Kenny Foulkes, whose ultimately successful election contest lawsuit of 1977 set the Foulkes v. Hayes precedent for election contests, says that Dino Rossi's case doesn't meet the standard set by the Foulkes case:
Foulkes wishes his case would make the difference. He's a Rossi supporter, but thinks his precedent may not help.Any comparison to Foulkes v. Hayes (or Hill v. Howell [search here if the link doesn't work]) is a big "so what?" Bear in mind that Kenny Foulkes' case didn't meet the Foulkes v. Hayes standard at the time he argued his case. The Foulkes v. Hayes standard didn't exist yet. It was a new precedent created to deal with the previously uncontemplated circumstances in his lawsuit. Similarly, the circumstances in this lawsuit are also significantly different from previously contemplated cases. Accordingly, I would expect Judge Bridges to forge a new precedent here."It's a tough one to prove because they may not be able to prove fraud like me," Foulkes said.
UPDATE: The comment from attorney Shawn Newman is worth highlighting in the main post:
You need to read the entire case and the entire Seattle Times article. Foulkes didn't need to prove fraud - just that there were enough errors, ommissions or problems (leaving the key to the ballot box in the lock). As the Times article indicates, Justice Robert Utter wrote in the unanimous opinion there was no need for Foulkes to show a "smoking gun" — proof of who altered the ballots — because of the evidence of fraud. In fact, the number of altered ballots was less than the margin of victory. But, the court wrote, "the irregularity was such that the actual result of the voting could not be ascertained."Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 02, 2005 12:06 PM | Email ThisIn this case, "Republicans want Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges to use the Foulkes standard. But he has said that they do not have a valid fraud claim and must prove that Rossi would have won if it were not for errors and illegal votes."
So, if Bridges were to apply the Foulkes standard, Rossi wins. If he doesn't, the Supremes could reverse on that grounds. IMHO, Bridges doesn't need to create new precedent here ... he should rely on Foulkes and rule for Rossi.
Bad choice of word here, Stefan........ ;o)
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on June 2, 2005 12:08 PMIn this case, "Republicans want Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges to use the Foulkes standard. But he has said that they do not have a valid fraud claim and must prove that Rossi would have won if it were not for errors and illegal votes."
So, if Bridges were to apply the Foulkes standard, Rossi wins. If he doesn't, the Supremes could reverse on that grounds. IMHO, Bridges doesn't need to create new precedent here ... he should rely on Foulkes and rule for Rossi.
Posted by: Newman on June 2, 2005 12:26 PMThere is well more than enough to overturn the election and to do otherwise will send a devastating message to the liberal criminals that they are correct in insisting that the end justifies any means. Who knows, maybe it is time for a true revolution. I'm ready.
Either way, no matter what else occurs, failing to overturn this election will be very bad for all of the citizens of Washington State -- especially liberals.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 2, 2005 12:34 PMIf it is ok to have the kinds of discrepancies that King County has exhibited then any election with such a tiny margin of difference should be set aside regardless of who appears to have the most votes.
Posted by: Michael on June 2, 2005 12:39 PMThe Republicans have provided no evidence, let alone proof, that the false reconciliation report changed the outcome (compared, presumably, with what a correct reconciliation report would have showed). The facts presented show that King County officials, not having (or wanting to get) the figures they needed for the reconciliation report, invented the numbers that would compute. That's bad; they should be punished. But there's no evidence that the election returns were incorrect.
Perhaps you're arguing that if the KC officials had complied with the law, they would have declined to file the reconciliation report. But you provide no evidence that this would have changed the election result. I don't know what would have happened next -- has this ever happened anywhere in the US??? -- but my guess is that a court would have ordered them to certify the election returns as counted, since there was no evidence of fraud.
Posted by: Bruce on June 2, 2005 12:50 PMMystified, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, just don't hit me.
Posted by: Danny on June 2, 2005 12:52 PMIt has not been established whether the two combined denied Rossi a rightful victory. I think that's irrelevant. More important here is public certainty of fair elections with lawful winners.
Bridges has said he can't call for a revote, only declare a winner. The Foulkes decision calls that into question, and shows precedent for a revote when election results are unknown due to negligence.
I think the outcome is still up in the air, and we need to PRAY for mercy and justice here in Washington. And don't forget, this is the warmup act: the Supremes still get to sing next. Pray, pray pray - and write your papers too... ;-)
Bridges is an intelligent person. To prove outright that the fraud cost Rossi the election is impossible. I think there is a standard here that must be such that any reasonable and rational person would conclude that Rossi may well have won the election is a probable standard.
The Dems could just as well say that the fraud was for Rossi but was insufficient to turn the election to him.
One thing is certain; no reasonable and rational person can say that they are confident that Gregoire won. Some people are so partisan that they may say that but they are not reasonable and rational.
Especially in light of the fact that the Poll Books are not reconcilable?
Posted by: Deborah on June 2, 2005 07:14 PMNor did Mr. Foulkes.
Posted by: Bill on June 3, 2005 08:03 PM