I step out from the office for a couple of hours and when I come back I learn that the whole world has changed.
The Seattle Times reports: "Judge refuses to dismiss lawsuit over governor's election". So far, so good, but then this:
The good news for Democrats was Bridges' ruling in Chelan County Superior Court that Republicans must show any illegal votes were cast in favor of Gregoire, and not Republican candidate Dino Rossi. There would have to be enough illegal Gregoire votes to erase her 129-vote victory margin.With secret ballots, it is impossible to prove how anybody voted. The next best thing to do is put the identified illegal voters under oath, but it's not like they can ask the dead people who they voted for, and the felons' answers can't exactly be trusted. If ballot stuffing explained the thousands of magical mystery ballots, how will those be attributed? And then there's the matter of remedy:
the judge said if Republicans did prove their case, he would not order a new election for governor as they want him to do.It defies common sense that the judge would order the contest to proceed under an impossible standard and without a viable remedy.
I suspect there's a better explanation than what was reported.
UPDATE: Even the WA State GOP is still contemplating the meaning of all of this
We are unsure of the implications of these rulings taken together. We will consult with our lawyers and keep you updated!
I hadn't heard about the standard of proof ruling.
Posted by: ScottM on February 4, 2005 06:05 PMWe're supposed to simply take the word of a person who's already been found to have voted illegally? And an illegal Gregoire voter would now have a DOUBLE incentive to lie and simply say he/she voted for Rossi...that would invalidate someone's legal vote Rossi, yet leave Gregoire WITH the illegal vote.
I sure hope you're right and there's "a better explanation".
Posted by: JeanneB on February 4, 2005 06:11 PMI wonder if the reporter misunderstood -- or did everyone else miss the importance of such a ruling?
I cannot think of anything argued today that would have required the judge to make such a ruling, so I suspect the reporter for the Times got it wrong -- but who knows?
And, if the judge did make such a ruling, what does the judge think is included within the phrase "illegal votes"? If he is including anything other than votes by felons and votes by people who voted more than once, how would anyone know for whom the "mystery ballots" were cast?
Posted by: Micajah on February 4, 2005 06:14 PMAs for the election, the only practcal result of that is that the fraudulent gov would have to move out immediately, and the Lt Gov would be a caretaker until a new election in Nov.
The other practical effect is to make the decision *MUCH* harder to appeal.
Posted by: bruce on February 4, 2005 06:17 PM
As for the re-vote, the Judge's explaination of his reasoning was very tight with references to the State Constitution which don't leave any room for argument.
That leaves the question of relief pretty much closed. The earliest a new vote can be held is the next even year legislative election. NOVEMBER 2006.
The only other relief option (assuming the Judge is upheld) is to prove Gregior got less votes, have the Gregoir victory annulled, and have Rossi declared the victor.
Rossi can always ask the legislature to call for a new Governor's election in 2006 if he proves Gregoire didn't win and he is installed. But, damn the hill to get there will be very steep, not to mention expensive.
I suspect Rossi will have some deep thinking to do in the next while.
I wish him good luck, but in the meantime I will not be holding my breath that Justice will done any time soon (or at all).
Posted by: DeadWood on February 4, 2005 06:17 PMIt means that the earliest that election could occur is at the general election in November 2005.
Northwest Cable News just had an "expert" (who wasn't a lawyer) explaining the judge's ruling. He got it entirely wrong -- claiming that the judge will have to pick the winner.
The judge could lawfully pick the winner, if he thought the evidence was clear as to who won.
Or the judge could simply set aside the election and declare the certificate of election issued to Gregoire to be void. That would remove Gregoire from office and create a vacancy to be filled at November's general election.
Rossi can win on the merits, and the judge can declare that Rossi is the winner -- but that still doesn't mean there won't be another election, if Rossi meant what he said about not wanting the court to put him in office.
There is nothing that requires Rossi to qualify for office by taking the oath of office.
There is nothing that requires Rossi to stay in office, if he decides to take the oath of office.
Rossi can refuse to take the oath, or he can resign immediately after taking the oath -- either way, a vacancy is created which must be filled at the general election in November 2005.
(Posted at an earlier entry by Micajah at February 4, 2005 05:48 PM)
Posted by: Micajah on February 4, 2005 06:17 PMQuote "Any person succeeding to the office of governor as in this Section provided, shall perform the duties of such office only until the disability be removed, or a governor be elected and qualified; and if a vacancy occur more than thirty days before the next general election occurring within two years after the commencement of the term, a person shall be elected at such election to fill the office of governor for the remainder of the unexpired term."
Which means there would be a new election. The candidates would not be limited to Rossi and Gregoire.
Posted by: Vince Callaway on February 4, 2005 06:20 PMEven if a "revote" was called today it wouldn't be possible before apr.
The ds got maybe 10 mos of Brad Owen (whom I understand they don't like), at the cost of the immediate removal of the pretender.
On the other hand, there is no basis at all for an appeal.
I think this is going OK.
Posted by: bruce on February 4, 2005 06:21 PMCourtesy of ALSO LEFT website
alsoalso dot typepad dot com / also_also / 2005 / 02 / newsbreak_chela.html
Stefan: why don't you allow links to Free Republic and other sites?!!? Isn't linking what blogs are all about?!!?
UPDATE 4pm--
* On illegal votes--the Democrats say Rossi must prove the votes were invalid. Bridges ruled it was premature to make that discovery. On using statute 68 .020 from the RCW as the sole basis for what is contestable, Bridges ruled that while they (Rossi) fail on .020, .11 CAN and does apply. On the issue that challenges must be done on or before the day of the election AND attributable to a particular candidate, Bridges acknowledged that the statutes make prevailing in a contest difficult. However, 68 .090 allows Rossi to claim that the errors gound are enough to open the question of whether the election was legitimate. Thus, the motion to dismiss based on the cause of illegal votes is DENIED.
Hmmmmm.........I think maybe the reporter got it wrong, but I admit I am confused.......
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 4, 2005 06:24 PMI don't remember hearing the judge say this, and the story doesn't quote him saying that, and no one on KVI seemed to think he said that. As I speculate over at FOTW, it's just wishful thinking by Mr. Postman after a long day's work.
Posted by: Timothy on February 4, 2005 06:29 PMAnd please give us the layperson's meaning on each.
Thanks in advance.
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on February 4, 2005 06:29 PMKeep the faith.
Posted by: Jeff H on February 4, 2005 06:30 PMThis is really confusing. The ruling about assigning votes isn't even mentioned on the GOP site. I'm becoming more suspicious that the Times got it wrong.
Posted by: JeanneB on February 4, 2005 06:30 PMThe reporter will be transcribing exactly what the judge ruled, and probably be providing it to both counsel, the newsreporters, etc. on Monday. The controversy over what he ruled will continue to simmer until that occurs.
Posted by: Matt on February 4, 2005 06:38 PMOne interesting argument that the R's could make is to throw out all ballots that contravened the original count and machine re-count.
They might argue that those additional votes were "more" tainted in whole then the original votes and gave the election to Gregoire.
The R's do know how the count changed after
Mystery Ballots
Provisional Ballots
Enhanced Ballots
This would put the D's in a position of having to argue that both pre/post results were equally tainted.
I the R's lost (most likley) then they would simply agree that it is unknowable and the election must be set aside and a re-vote in 2005 occur.
Either way thats a win for the R's, if G were to step down and allow Rossi in that might be a big win for her party in 2008 but no D's think that long term.
Posted by: Todd on February 4, 2005 06:38 PMHow come I cannot simply copy and paste the URL of the "alsoalso" blog in the comments?
I found it using "Google" after "Scott in Carnation" put an altered version in his comment.
When I pasted it here, I got this "error" message:
Posted by: Micajah on February 4, 2005 06:52 PMStay tuned.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 4, 2005 06:52 PMIsn't one of the foundations of blogging cross-linking to other blogs?
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 4, 2005 06:55 PMHow come I cannot simply copy and paste the URL of the "alsoalso" blog in the comments?
I found it using "Google" after "Scott in Carnation" put an altered version in his comment.
When I pasted it here, I got this "error" message:
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: [here would be the URL, but I cannot include it]
Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.
What is "questionable" about the content of another blog? (Well, OK, about another blog which isn't written by Headless Lucy or someone similar.)
For others who noticed Scott in Carnation's comment, the blog seems to be done by someone who was listening to the King5 streaming video when it came back online and heard the judge's words.
Posted by: Micajah on February 4, 2005 06:57 PMHe agrees with your assessment. He says, in a nutshell, that Judge Bridges gave the State Supreme Court an easy route to affirm his ruling. Since there is nothing about a revote written in the statutes, the best way for Rossi to become Governor is in a fall election. So it wouldn't be as early as April, but only a few months farther down the road.
This is much better than having a trial in which a judge could declare Rossi the true winner. Afterall, Rossi said he wouldn't take the job if it happened that way.
We shall see what happens...
INITIAL PHASE:
1) The Democrats present evidence which is found by the judge to adequately rebut the Republicans’ claim that the winner of the election is unknowable. Gregoire stays in office, no appeal possible because it is a factual rather than a legal finding. But this is extremely unlikely.
2) Rossi’s claim is accepted but the judge says it’s not enough, because there is no way to prove that the phony votes were in fact for Gregoire, she might have won anyway. Gregoire stays in office, Repubs appeal to the state Supreme Court, saying this is an impossibly high and unprecendented standard of proof to meet, it ought to be enough to show that the true outcome is unknowable. State Supreme Court agrees with the Republicans. Go to Remedy phase.
3) Same as 2) but State Supreme Court denies the appeal. Repubs appeal to U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court denies appeal. Gregoire wins.
4) Same as 3) but U.S. Supreme Court agrees with Repubs. Go to Remedy phase.
5) Rossi’s claim is accepted and the judge rules that the election is invalid. Case goes to State Supreme Court for Remedy phase.
6) Rossi somehow proves that not more than 129 votes were in fact stolen for Gregoire (I don’t see how this is possible unless someone confesses). Judge declares Rossi the winner, no new election.
REMEDY PHASE:
1) WA Supreme Court accepts lower court opinion that new election must wait for next statewide election. Gregoire steps down, Dem Lt. Gov. Owens will be Governor for 1 or 2 years.
2) WA Supreme Court orders new election this Spring.
3) WA Supreme Court overturns election, sends to State Legislature for remedy. State Legislature orders new election.
4) Same as 3) except State Legislature decides they should elect the Gov, they choose Gregoire.
5) Same as 4) except they choose Rossi.
Posted by: Joe Shipman on February 4, 2005 07:04 PMWell, it is their blog. So we can only whine.
Meanwhile, I can feel vindicated that I posted on my blog long ago that the special election ("revote") wasn't a lawful possibility. (Let's not mention the times I was wrong.)
Posted by: Micajah on February 4, 2005 07:10 PMI look forward to 2006 when this blue state turns red.
Posted by: Andy on February 4, 2005 07:19 PMNo wonder the Judge said he would be available by phone if anyone had questions!
I wish someone had the true transcripts of today's rulings so we could analyze them..(or....so the Times reporter could analyze them and get it right....before launching a story!)
Posted by: Deborah on February 4, 2005 07:22 PMTherefore the effect of the ruling is that the Repubs must prove that that at least a net of 130 "illegal votes" were for CG or that the errors on the part of election officials allowed a net of more than 130 illegal votes for CG. You have to show the vote and who it was for.
You are right that this is a very difficult hurdle to get over. I would be surprised if the Repubs can do it because for every vote they can show for CG the Dems will show a vote for DR, tit for tat.
Posted by: dpk on February 4, 2005 07:52 PM"The heart of the Dems motion was that the only remedy allowed to the court was to install the true winner -"
Are you for real? I'd love for that to be the case, but in the way you phrase it that means Rossi wins...thanks for making our point.
'Nuf said
Posted by: smegma on February 4, 2005 08:00 PM"After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, the court shall pronounce judgment in the premises, either confirming or annulling and setting aside such election, according to the law and right of the case.
If in any such case it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes, said court shall declare such person duly elected."
The court agreed that it can not order a revote and that the remedy available to Rossi is to be declared the winner
This is the result the Dems wanted, because it REQUIRES that the Repubs prove that illegal votes actually cast FOR CG so that the court can know who the court SHALL declare as being duly elected. The ruling forces the Repubs to PROVE that Rossi got more votes (not just that the pool of illegal votes is more than the margin of victory).
Oh, wait, I know... Let's appoint Gregoire to Lieutenant Governor and then have Governor Owen resign promoting Gregoire to Governor again.
Whoops, that still leave a hole where we need a Lieutenant Governor. Hmmm, I know a guy with some experience as Lieutenant Governor... Brad Owen.
Hey, this place looks familiar, what gives?
Great Job to all of you who put the news into words.
And what do I do with all this "Re-Vote" stuff. "Re-volt"?
Posted by: Garret Treeadwell on February 4, 2005 08:21 PMNow grow up and behave yourselves, crazy people.
Posted by: Al O. Nimuse on February 4, 2005 08:39 PM"After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, the court shall pronounce judgment in the premises, either confirming or annulling and setting aside such election, according to the law and right of the case."
So if the law and the facts justify it, the court may set aside the election.
"If in any such case it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes, said court shall declare such person duly elected."
The question of whether to overturn the election and award the office to the other candidate is, then, a separate question. The words "If in any such case..." clearly imply that the court has the power to set aside the election even in cases where the evidence is insufficient to overturn the result. This is the issue which requires proof of whom the illegal votes were cast for.
Posted by: ScottM on February 4, 2005 08:46 PMPosted by: Terry, Clark C on February 4, 2005 09:04 PM
Even if that were true, it would be completely self-destructive for the Dems. They would essentially be proving that the system is completely flawed in both directions, yet arguing that Gregoire still won a legitimate election. Short-term gain; long-term loss.
Let's hope it does not devolve to that kind of circus.
Posted by: Larry on February 4, 2005 09:13 PMThey're slick and they know this, so hoping the case will get thrown out by lack of evidence.
Posted by: MB on February 4, 2005 09:40 PMSecond: I hope to enjoy having the witch get yanked out of office. I can live with Lt. Gov Owen for a while if I have to.
Posted by: L.C. on February 4, 2005 09:49 PMA revote is clearly justified when you have more than 129 of the dead voting, or double voting or whatever. But I think the judge doesn't feel he has the right/power/desire to demand a revote no matter what.
What I think he is holding out is the possibility that Rossi actually won. So if Rossi proves 130 manufactured Gregoire votes, then the judge will hold he wins.
Not that I have read the decision, but if the judge was making a modicum of sense that is what he would say.
But its complete BS anyway. For instance, suppose digging through the votes, you manage to get them to confess to manufacturing 329 votes for Gregoire. So that flips to a 200+ margin for Rossi, right? Wrong. Because there still might be 3,500 voterless votes that no one can nail down that still call the election into doubt. So the right answer is still: revote.
Or maybe it can be nailed down. Say you have a district, and I am just making up numbers here, where you had 1500 voters and 2000 votes. And let's say they break down, with 1,100 votes for Gregoire and 900 votes for Rossi. How do you figure out who voted for what? Easy. You round up the 1500 legal voters and ask them to tell you whom they voted for. There is no reason to distrust them (unlike a person who committed voter fraud). So they can tell you, one by one: I voted for X or Y. Then you tally it up. So say we find among the legal voters that Gregoire got 600 votes and Rossi got 900. Well then in that case you know that all 500 illegal votes went to Gregoire. Of course that number is unrealistic because I was keeping the examples simple, but I think you get the principle.
So that is how you find it--you go through the back door. It won't be easy, but what else can we do?
Oh, I know! We could just f---ing revote, which is the right solution. But as a second best solution, this isn't bad.
Anyway, feel free to pass it on to any contacts in the Republican party. I wouldn't assume they thought of this.
By the way, if the judge has ruled out revote and ruled that you have to prove Rossi actually won, I say the Republicans should appeal that all the way to the US Supreme Court, if necessarily, to get it overturned. I don't know Washington election law, but I simply cannot believe that this can be squared with the due process clause.
Posted by: A.W. of Freespeech.com on February 4, 2005 09:56 PMAs someone who sat in the courtroom all day, maybe I can help with some of the questions.
My view: a very good day for Rossi and the Republicans. The D's lost all their motions except for the one about relief.
Judge Bridges didn't say there wouldn't be another election- just that he didn't have the power to order one. If the election is nullified, he could declare Rossi the winner. Or, the legislature would have to order a new election- I believe he was saying the power to order a new election did not reside with him.
The bottom line is now the bright sunshine (a trial) will shine on what all has been happening and that in my view is a good thing.
Think how bad it would it be if the case would have been dismissed.
Anyway, that's what I think happened today.
Posted by: politicaljunkie on February 4, 2005 09:57 PMWhat's funny is that in someways it may be easier for the Reps to live with Owen than it will be for the Dems. He's a lot closer to the center than the Dems, thus he may actually be closer to the Reps.
Plus, the Reps would get to watch 'em squirm as CG is defrocked. That alone would be worth the price of admission. Serves 'em right. If you'll pardon the dumb joke.
(And welcome!)
Posted by: Deborah on February 4, 2005 10:09 PMIn Foulkes the supreme court affirmed the lower court's remedy -- another election.
In RCW 29A.68.050 the law states:
"After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, the court shall pronounce judgment in the premises, either confirming or annulling and setting aside such election, according to the law and right of the case.
"If in any such case it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes, said court shall declare such person duly elected."
Note especially the "If" at the beginning of the sentence which talks about declaring a winner, and the absence of any "if" in the earlier sentence which talks about deciding whether to confirm or annul the election.
The court can set aside the election and still not be able to declare a winner -- just as the GOP has argued.
Now, how can this simple point be put across to King5 News and NW Cable News, so they will stop putting out such a bassackwards "analysis" of the situation and the law?
The problem is that striking a remedy as the judge did may not make the case "ripe" to appeal until after the trial is completed.
The judge's decision was unexpected by many as usually one weighs the remedies after a trial.
Oh well. If the judge's ruling stands, Rossi's in trouble as he has admitted in his briefs he has no way to show who the alleged illegal voters voted for.
The supremes will decide the matter later for the GOP if asked and earlier if the Ds want to revisit venue and jurisdiction.
Posted by: Erik on February 4, 2005 10:27 PMIt appears that .090 is the standard to achieve standing before the court, that is, to get the trial. That's why the judge is going ahead with the trial. He's sees more than 129 questionable votes.
However, how he will rule on setting aside the election is partially governed by .110. It remains to be seen how illegal votes can be attributed to one candidate or another when votes are secret. (29A.08.161)
Posted by: north clark county on February 4, 2005 11:09 PMNo 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.
Please note that the statute states ‘unless (it appears that an amount of) illegal votes’, and not ‘unless (the) illegal votes’. You do not have to prove who the votes were cast for, just that there is an (appearance) that (an amount) went to the victor sufficient to show that their number of legal votes may be less than the challenger after subtracting illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the challenger. This statute was written knowing that ballots are secret. Using percentages of votes from precincts to distribute illegal votes should be sufficient to show an (appearance).
Everyone needs to step back and take a breath!
Today was great for the Republicans! The only ruling that was squirrely - was the Judge's interpretation of his authority to use a revote as a remedy if and when the Repub's win the contest! Judge Bridges did not feel it was in his authority to allow the revote as a remedy! So he asked that the revote be stricken. He then went on to discuss what remedies may be available per the law.... This is a good thing! He had to do it. It will be important later on if the Supreme Court has to review it...
He obviously sees the Republicans contest as viable - he denied the Dems request for dismissal! He denied most of the Dems requests....
It seems as though Judge Bridges is proceeding with much caution - as he knows his rulings may be brought up to the Supreme Court level. By doing this - he is helping the Rossi side...
By his actions and rulings - he is solidifying the Repubs case and allowing it to move forward through his court. He is also tidying up any possible loose ends or problems for the Repubs - for when they have to take the case to the SSC....
His rulings today show a strong leaning toward the contest and the Republicans...
Posted by: Deborah on February 4, 2005 11:30 PMRG is correct!
It IS the *appearance*!
Oh man......I hope the Dems weren't hanging it all on their misinterpretation of that RCW!...(snicker....OK - I hope they ARE! )
Posted by: Deborah on February 4, 2005 11:40 PM
One thing I would hope the Republicans would have stressed would be that even whether or the court would not have the authority to order a revote, the legislature has openly solicited the court's opinion of what action would be appropriate. As such, it would seem entirely proper for the court to decide that it felt a revote would be appropriate, but that the power to order one rested with the legislature.
To be sure, under such a circumstance, the legislature could refuse to order a revote even if the court said the evidence clearly showed the election was tainted. I would expect, however, that if they did so, there might be a sudden spike in sales of gooey black petroleum products and fuzzy avian coverings.
Posted by: supercat on February 4, 2005 11:49 PMNot necessarily. The SCOTUS takes the position that the state supreme courts are in the best position to interpret state constitutions and law.
There would have to be a federal issue to gain certification on appeal to the SCOTUS. Bridges denied the R's equal protection claims, which is probably the one federal issue in this case.
Posted by: north clark county on February 5, 2005 12:01 AMIf the contest succeeds, then the former attorney general is no longer governor, and the state constitution proscribes what happens in that event. Any actions by the courts and the legislature must be consistent with that.
Article III, section 10
...In case of the ... failure or refusal of the person regularly elected to the office of governor to qualify at the time provided by law, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the person regularly elected to and qualified for the office of lieutenant governor, who shall act as governor until the disability be removed, or a governor be elected; ... if a vacancy occur more than thirty days before the next general election occurring within two years after the commencement of the term, a person shall be elected at such election to fill the office of governor for the remainder of the unexpired term.
If the Rs succeed in their contest, the election is annulled and set aside, Brad Owen becomes acting governor until a new election for governor occurs. I believe the constitutional time for the new election is November 2005, notwithstanding the other provisions cited regarding timing of gubenatorial elections.
Posted by: north clark county on February 5, 2005 12:15 AMThe equal protection argument is that similarly situated ballots had different standards applied to them in different counties. Since King counted theirs, the other counties should too.
Posted by: north clark county on February 5, 2005 12:19 AMBtw, before anyone comments about this with any *real* degree of certainty, we had better wait for the rulings to be published.
Finally, a question for any legal eagles out there...Could have the Repubs hired an independent "note taker or stenographer" to sit in the court and record things so they could have the rulings tonight?
Just wondering...
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on February 5, 2005 12:29 AMwe have also learned that while other counties were actually verifying signatures for ballots, the policy of King co has been to count those ballots anyway....
aren't the ballots in say Stevens Co as important in value as those in King?....why did some voters get special handling for their ballots while others apparently did not?
Posted by: lee on February 5, 2005 12:30 AMOops, sorry, I usually don't like letting my sarcasm show so readily.
Your points are on topic regarding equal protection. However, there is a high bar to be crossed in sustaining the argument to get a hearing by the SCOTUS. However, it is not impossible to achieve that high bar, as the SC of Florida showed us in 2000. Making things up as you go is the fastest way to get over the bar.
Posted by: north clark county on February 5, 2005 12:46 AMWhereas for the Dems it is simply about Queen Gregoire.
I know for me (I voted Rossi) I'd be more than happy to wait patiently for an honest election to install an honest winner.
I suspect that for Gregoire, the end is near. Through all of her poorly worded statements and political manuevering, she's shown that she's not a leader, but just another Democrat expecting the lineage to continue.
When any kind of new election occurs, Gregoire has already said enough to make sure she won't be who the voters select.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 5, 2005 01:01 AMI don't think that particular equal protection argument was viable. The late ballots counted in King County were only the ones that had been misplaced -- or more accurately, did not have the initial signature verification process completed.
The GOP tried to get various counties, including King, to reconsider about 300 ballots that had been rejected in the signature verification process by submitting late voter affidavits.
There is an argument that the Supreme Court decision in the GOP v. King County lawsuit could extend the deadline for submitting voter affidavits. But that is a matter of interpreting the meaning of "certification date" in the RCW.
However, it is not an equal protection issue. Misplaced ballots that did not go through the signature verification process at all are different from properly processed ballots with apparent signature mismatches. There is no constitutional violation for treating the two groups of ballots differently.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 5, 2005 01:41 AM The question may not be whether equal protection was intentionally denied, but whether our laws allowed equal protection. Our counties did not certify the election at the same time and date. King County allowed new voter affidavits, before their certification but after the certification of other counties. Most of these affidavits were retrieved by the Democratic Party. Voters in other counties were not afforded the same opportunity under the same or similar circumstances. They were not given the same amount of time to correct the same or similar errors.
RE: Equal treatment
What about the 300+ "provisional ballots" improperly included in the tally?
I still haven't heard whether they have the empty envelopes those ballots should have gone in. If they DO, then at least they were able to do the usual verification process on them.
If they DO NOT have all the envelopes, then the county could not have verified their elligibility.
In the second case, the county did not treat all voters equally---some had to complete the verfication process before their ballot was accepted, others didn't. Could this be a case for unequal treatment?
Posted by: JeanneB on February 5, 2005 02:44 AMIt would have been interesting if the hadn't have been counted, and the reports had been borne out that Gregiore had won by 10. The prospect of a Rossi election contest, knowing that some unknown number of net Gregoire votes would then come in, would have made the R strategy quite different. But that is all speculation now.
Mark--
I'm not sure how take what you've written. I agree that Bridges was very thorough in his opinions, making it harder to be reversed by the SCOWS.
Then you say "...at which he felt any decision he made would stand a good chance of being overturned by the supreme court on a technicality. Therefore, bump it up to the supreme court and let them make either the final determination..." He didn't "bump" anything up to the SCOWS (not to say that either side might not appeal some of his rulings). He has not reached the point of decision of "either confirming or annulling and setting aside such election" (RCW 29A.68.050) That would come after the trial, not after the motions hearing. He will set the trial date next week as to when he will hear any evidence the R's have to prove their contest is valid. All he has so far are accusations, the Rs have proven nothing, so there is no basis for ruling on the election contest itself.
Note: Below you will see the poll. To vote, go to:
http://www.free-web-polls.com/cgi-bin/poll.pl?pollid=17804&subp=0.
In a new election for the Washington State's Governor, vote for one of the following candidates:
Mary Lane (R) (nil)
0 %
Slade Gorton (R) (nil)
0 %
Bill Finkbeiner (R) (nil)
0 %
Chris Vance (R) (nil)
0 %
Dino Rossi (R) (1)
11 %
Ron Sims (D) (nil)
0 %
Chris tine Gregoire (D) (nil)
0 %
Phil Talmadge (D) (2)
22 %
Maria Cantwell (D) (nil)
0 %
None of the Above (6)
66 %
You voted in this poll.
Total Votes: 9