How might the State Supreme Court consider the inevitable appeal of Judge Bridges' ruling in the election contest? The best way to find out is to ask a (former) Supreme Court Justice. Mike Siegel had former Justice Phil Talmadge on his show yesterday and they had a very interesting discussion, which included this exchange (courtesy of KTTH):

Siegel: If you were still on that court .. what would be some the focus ... the central series of questions you would ask during that appeal?

Talmadge: I would be looking at the impact on the elections process. Both in particular in the sense of the number of votes that are flawed and how that might have affected the outcome and the questions about the outcome itself and whether the public could be satisfied that the elections process is a fair one that's handled appropriately. I think both issues are important and the latter is not one that's been given a lot of attention. One of the things we take for granted is the sanctity of the voting process. That when we go in and vote our vote counts. and that's not diluted by illegal activities or ballot stuffing or anything else. That's kind of a cherished thought in Washington State that our ballots mean something and that they're not played around with by election officials. If I were the judge I'd be concerned about that larger issue as well as that particular one about how many provisional ballots were voted how many felons voted and all those kinds of things.

Siegel: Given that then would you incorporate the larger policy question ... into your decision?

Talmadge: I would try to. Because I was always a big believer in kind of laying out what are called "black letter" rules of law. You can read the opinion and you have a clear understanding from what I was involved with and what I like to see the courts do. you have a clear understanding of what the rule of law is when you're done reading the opinion. You don't have any mysteries. it's not something that's hidden. there's no hidden balls. it's right there. this is the rule that you understand from reading this opinion. and in elections i think its particularly important. these case don't come up very often. when they do they're really important and it would be nice in this case to have a clear cut explicit black letter rule of law kind decision that tells people exactly what their vote means and exactly what it would mean to overturn an election if it was flawed and so that future situations can be governed by it.