Nice to see that the Democrats now agree with Dino Rossi that "This election has been a total mess".
We read in today's P-I that "Four counties admit voting mix-ups"
Hundreds of votes were improperly counted in the November election when poll workers in four Eastern Washington counties tallied provisional ballots without first matching signatures on the ballot envelopes with those on file, officials have acknowledged.Apart from supporting the general theory that "the election was a total mess and we have no idea who won", I see two ways this information might be used:
...
Democrats say if unverified provisional ballots in King County are to be tossed out, so should those in Eastern Washington.
1) If the judge accepts the Democrats argument that ex-post analysis of the 700+ unverified provisionals in King County shows that most were cast by otherwise legitimate voters who simply didn't follow the correct procedures, he'll have to allow the eastern counties to check signatures on their provisional ballots, most of which will probably turn out to be valid.
2) If the judge rules that every ballot that was not cast or processed in accordance with state regulations has to be tossed out, then he'll get to look at every single pollbook page to see if any ballots were issued to voters who didn't sign (oh, wait), or were given a regular ballot when they were only eligible to vote a provisional. He'll also be asked to examine every one of the 55,000 of the haruspex ballots that King County enhanced, to see if the WACs were strictly followed.
Or the judge could attempt to do (1) and/or (2) and then conclude that the election has been a total mess and no reasonable person can tell who won.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 01, 2005 08:53 AM | Email ThisI decided awhile ago I would never again vote for any type of transportation funding package, be it regional in nature or a Sound Transit project. That's because I've listened to total disingenuousness on the part of Sims for the last what...eight, ten years?
For the same reasons, I will never support total mail-in elections. I will never support any process that does not allow for full monitoring by the public.
Posted by: South County on April 1, 2005 09:28 AM'Oh look, those evil Republican eastern counties had glitches with their provisional ballots too, so the election results should stand'.
Somehow those editors forgot to compare the huge population of King County with the small ones of Adams County and the others.
Also they somehow forgot to report one single squeak from the public questioning of Dean Logan et al at Kent last night. Gosh, what a fortuitous oversight for the Democrats.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 1, 2005 09:48 AMIf we were to look at the precinct where the PB's were issued we might very well see a differnt vote balance between candidates. Since the current election contest law allows this comparison, I am surprised the PI did not make this analysis. Then again maybe the PI has some mis-direction perogatives that I may have unwittingly forgotten (i.e. all "reported" votes by felons being for Rossi).
Posted by: DeadWood on April 1, 2005 10:16 AM What I believe will happen is the judge
will throw out the election.Based on what
you said Its obivious you really don't
how big the mountain of evidence is that
rossi's team has.
Believe me there is alot of they
are keeping underwraps until the
trial.Stefan great meeting you last
night.That was awsome the way you
had dean logan on the ropes.You
almost made him speechless.
Posted by: phil spackman on April 1, 2005 10:22 AM
You've been right about so much lately that I obviously must bow to your superior knowledge. I claim no inside knowledge. All I know is what I read here and in the papers. Based on that and some experience in the law (I've been practicing law for 30 years), my opinion is that Gregoire will be governor until at least 2008. But I've been wrong before...I was sure the Huskies were going to make the Final Four.
Posted by: Steven on April 1, 2005 11:20 AMThe other two standards are based on fact (more illegal ballots than the difference in the election), and sampling & projection (the illegal ballots are allotted according to the vote of the precinct from whence they came). These seem much more reasonable, unless you're a liberal, in which case nothing will ever convince you that anything was wrong with this election - but the vote in Ohio was a travesty.
Posted by: Larry on April 1, 2005 11:51 AMIt's very possible that the election will be thrown out because it's not even possible to get to the question of the proportions of felons who may or may not have voted for Gregoire, etc. The reconcilation reports are simply a bunch of numbers tied in knots with the intent to confuse. Go ahead and try to make sense of the numbers, it's impossible.
Of course this will never happen because then an accurate election might take place.
Posted by: YourGovernorCost$Millions on April 1, 2005 01:33 PMFor instance, in a similar election contest this year in Texas (the state legislative election of Vo vs Heflin), the voters were deposed, and the net change in votes wasn't enough to change the result.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/3027900
Texas isn't Washington, of course.
Peter
1. Voters who voted illegally wanted the candidate for whom they voted to win. They were attempted to influence the election (as we all attempt to do when we vote).
2. Voters who voted illegally know that if they state that they voted for Candidate A, who they wanted to win, it will lessen the chance that Candidate A will prevail, or increase the probabality that the election will be set aside.
3. Voters who voted illegally did so knowing that they were committing fraud and/or an illegal activity.
If they have already engaged in an illegal activity, what is to prevent them from engaging in another illegal activity - lying in their testimony/affadavit about for whom they cast their ballot? Why would they not lie again, especially when they know they are not being prosecuted for the first crime?
I, and millions of other Washingtonians, think you are incorrect - trusting the testimony of people who have already knowingly broken the law and are not being prosecuted is reckless and foolish. If this is the burden of proof, it DOES render the election contest statute impotent.
Posted by: Larry on April 1, 2005 03:23 PMAPPEAR
To seem or look to be: appeared unhappy. See Synonyms at seem.
To seem likely: They will be late, as it appears.
To have an outward look (legal)
To give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect
To seem to be true, probable, or apparent
Antonyms: be doubtful, be uncertain, be unclear
SEEM
To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.
Ok, the election results appear illegal, are likely to be illegal, have every outward look of irregularity, give no other impression of being fairly conducted, and in all probability should be overturned. The results of KC big book and certified results seem to show fraud, render to any rational observer an opinion of fraudulent or uncertifiable results, and seems self evident as to the need for legal investigation and prosecution.
RCW 29A.68.050
Contest of election-judgement.
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.
As a result of the discovery of the errors it now appears the count should be heavily favored to both uncertainty and statistically toward Rossi as our duly elected Governor. The courts have the venue and legal right to make it so. Thankfully Rossi has laid a public claim to annulling the election if in office and forcing a new vote.
RCW 29A.68.110
Illegal votes-enough to change results
No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person's legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.
In use of the antonym of appear, “the validity of this election is in doubt” is a correct statement as it defines appear in a “doubtful, uncertain, or unclear” result due to the numerous errors discovered so far. The judge may well use this definition in his arguments. Suffice it to say, there is no thesaurus or dictionary term of syntax or legal definition of Webster’s dictionary and Roget’s thesaurus requiring finding of fact for “appear, seem, doubt, uncertain, or unclear”. It is sufficient only to “appear” enough to change results. This election as it stands is still in doubt and the legal and certifiable results also remain in doubt. Even many of the votes are in doubt. The word doubt should be used as much as appears, seems, fraud, illegal, irregular, and uncertain in describing votes, results and office, until the contest/challenge is finished.