The Republicans' next expert witness, Prof. Tony Gill is on the stand.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 26, 2005 03:11 PM | Email ThisThat said, Goldstein and Sharkansky going back and forth right now on Carlson.
Goldstein and the Dems are essentially arguing what Goldstein has been saying all along, which is that through a perfect storm of poorly written statutes, accounting for improper ballots that happened after certification, etc. that this one just slipped through our hands, and there's nothing we can do.
What I think this ignores is that the evidence does add together to show just how flawed the election was. Goldstein wants to focus on the what he believes are the interpretations of the statutes that say that a flawed election is not grounds enough to throw out the election, but there are so many different aspects of those flaws, there is plenty there for Bridges to pick and choose from to invalidate the election based on other citations from the RCW.
The Democrats essentially make the case that the election was flawed, and they make the case for continued election reform, and dimissal of many employees in King County that made it possible for the storm to occur through their incompetence.
It ain't over yet.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 26, 2005 03:46 PMYes. But it's deceptive. The judge is going well out of his way to keep the supreme court getting their hands in this till it is all done.
Telling Rossi's attorneys that he is concerned about the stats but not ruling was tricky.
All I can say is that it could be very very good or very very bad depending on his rulings and one's political position as he is going to let loose with all of them at the end.
I have to hand it to him. He saw the prior election contests going up and down the court levels and is doing very well in keeping this from happening with this case.
Is he really keeping an open mind and will let in all of the GOP material and all of their theories? Or is he going to hear out all of the theories, find that Rossi fails on each and every one of them, even if they are applied, and give Rossi and appeal proof loss?
It ain't over yet.
Posted by: Erik on May 26, 2005 03:59 PMWhat if it was 5 million?
Because if you rule that these are neither 'illegal' nor 'fraud', then there's no way to exclude them. _Someone_ voted them illegally, someone was attempting fraud - but there's not going to be any evidence since the rules specifically don't count anything as fraud.
I wrote to her asking if she was going to support the Real ID. Reasons I gave was security and being able to use the WA DL to be able to board a plane. Her response (predictably) was:
Thank you for contacting Governor Gregoire with your concerns about a national identification (REAL ID) system.
The Governor's primary objection is the fiscal impact this would cause in difficult budget times. Estimates are that it would cost the state about $50 million to implement. She is working with the National Governor's Association to explore options.
Presently, our state drivers license policy does not discriminate between residents and immigrants. It is much safer for all of us to have everyone that is driving on our roads and highways licensed and insured. Asking for documentation upon issuing a license, forces undocumented immigrants to avoid the process altogether and flee the scene if they are involved in an accident.
Again, the Governor appreciates hearing your concerns and will continue looking at ways to comply with federal law without undo cost or discriminatory practices.
Sincerely,
Constituent Services
Office of the Governor
Amazing a budget problem! I wonder if that was a concern with Clinton's motor-voter law?
Posted by: Fred on May 26, 2005 04:37 PMThese people have been riding the discrimination bandwagon that they don't know how ridiculous it is starting to sound.
Back when this country was denying black CITIZENS equal opportunities and access, that was discrimination.
Denying an illegal ALIEN a driver's license is not discrimination.
... oh so tiresome to watch them play the game.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 26, 2005 06:14 PMoops
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 26, 2005 06:24 PMI sure have learned a lot of interesting things about trials from just watching it all and reading the comments here.
Posted by: Michele on May 26, 2005 06:32 PMNo....But he stayed at a Holiday Inn last night...;)
Posted by: Deborah on May 26, 2005 07:03 PMBy that logic, let's call bank robberies "undocumented withdrawals". Shoplifting becomes an "undocumented purchase". Drug dealing an "undocumented narcotic sale".
My wife and mother-in-law are legal immigrants from Russia and were never prouder than when sworn in as American citizens after going through the long, painful process. They have a simple question: if "undocumented immigrants" get all the same privileges, why bother doing it legally?
Posted by: Bill on May 26, 2005 08:07 PM$49,000,000 to redecorate the Governor's mansion for the Queen and $1,000,000 to implement the ID program.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 26, 2005 09:29 PMYou don't need any official picure to board a plane; all you need is a picture ID from any source such as CostCo. I will relate a story that it is easier to vote than to get an 'official' state ID card.
A very good friend of mine last year agreed to let her paraplegic disabled son travel from Alabama travel on vacation to see us last year. He had no ID to board the plane other than his Alabama state ID (recently issued). We had a very nice visit but several days before his return, my friend discovered that he had misplaced his Alabama temorary ID. In fact it may have gone through the wash!
We were in a turmoil! How we could get our visitor back home on time. I visited the local state id office and was told I needed like five different pieces of ID to include SSN Card, local check invoices, ets. Needless to say the local office appears to be much more thourough issueing ID than registering voters.
I fianally called the airlines after having my friend's Mom send a birth certificate and a copy of the SSN card to us. That said, all you need is a 'picture id'. I went to the local CostCo and used the SSN card and BC sent by my friend's Mom to get a picture ID for a $45 year's subscription. The Airlines accepted that ID, so my friend was able to board the plane. The ID, from a security point of view is totally worthless.
It appears that it is easier to vote than to meet the simpler ID requirements to board a plane!!
What a dicotomy!
Thanks!
Timman
(snippet)Posted on Thu, May. 26, 2005
Witness: Republican won disputed election
REBECCA COOK
Associated Press
WENATCHEE, Wash. - An expert witness for Republicans challenging the 2004 election of Gov. Christine Gregoire testified Thursday that when illegal votes are subtracted, the GOP candidate was the rightful winner.(/ snippet)
(snippet) GOP attorneys said they planned to rest their case Friday.(/snippet)
---------------------------------------------
The Republicans are going to rest their case tomorrow??? Have they presented everything?
I'm missing something here....
So if illegal aliens are "undocumented workers", does that make CG our "undocumented Governor"?
Hmmm....
:-)
RM
Is he really keeping an open mind and will let in all of the GOP material and all of their theories? Or is he going to hear out all of the theories, find that Rossi fails on each and every one of them, even if they are applied, and give Rossi and appeal proof loss?It ain't over yet.
I thought that the very reasons that the Republicans chose Chelan County for their election challenge was because they were forum shopping and judge-shopping (hey, Plaintiffs always try to give it their best shot, right?). They wanted the case to unfold in this county in this courthouse and before this judge. Chelan County voted 64 percent for Rossi, and hasn't elected a Democrat to local government in a long time. And then there's Bridges' track record in the 1999 election challenge against Wenatchee Mayor Gary Schoessler, wherein Bridges had no problem throwing out the election result and ordering a revote, exactly the remedy the Republicans are seeking here. And here's the clincher: Bridges' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in that case were so airtight that the Washington Supreme Court had no choice but to affirm, which they unanimously did. So I say that whatever happens, the Republicans gave it their best shot and if they were ever going to prevail in this claim, they'll win it in this court.
Each side was given 4 days to make their case, with a little bit of wiggle room. There is a tight schedule on this case to prevent either side from playing a "four corner stall." It is all a matter of timing.
Posted by: Unicorn on May 27, 2005 07:47 AMJaybird, Nice theory, but IIRC, judges are assigned the case randomly and there was another judge initially assigned the case who then recused himself. The Republicans did not pick Judge bridges at all.
Don't be naive. They wanted the case to be heard in Chelan County for a reason. You are correct, judges are assigned randomly, but in Chelan County they had overall demographics on their side and a one in three chance of actually getting Bridges. And that all happened, too, didn't it?
Posted by: jaybird on May 27, 2005 07:56 AMA nitpick, but just a key point I didn't want to let go by.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on May 27, 2005 08:21 AMYeah, ain't it nice.
Posted by: lefty on May 27, 2005 08:31 AMI agree. We agree. And Lefty, yes, it is nice. If this election is going to be declared null and rerun again, this is the best shot at it. Which was the point I was trying to make to those who are apprehensive about Bridges dropping the hammer on the plaintiff's claims.
Posted by: jaybird on May 27, 2005 11:24 AM