The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports "Setback for GOP in governor election trial":
Republicans suffered a major blow today to their late-developing strategy to claim fraud in the 2004 governor's race when a judge said that claim cannot stand as a key to their legal challenge of Democrat Christine Gregoire's 129-vote victory.I suspect reporter Greg Roberts is engaged in wishful thinking. I was watching that part of the trial and my recollection more closely matches David Postman's report of 2:26pm
Judge Bridges has put off deciding whether Republicans' fraud charges can move forward in the trial. But he may be on his way to another decision that splits the difference between Republicans and Democrats — something he's done before.A legal expert e-mails:Bridges agreed with Democrats that fraud has not been an official part of the Republicans' claim. But he stopped short of excluding the evidence.
I'm still digesting today's arguments, however, I think that Roberts overstated Bridge's comments. It is worth paying very close attention to the presentation of [the Sec. of State's lawyer] Tom Ahearne ... I think Tom is probably closer to how the judge actually thinks than any other attorney present.I've asked Greg Roberts to send me Bridges' exact words upon which the report is based, in case the rest of us have missed something.
So the judge may conclude that election fraud - as a legal term of art - is not part of the GOP case (and based on Bridge's comments, I think that is likely), but that the election irregularities that form the substantive basis of the fraud allegation may be introduced as evidence to support an invalidation of the election.
Judge Bridge is trying to make sure that the hearing goes forward without getting bogged down by premature procedural determinations (hence his "quicksand" comments). I suspect he will read the depositions very carefully tonight.
UPDATE: Greg Roberts responds:
The key phrase, to me, was "The court does not believe that there is a fraud causation element in this case." Then he said, "for whatever that's worth. I'm not saying the evidence is not admissible."I'll leave it to the legal experts to weigh in on the interpretation Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 23, 2005 05:22 PM | Email ThisBefore saying that,he said that "Fraud has never been alleged in this case," and that fraud has to be specifically pled in very circumscribed ways.
The important thing, as I understand it (which is based in part on conversations with lawyers or activists on all 3 sides), is that if you go with fraud and make it stick, you can overturn the election under the Foulkes v. Hays standard, which does not require showing that illegal votes made the difference in the election -- only that there were more illegal votes than the margin. Without the fraud allegation or causation, you're stuck with the Hill v. Howell standard, which requires showing that illegal votes made the difference.
The evidence bit, as I understand it, means that the GOP can try to bring in the evidence about what might be called the Nicole Way votes, despite his ruling on causation.
I've tried to clarify this in a revised version of the story, which should be posted soon.
Hold your nose.
It will be fun to watch the media spin of this trial, since they have also been complicit in the elections fraud that occured in King County, robbing the entire state of its democracy.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 23, 2005 05:37 PMWell, if it ain't fraud, what is it?
Does deception sound any better?
Did Rossi suffer a “major blow"? (4:18 PM)
Hmm. Gregory Roberts of The Seattle P-I is reporting that the Republicans suffered a major setback today when the Judge ruled that they could not claim fraud. I think Gregory may have jumped the gun;
Hmm. Looks like you agree with Goldy on this and now I hear you two are appearing on radio together.
Sounds like love fest to me.
What are you going to announce next, that you are going to have a column in the Stranger?
Posted by: Erik on May 23, 2005 05:53 PMThis is a high stakes game! No weak-knees allowed. Let the game come to you. The PU is always premature in their assessments...probably premature in other efforts as well.
Posted by: Danny on May 23, 2005 05:54 PMEvidence is not evidence without indisputable evidence of fraud. But evidence is inadmissible without proof of fraud. Therefor a lack proof in our secret ballot system means no fraud was committed. Evidence is not valid if fraud is not proven and fraud can't be proven if evidence is not admissible. I think see now (wiping blood from my ears).
Didn't I see this on an episode of Star Trek? I never lie...
Posted by: Splatter on May 23, 2005 06:01 PMThey hope everyone in court will get so confused that they'll just sit down on the couch and take another bong hit and enjoy the convolutions.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 23, 2005 06:33 PMAfter all....who is "stranger" than Goldy??
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 23, 2005 06:35 PM
Freeper, bigfootbob, posted a real REPORT from Rebecca Cook [that AP woman]. The PI chopped and cropped until they matched Dem talking points. She is a reporter, unlike Greg (Facts/Smacks) Roberts.
Trial Opens with GOP Accusing Democrats of Stealing Election
By REBECCA COOK, Associated Press Writer
May 23, 2005
Make an outrageous statement & headline...
then run for cover.
Perhaps one of our friends over in Wenatchee can corner Roberts and find out if he is psychic or simply day-dreaming>
The Republicans now must put together a firm case for fraud to present to the Judge. He doesn't sound like he's going to be a pushover for either party. But the Judge cannot become so rigid in *housekeeping* issues that he disallows something as important as evidence of fraud in our election process!
This is the time Judge Bridges needs to look inside himself and remember the *spirit* of these laws as he interprets, applies and administers them...
RCW 4.36.240
Harmless error disregarded.
The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in pleadings or proceedings which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party, and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect
. [Code 1881 § 113; 1877 p 24 § 113; 1854 p 144 § 71; RRS § 307.]
NOTES:
Rules of court: Cf. RAP 2.4(a), 18.22.
The petitioners became aware of error, wrongful act, or neglect that raised to the level of fraud thru the depositions, at the same time as the respondents. The original pleading is not incorrect as is the level of intent.
Been there done that.
Posted by: Gary Schoessler on May 23, 2005 09:55 PMAre you one and the same Gary Schoessler? I'm not surprised you feel that way.
Posted by: cc on May 23, 2005 10:03 PMWhy is this different? Law...BAH!
Posted by: Hanna on May 23, 2005 11:27 PMWatch for liberal insanity itself to ring out in earnest * * *
That's all it is . . . so far.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 24, 2005 12:42 AMGary
Nice to meet you. Your insight may be very pertinent to this case having practical knowledge of the judge and election law. I might not agree on everything you say but thats life.
"GOP Wins Court Case on Sympathy Vote From Bridges"
Judge bridges felt sorry for the GOP and Rossi since all court decisions seemed to be going against them. In a strong showing of unjustified compassion, Judge Bridges awarded the GOP...