After short break, petitioners rest case.
Democrats move to dismiss. Snooooooooooze.
Democrats move, Republicans refute, Judge denies motion. Details in extended entry.
The essence of the argument will be: "The election was such a total mess that nobody can prove anything about what happened and therefore we have no choice but to live with the outcome, no matter how plainly bogus"
* In order to throw out the vote of someone who voted both in WA and in a different state, petitioner must prove that they are not residents of WA.
* Can't do anything about the forged ballots from Lewis County because we don't know how those ballots were voted in the governor's race, who cast them or where the forgers live.
* Claims of deceased voters should be dismissed: barred by RCW 29A.68.100 because petitioners haven't disclosed the names of who cast them. Also don't know whether those ballots contained a vote in the governor's race or how they were cast.
I'm not going to give a blow-by-blow for the entire motion to dismiss, lest I vomit. If you have a strong stomach, you can go here to read the Democrats' entire proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which Hamilton is reading from. Actually, I encourage everybody to read this. If you read how insane their argument is and how hostile it is to the integrity of the elections process, you will never want to vote for another Democrat again.
--
Ahearne: opposes the motion to dismiss. Encourages the judge to review all of the evidence.
Korrell asks judge to use "preponderance of evidence" standard. Starts to summarize the evidence in the petitioners' case.
* Felons, dead people and double voters cast 789 illegal votes. Smaller than the number in trial brief, only because of expedited schedule and difficulty ingathering all of the documentation from all of the counties. This reduction does not change the substance of the case.
* Voting in name of a dead person, voting twice, intercepting ballots and voting are all examples of fraud.
* 1,156 more ballots counted by Accuvote in King County than there were regular polling place voters.
* King County's best explanation of the above is unverified provisionals that went into Accuvote. These are illegal votes as per Foulkes v. Hayes "vote not cast in manner provided by law"
* King County throws up its hands and has no idea where mystery votes came from. "There can be no confidence we reached the right result"
* King County has 875 more absentee ballots than absentee voters credited (after accounting for federal write-in and confidentiality voters). Huge discrepancy in system where crediting is automatic.
* Democrats' arguments against crediting (errors in reading poll books) do not apply to absentee ballots, where crediting is an automatic part of canvassing process before certification. Quotes Sam Reed on this. Crediting is part of absentee ballot audit trail required by law.
* Mentions the now 96 uncounted absentee ballots discovered in King County
* Nicole Way testified she didn't know how many absentee ballots were returned. Quotes Sam Reed on importance of absentee ballot audit trail for ensuring integrity of election. Cites Dean Logan deposition saying there was an "honor system" on keeping track of ballots.
* Way testified that discrepancies in batch slips should have been investigated, but weren't.
* Mentions falsified Mail Ballot Report.
* Evidence that counted ballots from other than registered voters: More ballots counted than voters credited; unexplained discrepancies in batch slips;
* Nobody can know who got the largest number of legal votes. Sam Reed: "King County has most backwards elections system in state"
* "We cannot possibly know that Christine Gregoire got largest number of legal votes"
* Addresses point in law. In your honor's oral opinion. "One of petitioners' theory may be tempting and persuasive (but not apropos)": As in Foulkes v Hayes, errors that exceed margin of victory are grounds to overturn.
* Korrell argues why Foulkes is applicable -- if neglect of elections officials renders it impossible to know who got most legal votes, must set election aside. Same here: neglect and error by elections officials: 785 unverified provisionals, 875 surplus absentee ballots, uncounted absentees. Foulkes compels rather than precludes that election be set aside.
* Standards of 070 and 110 of contest statute and proportional deduction: Need to look only at universe of known illegal votes not universe of unknowable illegal votes. Proportional deduction used by U.S. Congress and jurisdictions around the countr. The Democrat experts offer no assistance to the court how to address the illegal votes. Simply say "cannot answer the question". If applying proportional deduction to known illegal votes, Rossi wins.
* Democrats' theory that need to know names of people who cast illegal votes due to election official misconduct and errors is "tortured reading of contest statute", inconsistent with Foulkes case.
* If the court dismisses this case -- with narrowest of margins, errors, illegal votes, still impossible to know how many votes were cast in King County -- in case with huge discrepancies and disturbing patterns -- then Washington has no meaningful election contest statute.
--
Hamilton cites Hill v Howell -- if illegal votes cast, unless it can be shown for whom the vote is cast, it would be wrong to charge error to either candidate.
* Foulkes has no application. Contest statute enacted after Foulkes.
* Hamilton scores own goal! - 1,156 extra polling place ballots ignores negative variation. Hey! the election is even more f*cked up than the Republicans say!
* Washington law assumes election officials do what's required of them and they did!
* They counted the ballots three times! Who cares if they didn't reconcile them as required by law!
* At the end of the day, your honor, we have a process for deciding close elections. The election contest statute. It's clear the case should be dismissed. It's no small task to overturn a statewide electioin. Mr. Korrell has burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the result would have changed. He cannot and he has not. The entire case should be dismissed.
* Even: Sec. of State last week felt the motion to exclude CFR as evidence of a felony conviction was premature. Still haven't received any information other than Korrell's representation what those documents are.
--
Bridges rulings
1) on CFRs as evidence of felony conviction. If all of the CFRs that have been presented as evidence are as complete as the example that Bridges have seen, then he will accept them as sufficient. If not, then not.
2) On motion to dismiss case right now (drum roll)... this case is important to Mr. Rossi and Ms. Gregoire and their constituents. But another component .. what the citizens of the state of Washington expect when there is an election contest filed and what they deserve when a contest is filed ... I have not read the legislative history of the contest statute, but I can't imagine that the legislature contemplated such as situation as we're faced with today that the parties have spent 7 months gathering evidence and that there were concerns raised as early as November. Court should allow and demand a full and complete record from both petitioners and intervenors. Agree again with Mr. Ahearne's arguments.
* Parties don't agree what law is and that is up to judge to decide. Evidence will be sifted through statute and case law.
* Both sides deserve full finding of facts. Dismisses motion to dismiss!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 27, 2005 11:37 AM | Email ThisRight, Jeff?
Posted by: Big M on May 27, 2005 11:57 AMMy guess is that the judge will deny this motion even if he thinks the Rs haven't proved their case. In that event, the Ds will put on their evidence so that a complete factual record will go to the Supreme Court. If he were to rule now that the Rs hadn't proven their case and was overruled by the Supremes as a matter of law, there would have to be a new trial in order to allow the Ds to put in their evidence. By letting them do it now, he generally avoids the new trial if he gets overruled on appeal. Everything that is happening in this trial is with an eye on the appeal to the Supreme Court. That is why Jennie Durkan is objecting to everything, why the judge is allowing evidence to be presented that is questionably proper and why the Rs will object to all the evidence the Ds are going to present.
Process isn't pretty (or even particularly interesting), but it generally works.
Posted by: Steven on May 27, 2005 12:12 PMNational Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation
... you will see Durkan and partner (Dana)
Durkan has 2 kids, by the way
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 12:14 PMAgreed, but some of the objections are beyond even good trial procedure, and bordering on ridiculous. That's the Dems for you. They'll do anything to keep power, no mattter how ridiculous, costly, illegal, mean spirited, illogical, etc.
The Judge has been dismissing the Dems objections - AND the Judge has been stating that the Republicans evidence IS relevant, IS important, IS timely, etc....
I don't think the Judge would be that descriptive of his reasons for allowing the Republicans evidence to be admitted if he were just setting them up for a lack of appeal to the Supreme Court....
Posted by: Deborah on May 27, 2005 12:36 PMSubsequent to implementation of this new and improved system I would advocate for initiative to be placed on the ballot which would calculate how much everything YOU voted for cost and how much legislation State Representative and Senators from YOUR district cost in increased taxes, user fees etc and provide you with your own proportionate State sales tax rate.
Not only would this go a long way towards curbing run away spending, it would give you incentive to work to get people in office who agree with you on how much tax YOU should pay.
If you vote for big spenders, guess what? YOU pay the cost. If you vote for increases in government spending, guess what? YOU pay for it.
Does anybody see a problem with this?
If King County relied heavily on computers to recount then a true hand recount was never done. If there was no hand recount then there never was a legitimate victor. Judge Bridges should order a real hand count with genuine bipartisan oversight.
Then let the trial proceed.
and here you can find out what they did to Venezuela by approving Hugo Chavez as that winner http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=home
Posted by: Poi Ball on May 27, 2005 01:11 PMHe is only letting this go forward so that all of the evidence can be a matter of record.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 01:11 PMA disservice to petitioners not to let case go on...
Posted by: Editor on May 27, 2005 01:12 PMWe're not going anywhere.
-The people
Posted by: Rich on May 27, 2005 01:12 PM
~J
Posted by: Jennifer on May 27, 2005 01:14 PMHe said that it should go forward in order to allow a full "airing" and to make everything a matter of the record.
He gave no indication whatsoever that the case represented by the Reps was convincing and therefor he needed to hear the defenses arguments.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 01:15 PMMost Rossi supporters have been feeling uplifted due to all the Dem's motions being denied...be ready for a reversal. The Reps now need to lay their foundation for appeal by objecting, but as we've seen, the judge admits (almost) everything into evidence. Overruled.
Posted by: VaCSProf on May 27, 2005 01:23 PMThe donkey strategy has been to try and keep as much evidence OUT of the light as possible.
Are you thinking they will now pull out stops and try to throw as much mud in the water as they can?
Have they submitted their felon votes from Rossi counties?
Posted by: Andy on May 27, 2005 01:28 PMDidn't someone back in December suggest an "ATM" type system where your voter registration card was like an ATM card, with a PIN? This seems so logical, the computer could regect any duplicate votes, etc.
Posted by: appalled on May 27, 2005 01:28 PMThey'd reject your system on the basis that somehow it limits people's ability to vote. You know, it would just be so complicated to remember a PIN # ... etc ... etc ....
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 01:36 PMAnd, for those of you who think the Dem's attorney's objections being overrulled is a good thing, as an attorney, it is better to have your objections overrulled and the other side get their evidence in, this is usually a sign that the judge is going to rule for you, but wants to give the loosing side almost no grounds for appeal.
Posted by: JDB on May 27, 2005 01:39 PMOOOOOH! Now I get it. Duh....sorry for the thickheadedness.
Posted by: appalled on May 27, 2005 01:40 PMOf course, the Democrats usually sit in the second camp because they can more easily manipulate the illegal votes.
Posted by: Shannon K on May 27, 2005 01:48 PMIf you saw a stranger climbing out of a window of your house in the middle of the night, you would see no crime.
If you witnessed two teens hotwiring your car, you would see no crime.
If you saw a guy hold up a bank at gunpoint, that to you would prove nothing.
Get real.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 27, 2005 01:49 PMBut as you said, it would be too accurate and traceable, which is the biggest problem.
Posted by: Fred on May 27, 2005 01:51 PMFrom a purely legal standpoint, I'm pretty sure the laws state one (live) person, one vote. Hopefully Judge Bridges sees through the Dems approach.
What happens next will be interesting. Dems have sought to EXCLUDE evidence because it's only small technical errors by KC. Now it is probable they will argue that they should INCLUDE evidence because of the massive errors of other counties.
However, did you notice Judge Bridges speak of all citizens and then change it to all residents of Washington?
Posted by: Jack on May 27, 2005 02:05 PMFred, they could use a fingerprint readn system.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 02:08 PMThe Judge is on the ball! He read the content of the CFR's! - which blew the Democrats motion that they are irrelevant - out of the water!
That the Judge stated the case should continue for the *people* - is awesome!
Posted by: Deborah on May 27, 2005 02:19 PMIf I saw two teens hotwiring my car, I could say, "Hey, those two teens hotwire my car."
If I saw someone crawling out of my window, I could say, "Hey, that person is crawling out of my window."
On the other hand, if you bought Dale Forman's opening statement, you must walk down the street and at every window you see that is open say "Hey, someone must of broke in to that house, there is a window open," and every car that drives by you must say "Wow, look at all those stolen cars."
Please, at the close of the GOPs great case, tell me one person who committed fraud in an attempt to change the result of this election (which is the standard). Felon's voting who did not have their rights returned is illegal, but it sure ain't fraud. And, using the Jim Miller standard ("Proof, I don't need no stinking proof.") we know all felons are Republicans anyway, so that doesn't matter.
I was promised showings of fraud and ballot stuffing! I got bad statistics and the knowledge that in a very small county it is easier to run an election than in a very large county. Useful, but hardly worth overturning the voice of the people.
As I have said when ever I post here, if you all want to take the foil off your heads (Deborah, I'm looking at you), and talk about solutions to the problems with election, hey, great conversation to have. But if all you have is name calling and..., well, at this point, you have name calling, I'll just have fun mocking you when I'm not busy with my family, friends and or work.
To the few rational people on this board who get mad when I paint with such a wide brush, you have to admit that the wingnuts here make it easy to do. That being said, I always appreciate a Rightwinger with an arguement, just a shame so many have given in to their hate.
But let's give the perpetrators the benefit of the doubt and say that they're just massively incompetent.
Either way, they failed to serve the people of WA state. Can we agree on that?
Posted by: Bostonian on May 27, 2005 02:47 PM“we know all felons are Republicans anyway, so that doesn't matter.”
“I got bad statistics and the knowledge that in a very small county it is easier to run an election than in a very large county.” - (actually, KC had more workers per voter than Chelan)
“But if all you have is name calling and..., well, at this point, you have name calling”
“you have to admit that the wingnuts here make it easy to do.”
- You certainly do contradict yourself.
Yes, I can.
And I think if we started with that, and how to fix it, this would have gone much better.
I will also add the caveat that in a massive human endevor like this, there will always be error. The error here is larger than it should be, but still very small.
But democracy does not work if people cannot have faith in their elections, and I can understand people being upset with the dog's breakfast that King County made of this.
But I don't think it was intentional in any way. As Always, the Simpson's said it best (Matt Groening, Evergreen, '79)
Shary: If there's a task that must be done,
Don't turn your tail and run,
Don't pout, don't sob,
Just do a half-assed job!
If... you... cut every corner
It is really not so bad,
Everybody does it,
Even mom and dad.
If nobody sees it,
Then nobody gets mad,
Bart: It's the American way!
Shary: The policeman on the beat
Needs some time to rest his feet.
Wiggum: Fighting crime is not my cup of tea!
Shary: And the clerk who runs the store
Can charge a little more
For meat!
Apu: For meat!
Shary: And milk!
Apu: And milk!
Both: From 1984!
Shary: If... you... cut every corner,
You'll have more time for play,
Shary & OFF: It's the American waaaaay!
Now it's distinctly odd that you both agree that the election officials screwed up hugely AND still use phrases like "the will of the people," implying that the election results should be left alone.
On what foundation would you rest the voters' confidence? A promise to "do better" next time?
Do you think the majority of the voters of WA state would find that compelling?
Posted by: Bostonian on May 27, 2005 03:11 PMI have yet to hear an objection from the Republicans, they are allowing the Dems to present their witnesses and "evidence" without objection.
Posted by: Libs new position - This is too big a mess to clean up, leave the result alone on May 27, 2005 03:11 PMPerhaps they're expecting Democrats to shoot their own goal.
Republicans: This election was totally F[lipp]ed up. Mistakes in King County alone introduce uncertainties much larger than the margin of victory.
Democrats: King County's not so bad. Other counties are F[lipp]ed up too.
Republicans: See, even the Democrats agree this election is a total cluster-f[lip].
Posted by: supercat on May 27, 2005 03:17 PMTo the Demiocratic/Gregorie supporters, I have to ask this question:
I have been reading that no proof of fraud has taken place, therefore there is no case. Please explain your view. It seems clear to me the following has happened:
1. Close Race.
2. Close first count, Rossi wins
3. Computer recount, Rossi wins
4. Hand recount with questionable procedures (i.e. workers marking ballots to determine "voter's intent, etc." Only problems in King County.
5. King County keeps finding more and more votes.
6. Republicans have found out credible information that KC has real problems with vote, no other county seems to. and no one knows how many people voted in the county.
If 1-6 are even close to reality, the only reasonable thing to do is have a re-vote, unless Washington state law is as flexible as a rubber band. No overt fraud, IYO? Okay, so what? You going to leave your governor in a cloud for three more years, and guarantee she is not re-elected?
And further, why would you not want a revote? All Gergorie has to do is win the re-election in November, and now Rossi becomes a piece of burned charcoal in the grill. At this rate, he is a viable Senate and/or Govenor candidate. Your making Rossi into a beast by going through all this.
I just don't understand what the Dem's are trying to do here. Please help me to understand this.
Posted by: Viewing From A Distance on May 27, 2005 05:14 PM
All polls show that if people could revote right now, Rossi would win over Gregoire. They can't allow that. Just like certain Dem. senators in DC who can't abide the thought that the duly elected President may choose his own judges and that the duly elected majority in the Senate may vote for them.
It's okay for them to bend and break rules or laws because they "care" and they know what's best.
Posted by: Shannon K on May 27, 2005 06:50 PMDouble.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on May 27, 2005 08:38 PMJDB...
While visitng Sound Politics over the past several months - you have called the good people here "Right Wing trolls", "Paranoid", "Depressed" "Right Wing Nuts" etc....You have insulted Stefan Sharkansky numerous times and have erroneously accused him of being an attorney, belonging to the BIAW, Misrepresenting MSM news articles,..etc...
Now - you are attempting to insult us again! With some reference to "tin Foil"? And apparently - most especially me? heh...
I can see how you *truly* want to discuss solutions to our election problems.....warm and fuzzy as you are..
Are you aware that you have a pattern to your posting? I just discovered it while researching your user name.... (I love patterns, puzzles, etc..)
Sometimes you can know about a poster - by which threads they choose to post in and when - and which threads they ignore..
I won't bore you with the details...but I can tell by your pattern of posting - that you are simply a cheerleader for the Democrats. You post only in threads that pose an immediate threat to the Democrats position in the contest or in any thread that has the potential to damage the Democrat machine in this state. One would think that would include ALL threads in this blog..but it doesn't at all. Most of the topics in Sound Politics are very informative but only a small number contain a discovery of proof, evidence, etc.... Those are the ones that you are drawn to. And you can be expected to post a discouraging argument of what ever was presented in that thread...You do not bother to post fact - you only want to create doubt.
Soooooo - tell me again how you want to "talk about solutions"?
Posted by: Deborah on May 27, 2005 08:44 PMDeborah, your assessments are spot on (as usual), but you waste your breath trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
Simple truth is JDB is a loser and a coward and a leftist toilet-drinker (unquestioning obedience to "the party line"), and half-assed shill, and, oh did I mention loser?
Whatever the outcome of this contest, mouth breathers like JDB have become aware that they have active opposition that is stronger, more intelligent, easily as adept at "working the system", and absolutely committed to the proposition of marginalizing them and their ilk.
Over the last twenty years I've watched as leftists like JDB turned this beautiful part of the country into a toilet.
They have misled, mismanaged, and misspent several fortunes with their style over substance approach to "governing".
Enough is enough! I'm done tolerating these bottom feeders and intend to meet their every stupid proposition with active opposition.
No more!
alphabet soup..
heh. I am NOT trying to reason with the troll....just *expose* him a little....
(eeeewwwwwwww!)
What on earth was I thinking????
Posted by: Deborah on May 28, 2005 08:24 PM