1. It is only on the blogs that I have been accused of being a "hack" lawyer, but it seems that the Reps have a strong case.

Valid arguments to bring up by the Dems but I think the Reps have them on this one.

Posted by: swatter on April 14, 2005 11:52 AM

2. Great! Let's not consider all of the alleged errors in the election. Let's only consider the errors that favor Dino Rossi. Way to go, guys, you've restored my faith in Republican ethics.

Posted by: docbenton on April 14, 2005 12:08 PM

3. No doc, I think you are absolutely correct. We should consider absolutely all of the alleged errors in the election. And since no one can really say who those errors may or may not have benefited but can say with absolute certainty that the number of errors was WAY past the margin of error in the election (129 votes just in case you have forgotten) then clearly the only solution is to vacate this election and hold a new one! Surely you can't disagree with that can you???

Posted by: Jay on April 14, 2005 12:17 PM

4. So, Doc, what's stopping you from filing your own papers?

Or should Republicans do the Democrats work, too?

Posted by: jimg on April 14, 2005 12:18 PM

5. Doc
You are assuming too much by saying that the mismatches and other errors benefited Dino Rossi. There are votes all over Washington that were NOT counted for Rossi because of signatures. The King County enhancement program led to thousands of ballots for Gregoire that should NOT have been counted. I know you read here often and you should remember that they immediately changed the rules on the enhancing during the counts, insuring more votes for Ms Christine. The Washington Supreme Court would NOT let the Republicans count the missing Rossi votes, why should the courts change their minds now????????????????? Because there is a deep fear that she shall be kicked?

Have a nice day!

Posted by: sgmmac on April 14, 2005 12:38 PM

6. docbenton:

Ever heard the phrase 'Cutting of your nose to spite your face'?

You're more than welcome to bring up ALL the errors in this failed excuse of a 'model' election. The more errors you uncover, the higher the chance that the result, and Gregoire, will be tossed out. This is true regardless of who the errors may benefit.

So get to work finding those errors!!!

Glad to see you're on our side now - admitting that errors happened all over the place.

Posted by: Larry on April 14, 2005 12:39 PM

7. On this one I tend to agree--for the sake of argument--with doc.

Let's not consider all of the alleged errors in the election. Let's only consider the errors that are germaine. If the democrats have their way they will be able to throw a huge smoke screen of irrelevancies over a very clear set of issues. The election process was full of fraud and should be set aside for a re-vote.

Thanks again doc for your brilliant analysis--for once I agree with you.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 14, 2005 12:42 PM

8. Doc,

Not that I agree with you, but your question points out the morals of the dems. Your question implies that the dems know there are errors throughout the election. If so, why aren't the dems doing anything about them? At least, by your unsubstantiated statement, the reps are going after some. Isn't it better that the process of getting after the errors is started rather than ignoring the issue all together? Talk about ethics!

Posted by: Fred on April 14, 2005 01:15 PM

9. I predict the R's lose the first motion and win the second.

On the first motion, if the D's can show more than a handful of voters were incorrectly included in the R's list (and I understand they did include quite a few juvenile felony convictions that would not cause loss of voting rights), the list becomes unreliable, especially since the R's have the burden of proof. This will make Rossi's case much harder to prove.

The second motion looks pretty solid. I don't think the statute allows the court to add extra potentially legal but uncounted votes. It only provides that illegal votes will be removed from the candidates totals. The D's can go prospecting for felon votes in heavily red counties, like Walla Walla, to offset the King County felon votes however.

Posted by: Wayne on April 14, 2005 01:19 PM

10. I find this all very interesting.
Both the superior and supreme court tell the parties that votes rejected using the "Discretion" of the elections officials are not in violation of equal protection and thus makes them moot. Now that there may be some more Gregoire votes in this stack, the Dems try to slip it back in. I don't see how Doc B finds this a Republican ethics issue. The courts decided it unusuable as evidence and that should be the end of it.
Whether it will or not is another story.

As for the burden of proof as to whether or not the felons had their voting rights reinstated, I do think the burden is on the counties and respondents.
If the RCWs state the file of the felon must be updated by the courts and they weren't then the ball is in the dems court there.

Posted by: Jim L on April 14, 2005 02:21 PM

11. The overall burden of proof is on the R's. If they put forward a list of allegedly illegal voters, and the D's can show even 40 or 50 names shouldn't be on the list, any presumption that the list is accurate goes out the window. I have seen reports that a large number of the persons on the list had not lost their voting rights because they were juveniles when the crime was committed. If the R's methodology for identifying illegal voters is faulty, the court can't accept their list as presumptively accurate.

Posted by: Wayne on April 14, 2005 02:51 PM

12. Jim L,

Doc B finds this a Republican ethics issue because it is Thursday, and he is a democrat.
He has no other reasons for what he says, and that is his charm. Don't read anything into it, he doesn't.

Wayne,

Did you read the pleadings or are you just spit-balling? Get a clue.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 14, 2005 03:15 PM

13. I read the pleadings. I even understood them. I agree with the second motion. As to the first, Rossi's lawyers made a very clever argument that falls apart if their list is not extremely accurate. They want the court to presume it is accurate based on their methodology. If their methodology is significantly flawed, the court can't presume it is accurate. If their methodology picks up dozens of voters that are not illegal voters, I don't believe the court will agree to presume the list is accurate and make the defendants prove otherwise.

What's your point or are you just throwing rocks?

Posted by: Wayne on April 14, 2005 03:32 PM

14. I read the pleadings. I even understood them. I agree with the second motion. As to the first, Rossi's lawyers made a very clever argument that falls apart if their list is not extremely accurate. They want the court to presume it is accurate based on their methodology. If their methodology is significantly flawed, the court can't presume it is accurate. If their methodology picks up dozens of voters that are not illegal voters, I don't believe the court will agree to presume the list is accurate and make the defendants prove otherwise.

What's your point or are you just throwing rocks?

Posted by: Wayne on April 14, 2005 03:32 PM

15. Oops

Posted by: Wayne on April 14, 2005 03:33 PM

16. I am sure that when the list of felons is finalized and submitted to the court the R's will have the common sense to check that list with a fine tooth comb before submission.
The list that was previously submitted to the Dems was a preliminary list and it was admitted by the R's at the time given that it was not complete and may have errors. Democrats demanded the list recieved it and promptly forgot (obfuscated) that it was preliminary and did include uncorrected errors but cried to the news media that it had errors anyway....

Posted by: Cliff on April 14, 2005 04:46 PM

17. Wayne,

That logic works both ways. If the Republicans prove that the number of illegal votes surpasses the margin of victory in a significant way, then the entire accuracy of the election can be thrown out.

Posted by: VCRW on April 14, 2005 05:44 PM

18. Wayne - for equitable reasons alone the first motion is a strong one. The Republicans bear the overall burden of proving that 1) there were erroroneous or illegal votes (as defined in the RCW, one catagory of which is votes cast by felons) and 2) the number of such votes cast for the Czarina were sufficient to swing the election in her favor when otherwise Rossi would have had the majority of legal votes.

The Republicans have produced prima facie evidence (meaning it true "on its face" or self-evident) that each felon named voted illegally: each is on record as a felon, and a search of each felon's criminal files revealed no record that their voting rights were restored prior to the election. To PROVE that their voting rights were never restored (investigate over 1000 cases to prove that for each, a petition was not submitted and granted, and then not filed in the felon's case file) is an evidentiary burden that approaches proving for whom the hundreds of unverified provisional ballots that were illegally scanned were cast.

The Republicans do not want the court to "presume their list is accurate based on their methodology." They want the court to accept each name on the list unless the respondents can prove that one or more of the felons should be removed from the list. (That's not a presumption of accuracy, its an evidentiary point of law, similar to the concept of being "proven" negligent if "the preponderance of the evidence" (51%) indicates that you are (and 49% of the evidence indicates that you were without fault!).

If the Republicans win the motion, the respondents will scurry of and produce the voting rights restoration order for every name on the list for which one can be found, and there will still be four or five times more felons remaining on the list who voted illegally than the number of votes that separated the candidates.

Posted by: srogers on April 14, 2005 06:53 PM

19. Did anyone notice the PI article failed to mention:
1 The correct amounts of donations Cheryl Scott actually gave to both parties. $15k to Ds vs. $2k to Rs. Definitely lopsided for such a non partisan person.

2 The dates the felons mentioned had their voting rights restored. All it says is the rights were restored recently. Hmm, anyone guess those rights were restored after the election?

3 That felons have to sign documentation at their sentencing indicating their understanding of the specific losses of rights including the loss of the right to vote?

4 Or that per capita, KC had a higher percentage of errors than any other county so far investigated. Now, if other counties get investigated and it is determined through fact they had a higher error rate per capita you can have my apology. No facts indicate otherwise, yet.

Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 14, 2005 06:53 PM

20. srogers
Well said, very well said.

Doc
All the conservatives on this site welcome the additional evidence of errors in the election. Now, from what I understand these errors occured in Pullman and Spokane counties in the city precincts which are more liberal than the remainder of those counties. Are you sure you want that additional information added to the Republicans stack of supportive evidence?

Wayne
Wishful thinking doesn't change the evidence or the procedures. The Republican first motion is accurate in requiring the respondent to show the government is in error. The government being any offices and functions necessary to accurately restore and catalog restoration of the felon's rights. The Republicans cannot be held liable for any inaccuracy or omission propagated by a clerical error.

Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 14, 2005 07:35 PM

21. NOW I UNDERSTAND HOW THE 94 BALLOTS WERE FOUND!

I thought it was interesting that Democratic Party controlled King County found 94 ballots recently, until I read the Republican challenge that the Dem's should not be allowed to add thousands of new votes to the election process.

So all the Democratic Party controlled Counties have been working hard at figuring out ways to find "new, previously missed, or previously rejected" ballots that might help them argue that Chris still won even after it is proven beyond a doubt that with the felons and others her 129 vote lead will not stand up.

I wonder if there is an email somewhere telling King County elections to look for more ballots for Chris once more!

Posted by: Bob on April 14, 2005 09:15 PM

22. For those of you who want to press what Tom Delay has done, one of your own has done worse and he is skating...

"When it comes to cashing in on family connections, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's relatives can't hold a candle to the clan of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who's sponsored legislation that netted his son hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees."

For the rest of the story, check out;
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/14/223831.shtml

We'll start to criticize Delay when you chastize the despicable DemoRAT Senate Minority Leader. Until then, whine on !

Posted by: KS on April 14, 2005 09:32 PM

23. Wayne,

My understanding of the first motion is in tune with that of srogers in the respect that the "evidentiary burden" of proof is the real issue.

The prima facie assertion that the voters are felons (so long as it is true) is enough by itself to force the Elections Board to show that they performed their duty respecting these ballots under the elections statute. Either they did or they did not perform their duty, and if they did, it is easy for them to prove it. If they did not, a presumption against them is fair, and the precedent in law supports this conclusion.

To my understanding of the precedents, it would be difficult to argue that the petitioners should not be allowed to shift tbe evidentiary burden, and I am not aware of any strong argument to that effect. The elections board has both the wherewithal to ascertain the relevant facts, and the statutory responsibility to do so.

Do you disagree?

Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 15, 2005 11:07 AM

24. I am a real republican and have been my whole life
You people are clueless.

This administration is the most unethical, corrupt, greed mongering bunch of criminals that have ever head behind the word Conservative.

WHat in the hell is going on in this country?

Posted by: Fred on June 24, 2005 07:52 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?