vice-President, as the case may be, but no other: Provided , that such persons have resided in the state at least sixty days immediately preceding the presidential election concerned.
The legislature shall establish the time, manner and place for such persons to cast such presidential ballots."
In essence, those without a residence could vote only for the President and Vice-President. The legislature was to provide for a place to vote, not a residence. The WAC appears to have been written by Sec. of State Reed in 2003. Oregon allows the homeless to vote for President/Vice-President, but has a ballot specially marked for that purpose. Sam Reed should have made provision for a similar ballot, not provided a residence from which to vote. If a new election is granted, the question arises, will Sec. Reed use the same unconstitutional WAC, or admit it was wrong for the last election? I hope the Republicans ask the judges to rule on this WAC as part of the court case.
Please note the Statutory Authority RCW29.04.080 referred to under this WAC had no provision for the WAC. I was told it has been reorganized as RCW29A.08.651. I see no language to authorize this WAC there either.
You haven't heard nothing yet!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Norm Gilbertson on January 17, 2005 09:47 AMIn short, Reed and Logan have given the facts of this case to Rossi. Only the law is in doubt now.
Posted by: Greg V. on January 17, 2005 09:51 AMStefan--
This ought to be fairly easy to discern if the "homeless" voted for more than the Presidential Race. In the Precindt 18** whatever, how many undervotes were there OR how many more votes were there in the Presidential Race than the Governor's Race??????
Can Dean Logan tell us if the "homeless" were allowed to vote for more than the President?
how do you know what evidence the GOP has?? Are you one of the few that are privey to what the GOP has now? Are you a lawyer or a judge or an expert in the elections laws to make those comments?? OR are you one of the many who regurgitates only what the press is telling you??
Posted by: mary on January 17, 2005 10:07 AMI guess we are going to find out soon who is right and who is wrong.
Instead of trying to sway those of us that post here, your time would be better spent going door to door to convince your neighbors. Especially since it appears that most washingtonians agree with most of the rest of us and not you.
Posted by: jaybo on January 17, 2005 10:18 AMExactly...these are not margin-of-error issues, these are procedural issues.
Posted by: South County on January 17, 2005 10:27 AMPosted by jaybo at January 17, 2005 10:18 AM
I seemed to be a little confused about your post asnd the way it was addressed to Mary.
Who do you define as "us" and who do you mean by "you" ?
My message should have been directed to Nelson.
Sorry Mary.
Posted by: jaybo on January 17, 2005 11:36 AMPut those quotes into the court record for the election contest, and I don't see how any judge could fail to order a revote.
Posted by: Paul on January 17, 2005 03:13 PMNah. Oftentimes they'll win by big margins, because in many elections there won't be a Republican who feels like wasting the money to compete in a rigged election.
I wouldn't call Mayor Richard M. Daley's reelection bits "squeakers".
Posted by: supercat on January 17, 2005 03:26 PMThe doc's on the SOS website are only a few of the filings. I talk the Chelan clerk last week and there were over 90 filings as of last Thursday.
You can get all of them for a price of $60 per month. You have to sign that you will not distribute them.
Posted by: Barry on January 17, 2005 03:30 PM