The most surreal moment in the trail so far was watching Democrat lawyer Kevin Hamilton looking like a deer caught in the headlights arguing why the Republicans shouldn't be allowed to admit the evidence that King County counted 875 more absentee ballots than there were absentee voters. His grounds --
(1) it was a surprise [even though it was merely a detail confirmed in depositions relevant to the discrepancy between ballots and voters that was part of the original contest petition]
(2) the Republicans didn't produce the names of the non-existent voters. Seriously.
Hamilton came across looking both desperate and pathetic.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 23, 2005 01:55 PM | Email ThisOTOH, it shouldn't be too hard to think up names for some of those non-existent voters. Since they don't exist, pretty much anything goes. So, I will start it off:
1. Tooth Fairy
2. Santa Claus
3. Easter Bunny
4. Mickey Mouse
5. Amanda Hugginkiss
6. Jar Jar Binks
...
Seriously, if this is the best these 'Rats can do, why are they even bothering to pretend that they can run an honest election? The Judge should just grant summary judgment right now.
Posted by: Interested Observer on May 23, 2005 02:08 PMHe also showed his cards, because this is something Democrats feel is going to beat them.
I hope you have started packing up your desk, Christine. When you leave, make sure you have the place fumagated to kill the fleas you will leave behind.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 23, 2005 02:10 PMDon't laugh. You just stated the reasoning behind every Goldy post over at the Horses Ass. Because he said so. Democrats take their evasion of reality very seriously.
I think they would say that, we need to be learn to be more tolerant of their reality independent culture.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 23, 2005 02:23 PMHe left open the issue of whether that evidence might be admissible to prove official neglect of duty or misconduct uner RCW 29A68.020 and .070. The Dems are trying to exclude that evidence, even for the purpose of showing neglect, on the grounds it wasn't disclosed in the GOP pleadings within the time limits required by the judges prior rulings. Judege Bridges asked for a brief from the GOP on that issue before he rules on it.
Posted by: chew2 on May 23, 2005 02:30 PM"Dead People Voting Not Necessarily Proof of Fraud"
Posted by: pbj on May 23, 2005 03:08 PMAdmitting evidence of fraud and classifying such evidence as part of errors and irregularities may keep the burden of proof at a lower standard. So it may be a good thing to keep the trial within the scope as originally set out.
Fraud should be investigated however at the state and federal levels.
Posted by: Michael on May 23, 2005 03:14 PMThis is the result when new Padawans try to do Jedi mind tricks..."You will believe that the Republican Party can produce the names of these non-existent voters (gently moving hand)."
With a description of a sinister plot in King County to defraud voters, the GOP is pounding on the rostrum and demanding justice (and praying they don't get it). That opening statement was a pretty clear concession that the law and the facts are against the GOP. I heard nothing that suggested the GOP could clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Dino Rossi won this election. There is stuff that suggests a mess, but cloudiness won't do to overturn an election.
The case probably will survive the Democrats' motion to dismiss and move through the Demcorats' case, but only because the Judge will want to send a complete record to the supreme court. That opening statement bodes very ill for the GOP case.
Posted by: Northern Coho on May 23, 2005 03:32 PMPlease feel free to keep ignoring facts, logic and the law while declaring justice.
That's because Rossi is in a PR mode, not a legal one.
That's why you see endless references to "fraud" by Vance and the bloggers but little or nothing by Rossi's attorneys.
Posted by: Erik on May 23, 2005 03:38 PMSuppose, just hypothetically, that it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrat operatives had taken 1,000 ballots from a polling site, shredded them, and replaced them with 100% Gregoire ballots. Even if proven, this would not prove that Dino Rossi got more real votes than Gregoire, since it would be possible that the shredded ballots included 900 real ones for Gregoire. On the other hand, it would certainly be grounds for throwing out an election this close on the basis that such malfeasance could likely have swayed the election.
What the Republicans are alleging is a combination of factors, including wanton disregard for election laws, which make it impossible to show that Christine Gregoire won the election legitimately. It is possible that the evidence would have shown that Ms. Gregoire won, *HAD THE DEMOCRATS NOT DESTROYED IT*, but even if that's the case and tossing the election means deposing someone who won legitimately, such action would not be unjust since it was the Democrats' own malfeasance that destroyed any possible evidence of Ms. Gregoire's legitimacy.
Posted by: supercat on May 23, 2005 03:41 PMSo even if the issue of charging someone with fraud is not allowed as a charge in this trial, could the illegal votes we all believe were covered up by fraud still be allowed? Could the R's present testimony that the reports were bogus as evidence that the numbers can't be relied upon, without having to then go into the criminal ramifications of the reports being false?
I mean, I'd like these guys to serve some time for fraud, but if we can't get that right here, right now, that doesn't necessarily mean ballotless voters and voterless ballots can't be considered as part of the overall illegal votes, along with the felon and dead votes, right?
BTW, thanks for the play-by-play. Down here in Vancouver, the local media doesn't seem to think we are living in the same state as you. I can't get the coverage on the radio, and I can't stream it over the internet all day. Thanks!
Posted by: California Dreamer on May 23, 2005 03:44 PMI love a system that elevates ghost voters and non-citizens above my legit vote. Just think, i got cancelled by a spirit, a ghost, a phantom
Posted by: righton on May 23, 2005 03:56 PMJedi Padawans? More like Sith Apprentices...
Posted by: Mike H on May 23, 2005 04:01 PMFor example, after the election there were certain groups of ballots that should have been regarded as, at best, 'questionable'. The laws and regulations of Washington require that certain groups of ballots be kept physically separate. Had this been done, it would have been possible to determine whether a particular group of questionable ballots was excessivlely skewed toward a particular candidate. If there is a group of 500 ballots which has been cast by 400 voters, and 450 of the ballots have been cast for a particular candidate, one can very safely conclude that candidate received a minimum of 50 fraudulent votes.
Unfortunately, many groups of questionable ballots got illegally commingled with larger groups of ballots, thereby destroying the evidence of how the ballots in such groups had been cast and counted. To be sure, the ballots weren't physically destroyed, but the physical separation--which was itself critical evidence--was.
Additionally, election personnel in Washington illegally "enhanced" an unknown number of ballots in a manner contrary to statutes and regulations. The proper procedure for handling a ballot whose markings might not be scanned properly is to mark the ballot with a control number in a way that does not obscure the original markings but will prevent it from being accepted by the tabulation machines. Once this is done, a special duplicate ballot form which will work in the tabulation equipment but can be easily separated from normal ballots, is to be filled out with a maching control number, copying the votes marked on the original ballot. This duplicate ballot form can then be added to the stacks for counting, and the original is kept in a file of replaced ballots.
Note that when this procedure is followed, any questions about whether a ballot that was "enhanced" accurately reflects the will of the voter can be answered. Simply pull the "duplicate" ballot, read its control number, and pull the filed original ballot. Examining the two will reveal if they match, or if the election worker who enhanced the ballot was being too "optimistic" in regarding a slight smudge as a vote for a certain candidate.
Unfortunately, this procedure was not uniformly followed in King County. Instead, election workers simply used pens to darken ovals which were (supposedly) partially filled in. Unfortunately, by doing this the workers destroyed the evidence of how those ballots had originally been cast. Perhaps the workers only darked ovals which had already been marked by voters, but there's no way of knowing.
Perhaps you would argue that if a ballot oval is 90% filled in for a candidate, filling the oval completely does not "destroy" the ballot. I would disagree. Filling in the oval makes it impossible to prove how the ballot was filled in by the voter. Even if the mark happens to be accurate, the ballot is no longer evidence of the original voter intent.
Posted by: supercat on May 23, 2005 08:23 PMYou are an easily influenced idiot.
Thanks for the in-depth proof.
Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on May 23, 2005 11:58 PMLet Supercat think outloud....
It's this type of *wondering* that got us this far!
Ramble on! Throw it all out there...
Every time we dare to speculate - we find yet another piece of evidence..
I fail to see where supercat is an idiot. What is so idiotic about tracking ballots and making sure that the original voter intent is not obscured? What is so stupid about wanting the number of voters and the number of votes to match? This isn't about kicking Fraudoire out and putting Dino in, it's about the fact that the election results are unknowable...we NEED to DO IT OVER!!!
Posted by: Peggasoo on May 26, 2005 12:18 PM