I just confirmed that the Republicans have received copies of precinct reconciliation reports by way of their discovery requests (some of what the Big Binder is supposed to contain). According to someone who's looked at them, the reports are a complete mess and the numbers show large discrepancies with the ballot counts. That could explain why King County is stonewalling on releasing them to the general public.
Unfortunately, because the reconciliation reports were obtained through discovery, the Republicans probably can't just release them.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 10, 2005 05:02 PM | Email ThisIf the election really were over half a year ago, Rossi would be the Governor. But you probably forgot that he won both the initial count, and the automatic recount. The stealing took place after that.
Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2005 05:57 PMCalm down, take a few deep breaths, and remind yourself that regardless of the outcome, life goes on.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 10, 2005 06:09 PMI said I believe those reconciliations and possible the pollbooks were ALTERED since the pollworkers attested to the pollbooks election night.
I said these reconciliations would prove an even worse discrepancy than Stefan suspects.
danw--I have looked at plenty of documents. I have seen County's like Jefferson have a list of 18,772 voters credited that matches the 18,772 ballots counted. They meticulously reconciled precindt totals.
Dean Logan and Bill Huennekens will crumble under depositions. They were REQUIRED to reconcile precindt pollbooks, note discrepancies, investigate discrepancies and MOSTLY IMPORTANTLY report those discrepancies ACCURATELY to the Canvassing Board to be consider BEFORE certifying.
Dumb
A$$
Nincompoop
Worthless
Unkl Witz,
Sure, the election was what it was. Just like it was in Cleveland or Chicago or wherever. The point is that here, in this particular case, the vaguaries of this election affected the outcome. At the very least they rendered the actual outcome unknowable.
There are problems with every election. But when the number of problems or margin of error is greater than the difference in votes, what do you suggest we do? Many of us would like a re-clarification.
Posted by: Larry on March 10, 2005 06:36 PMThe poll workers probably did do their best, but that's irrelevant. As has been pointed out time and again, Washington law does not require the showing of fraud to overturn an election, just enough discrepancies to call the election into doubt.
When there are so many discrepancies that the majority of voters has no faith in the electoral process, then it rises to an entirely different level. As someone who personally has reviewed more than a couple dozen King County poll books, I can attest that Stefan's example in the next post is not unique, but the norm. Very few poll books I reviewed had hand tallies that reconciled with the Accuvote total. That is unacceptable.
Not matter what spin that David McDonald and the other election mess cover-up apologists put on it, the fact remains that this election stinks and no one who took office under such a cloud will ever in my mind be considered legitimate.
Posted by: LoneWolf on March 10, 2005 06:48 PMStefan - do you know if there could be any chance that some of her socialist policies could be over turned once it is proven that illegal acts took place and resulted in her impostering as our governor?
Posted by: Julie on March 10, 2005 06:54 PM
I think the presence of these new moonbats might signal a new push by the Dem's because they KNOW this stuff is damaging.
Posted by: DeadWood on March 10, 2005 07:06 PMHowever, a precinct is a precinct is a precinct, regardless of where it is. At precinct level, the size of the county's total voter base is moot. They should get it right at the most basic local level.
Sure, life will go on whatever the verdict, but be honest about what you want State Government to represent - if you want real reform and accountability, pray for a new election this November. If are apathetic and don't care how corrupt it gets and are comfortable with business as usual - you'll show who you are by the tone of your comments, but life goes on.
BTW Dan W - The blogger here was not out to recall Sam Reed - that is more misinformation that your ilk resorts to. The rhetoric of a left-wing troll loses credibility quickly if they don't propose anything constructive. Just because this blog has more tolerance than horsesass.org doesn't mean you can get away with nearly as much misinformation rhetoric as you can over there..
Posted by: KS on March 10, 2005 07:17 PMWhat "truth" am I ignoring? Why wouldn't I counsel calm to the R's under the circumstances?
The only signs of desperation are some of the shrill posts on this forum.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 10, 2005 07:55 PMThanks for the advice, but I am already relatively calm. That is not to say that I think that the status quo of King County mediocrity/incompetence/fraud in the election process should be passively accepted. Real election reform is truly needed.
Yes, life goes on, regardless of the court outcome, because there is One that continues to give life and breath. Sorry if I am waxing "religious" on you, but thanks for reminding me to continue to pray, and to accept whatever answer He gives in this particular instance. I have never said that it is guaranteed that Rossi will win, only that he should, based on the evidence.
(that could be why this particular thread is packed with trolls......snicker)
KC probably had the same people who 'enhanced' the 55,000 ballots - complete the precinct reconciliation reports! (after all...they ARE so good with white-out! )
If King County were some podunk little place in the country - I would still expect more from them! But KC is this states largest populated county and is supposed to be well funded and sophisticated with respect to technology! The chicken scratch and crossed out totals can mean only one thing in this mega-billion dollar international hub called King County......ATTEMPTED FRAUD!
Posted by: Deborah on March 10, 2005 08:49 PMWhere the heck to you and all the other GOP true believers get this "INTO DOUBT" standard? Can you cite me the law on this?
The law says the errors must have CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. RCW 29A.68.110 & .070.
You said:
he poll workers probably did do their best, but that's irrelevant. As has been pointed out time and again, Washington law does not require the showing of fraud to overturn an election, just enough discrepancies to call the election into doubt.
Posted by: chew2 on March 10, 2005 08:51 PMI believe that Lonewolf's interpretation is closer to the way it was intended than yours - but the proof is in the putting... Your hidden agenda (of course) is to see this challenge overturned.
Posted by: KS on March 10, 2005 09:06 PMPerhaps English is not your first language. If that is the case, how about if you take your ideas to your ESL teacher and have her help you out before you come back and try posting again. Thanks!!
Posted by: Julie on March 10, 2005 09:07 PMJefferson County would have been no more successful reconciling their counts than King County had they not reconciled every precinct before certifying the vote count. A precinct in Jefferson is no harder or easier to reconcile than a precinct in King. Had King reconciled the count at every precinct before tallying their vote, they could have had the same success rate as Jefferson. King County's sob story about how many more ballots they had to process is a red herring.
It's like the bank ad on TV: "We don't process 13 million checks correctly; we process 1 check correctly 13 million times."
Posted by: Patrick on March 10, 2005 09:36 PMOne post up from this is the pollbook from a single precinct.
They only handed out 168 ballots. Five were spoiled.
They managed an error rate of just 15%.
_just_ 15%.
One precinct down, 2599 left.
And 168 is much lesser than 18,000.
Posted by: Al on March 10, 2005 09:51 PMName wrote:
"Ah, the sore losers continue to beat the dead horse. Meanwhile, Governor Gregoire goes about the people's business, trying to make our lives better while the Republicans try to steal an election that's been over for half a year."
No, the Republicans are pursuing their appropriate legal action throught the proper channels. We can't complain about that, as it is as much a part of the system as the recounts that put Governor Gregoire in office. If the court rules that the election is invalid, then it will be interesting to see what happens next.
I choose to believe (as I have no evidence to the contrary) that Mr. Rossi is a man of his word. He has publicly stated that he will not accept the Governorship without a new vote. That may not be possible, so we may end up with Governor Owen for a couple of years.
Of course, if he decides to take office anyway, it will be interesting to see the arguments here from his supporters.
RBM wrote:
"Ah, yes, Unkl Witz, let us be calm. And like any good liberal would do, ignore the truth and act as though nothing has happened and everything will be just fine. You guys are becoming desperate and it's blatantly obvious. Gregorious maximus is a fraud. It is better to accept it sooner than later. Save yourself the pain."
No, being calm seems like a pretty good idea for both sides. The matter will be decided by the courts, with access to all the information. That seems to be the "truth" that everyone here (liberal and conservative) is ignoring.
Julie wrote:
"Do you trolls even read the silly things you post? Would you just take the moment it takes to hit preview? Maybe write out your rantings in Word first and do a spell and grammar check - ??"
"Perhaps English is not your first language. If that is the case, how about if you take your ideas to your ESL teacher and have her help you out before you come back and try posting again. Thanks!!"
The spelling and punctuation police would have as much fun with the right wing posts as with the left. Did you have something to say about the topic, or are you lacking an argument and simply trying to insult the people you disagree with?
Posted by: John Barelli on March 10, 2005 09:59 PMI'm hoping to see Dean Logan in orange soon! An orange jumpsuit that is.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 11, 2005 12:50 AM
Mark Beyer the legal expert from "LA Law"?
"Mark, I don't mean to be unkind but it appears that you weren't paying proper attention when you watched those LA Law and Law and Order tv reruns.
You said: "PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE is a legally valid argument which has been used to convict criminals for hundreds of years. Preponderance doesn't have to prove anything, just raise such a shadow of guilt it is illogical to not convict the person."
Avid watchers of LA law know that the proper standard for conviction is ...."PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."
http://www.usefulwork.com/blog/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3909
******************************
Are you that Mark Beyer?
Mark Beyer now says: "The RCW states that there is only a need to cast the results IN DOUBT, not to prove private votes."
There is no "in doubt" standard, the RCW's require that the errors changed the outcome of the election. So Mark what RCW are you talking about, the "LA Law" RCW. Show me, where is it?
RCW 29A.68.070
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.
RCW 29A.68.110 provides similarly wrt illegal votes.
The RCW's can be read here.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=chapterdigest&chapter=29A.68
And, it should be telling that while the same 15-20 or so posters for the right keep saying the same things over and over, the number of common sense posts have double or trippled over the past few weeks.
Put that in context of Governor Gregoire doing her job very well so far, and more and more people realizing that, while flawed, the election was not tainted by fraud or any form of vote stuffing, and it must just be killing some of you as you see what you were so sure of slip away as more and more facts make it clear that neither party nor the government cheated in anyway.
Hopefully the sensible ones here on both sides of the aisle can overcome the venom spewing trolls and maybe we can actually work at some reasonable campaign reforms. The rest of you throw your insults, you might not have noticed, but it doesn't affect anyone, and just allows us on the other side a giggle as we realize that you have no logic or facts to support you.
Posted by: JDB on March 11, 2005 09:09 AMI've tried to understand why you guys keep talking about the "in doubt" standard, when there is no language like that in the statutes, in fact, just the opposite. I know the GOP PR has put out some line like that.
Most of your reasoning goes something like this: it's hard or "impossible" to prove how illegal votes were cast, so in the interests of justice we can ignore the language in the statute that requires us to prove this, and put in its place an "in doubt" standard.
Let me suggest a better argument for your side. The statute, RCW 29A.68.110, can be read to say that if it "appears" that the illegal votes *changed the outcome* (not put in doubt) of the election you can overturn an election. So you don't necessarily have to prove how EACH illegal vote was cast, but can possibly use some other method of proof, such as a statistical apportionment, to prove that the illegal votes CHANGED THE OUTCOME of the election. But you still have to prove these illegal votes changed the outome, not just put it in doubt.
We can then argue about whether a statistical apportionment is sufficiently certain enough. But at least we won't be making up the law, and claiming some fictitious "in doubt" LEGAL standard.
Posted by: chew2 on March 11, 2005 09:21 AM
Criminal prosecutions are 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Civil cases are not.
This is not a criminal case.
Mark Beyer was talking about criminal cases, that's why he was wrong. Why don't you read his comment. I quoted it and posted a link.
This is what Mark said:
"PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE is a legally valid argument which has been used to convict criminals for hundreds of years. Preponderance doesn't have to prove anything, just raise such a shadow of guilt it is illogical to not convict the person."
Posted by: chew2 on March 11, 2005 09:57 AMPS.
I may have misunderstood your comment.
The "in doubt" standard, you GOP folks are putting out is placing the election "in doubt" not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
I wasn't claiming that the GOP was claiming a "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for election contests. Far from it, you're claiming a far easier standard.
Posted by: chew2 on March 11, 2005 10:02 AMLet me remind you that in the 1975 Foulkes v. Hays case, the court threw out the results of a recount and upheld a lower court's order for a new election in the close Adams County commissioner race, after evidence surfaced that some votes had been tampered with between the original count and the recount. The court wrote:
"Since the exact number of ballots which had been altered could not be ascertained, the (lower) court determined that the proper remedy for this neglect was the holding of a new election. ... In a situation such as the trial court found existed here, it might be impossible to show by whom the ballots were altered, though it is proven that the alteration took place. To impose a requirement that an election contestant produce a 'smoking gun' to obtain relief in such circumstances would deprive him of relief despite the clear merits of his claim that the election was invalid."
Now, anal legal word hounds may quible over my choice of phrase of "in doubt", but I don't think anyone can deny that that is basically what the Foulkes court is saying. No need to show how many votes had been altered, or who those votes were cast for, and smoking gun was necessary, just a basic showing that the election stunk. Sorry for my lack of legalistic turn of phrase, but sometimes in this country common sense and decency wins over bankrupt arguments put forth by high priced, silver-tongued hired guns.
Posted by: LoneWolf on March 11, 2005 10:07 AM"I really want to know - are there really this many trolls . . . They all sound the same. ...no, I take that back - these come across more idiotic and have far more grammatical errors . . . Stefan - do you know if there could be any chance that some of her socialist policies could be over turned once it is proven that illegal acts took place and resulted in her impostering as our governor?"
and
"Perhaps English is not your first language. If that is the case, how about if you take your ideas to your ESL teacher and have her help you out before you come back and try posting again."
Well, Julie:
"Impostering" is not a word. And the root word you're looking for is "impostor," not "imposter." Look it up in your spell-checker or dictionary.
The next time you folks want to make an attack on the intelligence of Dems, maybe you should consider the facts first -- like these:
Education Levels:
http://www.topalli.com/blue/degrees.html
Earnings:
http://www.topalli.com/blue/success.html
Or maybe, Julie, you'd like to compare educational backgrounds with a liberal like me. I'll bet you wouldn't -- the supposed intellectual superiority of those on the right around here only seems to extend to playground-level insults, not the facts.
Julie, we're not "imposters" or even "impostors." We're here in this state, we're every bit as smart as you (or even, looking at the STATISTICS, smarter), and no amount of baseless insults will change that.
Instead of bandying about the idea of banning people who don't agree with the party line on this site, why not consider banning the people who only spout insults?
Posted by: Mike on March 11, 2005 10:40 AMThere is little doubt that there was distributed voter fraud committed in the 2004 election - clearly enough to throw the outcome of Gov. race into doubt and it will be acknowledged as such. The question is what will the judge(s) do about it ?
Carla, Chew2 and other leftists - your arguments are circumstantial, your facts are not all factual and your agenda is clear, so don't waste our time on what you think - it doesn't matter ! I have time to read a reputable legal opinion on this matter only as an overview.
Posted by: KS on March 11, 2005 10:41 AMA Caveat..Citing relevant case law is more impressive and I do not mean to detract from the handful of those with legal experience, but merely to put all of this into perspective.
Posted by: KS on March 11, 2005 10:54 AMBut, in your case, ballots were actually tampered with. At best, The GOP can show that people voted who should not have, but that their was no organized attempted to alter the elections. Mistakes were made, but no one was attempting to change the election.
Judge Bridges made clear that the question was did the problems alter the election. So far, the GOP, The Minnow, and others have not been able to show a single vote that alter the outcome of this election. In fact, when followed up on, it would seem that the dead/felonious/etc. so far have leaned Rossi. This does not mean that I think Rossi committed fraud (I think he committed the same amount of fraud as the Governor, i.e. none).
It is a shame that those on the far right have given in to their darker demons in an effort to overturn this election, to trust the lawyers, not the people. Rossi was the best canidate that the GOP has run since 1980, and after a long line of laughable canidates, it is good for this state to have an actual debate over its governance, but now it has devolved into paranoia and name calling. From a partisan perspective, I'm glad to see the right once again destroy the Republican party in this state, but as a citizen of this state, I would rather see a sensible Republican party that can actually compete in the market place of ideas.
There is some of that on this board, and there are still strong Republicans like Dan Even, Sam Reed, and others who care more about this state than idelogical purity, so there will still be hope. As to the rest, maybe you can nominate Ellen Craswell for Senator in '06.
Posted by: JDB on March 11, 2005 10:56 AMGood on you for at least citing to the Foulkes case.
Foulkes involved a recount during which votes were shown to have been FRAUDULENTLY altered to name the original loser, who then won the recount. The court specifically found that enough votes had been altered to overcome the original winner's margin of victory. So Foulkes doesn't stand for the rule that all you need to show is "doubt", even though there is language in it which may suggest that. In Foulkes the fraud changed the result of the election.
Here there has been no showing of fraud yet, despite all the numberical discrepancies that Stefan makes such a big deal about.
The election statutes at the time of Foulkes were different in significant ways from the current version, and in particular Foulkes said the fraudulently altered votes didn't constitute "illegal votes" within the meaning of the election contest statutes. Foulkes tried to deal with them as resulting from official "misconduct" under what is now 29A.68.030. There have been cases since Foulkes, like Becker, which cast doubt on some of the Foulkes reasoning. A discussion of Foulkes was attempted on Micajah's blog, which you can read if you are so inclined. I don't agree with his reasoning, and posted so, but it's worth reading.
If you thought that Sims' popularity numbers are bad now just wait.
I bet the Repubs could run that loser that went against McDermott and win it.
Posted by: jaybo on March 11, 2005 11:56 AMHe also spoke to two levels of proof - annulment would require a preponderance of the evidence, while reversing the outcome would require showing specific ballots that had been tampered with (as in Foulkes).
Posted by: ewaggin on March 11, 2005 12:15 PMThat is not what Judge Bridges ruled. He has made no rulings on what needs to be shown or not shown at this point. He has simply said that he will not rule anything out at this point. Further, he has not talked about any standards of proof, other than saying he will reserve ruling on that until later. He has, in fact stated that he cannot reverse the election.
KS:
And you keep believing the one sided view of the world you use to get at this site. So far everything you have place your belief in has been wrong. First it was a revote, and that is gone. Second it is that there was fraud, but even after the BIAW, the Minnow and others have scoured the records, no fraud. You believe that Judge Bridges will be willing to overturn an election where there is no showing of fraud, and that their will be a re-election this fall, and yet we don't even have a trial date, and the Constituion would seem to lean toward an election in 2006 at the earliest. On top of this, the Governor continues to do her job well, Rossi has fallen off the scene. So far, everything you have believed in has fallen apart, and all you have are insults to back up your position. Sheesh, I wonder who is loosing the arguement. I'm not sure why I waste my times with trolls like you on this board, but I guess I can still hope that even the most irrational mind can occasionaly come up with a little logic to back up their beliefs.
Posted by: JDB on March 11, 2005 01:41 PMNot true - where do you dredge up this horsepucky ? First, the Republicans don't have to prove fraud - just that the result is clearly in doubt with a preponderence of evidence. The trial date has not been set yet, but since when did time matter to your ilk ? The Governor doing her job well ? Keep living in your leftist utopia ? I take it that you are a Socialist, because her quasi-socialist agenda is progressing.
"And you keep believing the one sided view of the world you use to get at this site"
I believe the truth and read all posts on their merit right or left-leaning. The posts from left-wingers are often delusional and ludicrous, with the exception of John Barelli. Go back and read his posts and start rethinking your knee-jerk reactions for a change. He may be as close to the truth as anyone on this site and he is a Democrat.
Posted by: KS on March 11, 2005 03:44 PMAs JDB stated, Judge Bridges has made no affirmative rulings yet on what the standard of proof should be.
He made some oral statements from the Bench saying in effect that the GOP may have grounds to contest the election based on official "misconduct" (or "error", although that is a little less clear to me), but he also went on to state that this would be subject to RCW 29A.68.070 which I've quoted above and which requires a showing that the misconduct changed the outcome of the election.
He also made some oral statements about what would need to be shown for "illegal votes" and referred to statements in the Howell case that if you didn't know for whom the illegal votes were cast you had to presume that they were LEGITIMATE. So for "illegal votes" its pretty likely you'll have to make a strong showing that they in fact changed the outcome of the election, and may not even be permitted to do a statistical apportionment.
Posted by: chew2 on March 11, 2005 03:49 PM"we seem to conviently forget"..."I am not this Blogger is doing you any good"..."I am sure the attempt to get Sam Reed fired by this Blogger are okay"
Posted by Danw at March 10, 2005 06:16 PM
"You said: he poll workers probably did..."
Posted by chew2 at March 10, 2005 08:51 PM
I don't have any more time to copy/paste here. I got a good chuckle out of these and othe rest.
Yes, I do make typo's, but that won't stop me from getting a kick out of yours, if you are a liberal - and you make them.
As far as you entirely overly sensitive men - I certainly hope you make up in intellect what you lack in a sense of humor. Perhaps a bit of time on a playground could do you some good. Lighten up.
;)
Excellent job, Mr. Sharkansky. The state owes you a debt of gratitude regardless of the outcome.
Posted by: Julie on March 11, 2005 03:55 PMThank you, I believe that is a correct summary of what Judge Bridges has said. Although, if my memory serves me right, he stated more that he would allow the presitation of evidence of official misconduct, but has not said one way or the other wether he believes such evidence is relevant to the issue. From my reading of the cases and the statutes, you have to show that the election was affected by the errors.
I would be hard press to believe that a judge will remove a properly seated governor if the best arguement you can make is their were mistakes, and who knows who won. If you are a true judicial conservative, in that situation you should not impose your will over that of the legislature, which has affirmed the election. To do so would invite litigation over any close election.
Posted by: JDB on March 11, 2005 04:23 PMps.
I should have mentioned that Judge Bridges did deny the Dem's motion to dismiss, as you mentioned. But his oral comments were as I described, i.e. you probably needed to show the misconduct changed the outcome of the election.
You are also wrong about what he said about the standard of proof. He specifically said he was reserving judgement on that subject, but then went on to refer to language in the Foulkes case that spoke of a "clear and convincing" standard to prove fraud, and a "preponderance of the evidence" standard to prove negligence by election officials.
Posted by: chew2 on March 11, 2005 05:36 PMI believe that the judge's comments clearly indicate the direction he is headed in - that reversal of the election will require an as-yet undetermined, but very high level of proof, while annulment would require a lesser one (again, as-yet undetermined).
Posted by: ewaggin on March 11, 2005 08:01 PMChoolie, vee call zem "girlie men."
Posted by: South County on March 11, 2005 09:00 PMI believe you are incorrect about what he said. I've read the transcript, although its been awhile.
He said nothing about "annulment" vs. "reversing the outcome". His comments about the burden of proof were as I described. His comments about having to meet RCW 29A.68.070 were as I described.
But technically he hasn't ruled on any of these questions yet. And all his rulings can and will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: chew2 on March 11, 2005 09:56 PM