Democrat lawyer Kevin Hamilton scored an own goal. His attempted defense against the Republican allegation that there were 875 more absentee ballots than absentee voters was that the Republicans only relied on computer records and never counted the actual envelopes. But this only draws attention to King County's failure to comply with the law.
The county was required to account for all of its absentee ballots by WAC 434-240-270. They admitted that they knew that the computer system couldn't do the accounting. But they're still required to comply with the law. So King County should have handcounted all of the absentee envelopes in the presence of party observers before final certification. Had they done so, the discrepancy would have been resolved one way or another, obviating the need for this trial. You have to wonder why they didn't handcount the ballots and instead concealed the discrepancy with a fraudulently perfect ballot report.
Thanks, Kevin, for drawing attention to this detail.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 23, 2005 12:52 PM | Email ThisI hope they read this blog.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on May 23, 2005 01:17 PMThe R's and the press absolutely fixated on the felon issue. They poured unbelievable assets into this one area. Yet on the other aspects of the R's contest, they seem ill-prepared and like the perverbial JACKASS in the Headlights!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 23, 2005 01:24 PMNo need to bother with details like proper accounting of all mail ballots, those are merely post election excercises, not at all important, yada, yada, yada.
It was simply, "Gregoire's ahead, let's certify this puppy and head to the innaugural ball to party."
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 23, 2005 01:25 PMThey could add to their arguments in a substantial way by simply examining what Micajah has to say.
Realtime legal support from blogs during key trials, could be a new first for the blogosphere.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 23, 2005 01:35 PMA lawyer is asking a witness questions, and THEY ARE BOTH JUST READING OFF A SCRIPT!!!
What the hell is that all about?
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 23, 2005 01:53 PMDavid Postman just mentioned it in the Seattle Times. Dems are arguing that because these allegations just came out, they weren't filed in a timely manner. Bridges told the Republicans to prepare an argument by tomorrow where he'll rule, but will allow the new allegations for the time being.
Posted by: Mike H on May 23, 2005 01:56 PMBut I stopped laughing when the judge said that it was his understanding that the trial is just about "illegal votes", not the allegations of fraud and false reports, etc, and that they'll submit written statements and he'll rule on what "new" allegations will be allowed tomorrow.??? What the?
So, basically, is the judge now saying it's all about felon voters (and dead voters, etc) too?? Did I read that wrong? What a travesty this would be if the admissions from the depositions are not allowed.
And yes, the fact that they are sitting there, reading off the script of RINO Sam Reed's deposition is just ludicrous. Shouldn't that stuff just be READ by the judge, rather than "re-enacted" in the courtroom all freaking day??
Posted by: Scott on May 23, 2005 02:00 PMStill I would think that live witnesses would make more sense.
Posted by: otto on May 23, 2005 02:04 PMWhat a freaking joke! It's all on paper. Are the democrats afraid that because of their lousy public school system run by the WEA that people will not be able to READ all of this???
Ha ha ... silly, silly WA State ... it's a laugh a minute to watch these clowns in action.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 23, 2005 02:06 PMThat delay should also put a squelch to the Democrat argument that the fraud issue was raised too late in the game. There was a reason for the lateness, Mr. Democrat, and its name was Dean Logan (and no doubt his superiors as well).
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 23, 2005 02:10 PMYou are correct in what should have been done. There should have been a handcount of absentee ballot envolopes. Then, everyone would know how many were returned. From this, there should have been numbers broken down by accepted and rejected.
My question to all the "smart" people who comment here is why haven't the Republicans done this, or at least request the court order this? This would resolve the issue if there were more votes than ballots, wouldn't it? How can you claim there are more votes than ballots when you don't know how many have been submitted? KC was wrong in certifying without counting the actual number of ballots and the Republicans are wrong in bring the argument that there are more votes that ballots when they have no accurrate count of the number of ballots.
Posted by: tc on May 23, 2005 04:34 PM