June 05, 2005
Jenny Durkan's "Own Goal"s

As promised, here's a list of some of the "own goal"s that Democrat attorney Jenny Durkan scored in her closing argument. On behalf of everybody who favors setting this election aside in the name of ensuring integrity in our state's election system, I thank Ms. Durkan for making these points in her closing.

I should add that I think the Democrats' legal team, including Ms. Durkan, are a formidable bunch. But whatever the legal merits of their case might or might not be, defending the indefensibly tainted election fails any test of common sense. I can't imagine there could be any way to argue this case in such a way that wouldn't make the average person say "you've got to be kidding". Speaking of which, I also posted the conclusion of Durkan's closing argument in an earlier entry.

To hear these statements in their entirety, visit the TVW video and forward to the times posted with the quotes.

Durkan reminded the judge that his ruling will set a precedent for the standards used by election officials for years to come, reinforcing his sense that he has to prevent similar (or worse) meltdowns from occuring in the future:

[5:14:52] As the court noted to Mr. Katz, this court's ruling in this case must be forward looking. By definition, this court may be setting the rules and the roadmap for election contests throughout the state for the future, whether a local jurisdiction or a statewide election.
and
[5:22:28] No one in this courtroom and no one at this table will ever say that mistakes weren't made, that systems weren't flawed and that people took actions they should not have taken. But that information, that evidence should not be used to denigrate the thousands of election workers who worked long and hard hours to ensure that the rest of us got to express our political will and vote. It is fundamental to our system that people have faith in our government and how it is chosen.
and
[5:34:52] At the core, an election contest is a safety valve. A safety valve to ensure the integrity of our elections and promote the continued public trust
Durkan argued a tortured, senseless reading of the contest statute that does not meet the "workable and rational interpretation" test and therefore only wastes the judge's time:
[5:16:43] We do not believe that petitioners have proven by even a preponderance of the evidence that a single, a single, illegal vote was ever cast for Governor [sic] Gregoire, which is what they have to show under the statute. And as I will discuss in a bit, in fact, the only evidence before the court either on a preponderance or clear and convincing that an illegal vote was cast for a specific candidate, was the felons, who we deposed who were on petitioner's list, who testified that they voted for Mr. Rossi.
and
[5:26:16] So whether the court proceeds under errors or illegal votes, the component of legal votes is part of either part of those statutes. So in order to prove their case under errors, they still have to show that Governor [sic] Gregoire did not receive the highest number of legal votes. And to do so, any allegation of illegal vote is subject to the requirements of 100 which said you have to disclose it, and you had to say by whom cast.
and
[5:51:50] two fatal flaws for the 875 [absentee ballots]. They're illegal votes by Petitioners' definition. They never disclosed by whom they were cast.
Durkan reminded the court that King County didn't count their own absentee ballot envelopes and therefore weren't as diligent as other counties were to follow the law to reconcile discrepancies and avert and correct errors:
[5:40:08] Why didn't petitioners get the [absentee ballot] envelopes? .. the same documents that [Chelan Auditor] Evelyn Arnold used for her reconciliation, the same documents that [Clark Auditor] Mr. Kimsey used for his reconciliation?
Durkan reminded the court about the Mail Ballot Report and the Judge's concern that Nicole Way did not use a valid method of preparing it: At [6:16:50] she put it on the overhead along with the SoS Powerpoint on Absentee Ballot Reconciliation that instructs to show
Number of Ballots Counted + Number of Ballots Rejected = Total Ballots Received. That's exactly what Nicole Way did"
Durkan reminded the court that there's a widespread failure around the state (not just in King County) to follow the regulations for ensuring the integrity of the election:
[6:19:58] I do not believe the evidence supports that the Mail ballot Report was prepared to deceive or falsify. Because if it was, every single county that found absentee ballots after the original certification had the exact same problem. They lost ballots. If they had the proper Mail Ballot Return form they would have known
Finaly, Durkan reminded the court that King County disclosed and corrected the Larry Phillips ballot error prior to final certification. This had the effect of highlighting to the court that King County disclosed and corrected errors that would have helped Gregoire while at the same time they neglected to disclose and correct errors whose correction would have favored Rossi:
[6:24:14] Somebody forgot to tell King County not to make mistakes that hurt Christine Gregoire. When Secretary Sam Reed was deposed, he was asked what was the most significant error King County made. And he said it was setting aside the 700+ ballots that didn't have a signature that later came to be known as the Larry Phillips ballots.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 05, 2005 01:47 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Sure hope you are right, but there is a lot of Repubs on chat that are not hopeful come Monday.

Check out the live chat today and Monday at:
http://www.webcityusa.com/chat.html

gary

Posted by: Gary F on June 5, 2005 01:57 PM
2. http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0506/05/polit-203495.htm

"It depends on what the definition of "elected" is. "

LOL

gary

Posted by: Gary F on June 5, 2005 02:06 PM
3. Boy oh boy are you desperate to maintain your fantasy that The Dems didn't stomp the GOP like a hippie chick at a NRA convention.

Given that Korrell had to back way off from Foreman's opening, and then got spanked by the AG for the RP lies their case is based on, I can understand the desperation; I'm just surprised that you are letting it show.

Posted by: jdb on June 5, 2005 02:10 PM
4. The official Democratic position is that government officials are above the law. The courts will decide if they are right.

jdb, whichever way his turns out, it's now clear that King County's lawbreaking might easily have turned this election. Aren't you the tiniest bit embarrassed by that?

Posted by: ScottM on June 5, 2005 02:16 PM
5. It's fun to read about Durkan's "own goals," but do you really think Judge Bridges was paying enough attention to her to notice them?

Posted by: Thoan on June 5, 2005 02:17 PM
6. "an illegal vote was cast for a specific candidate, was the felons, who we deposed who were on petitioner's list, who testified that they voted for Mr. Rossi."

Surely you jest! I can just picture it:

Judge: Do you swear to tell the truth....
Witness: I do
R. Lawyer: What is your occupation?
Witness: Thief
R. Lawyer: Are you also a liar?
Witness: Yes.
R. Lawyer: Who did you vote for?
Witness: Rossi.

What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by: Dogbert on June 5, 2005 02:19 PM
7. I never cease to be amazed at how some people use broad generalities to claim offense. Setting the election aside will not denigrate those hard working and honest poll and election workers. Rather their honest effort has been poluted by the dishonest and disengenuious actions of a few. Just like the votes cast by honest folks of both sides have been spoiled, tainted and offset by the thousands of mystery and illegal ballots REGARDLESS OF WHOM THEY VOTED FOR!
And then to have the gall to claim that "not one single illegal vote was cast" when her own side "documented" numerous felon votes! Why even the MSM has managed to report on several illegal, felon and double votes!

We actually have a workable election system IF THE LAWS ARE FOLLOWED! Yes there is room for reform and improved accountability but not even that has a chance if we don't do the basics in an honest and forthright manner!

Posted by: Victor on June 5, 2005 02:24 PM
8. This is the Durkan comment that gets me the most:

"It is fundamental to our system that people have faith in our government and how it is chosen."

So when we see wrongdoing by any government official, we should never blow the whistle because that might undermine people's trust in the government?! It's really funny to hear that after the MSM spending several days lauding Deep Throat and Woodward and Bernstein.

Posted by: Shannon K on June 5, 2005 02:26 PM
9. Whoa, dude, that jdb guy got it right. The republicans must be scared. What about Durkin's awesome argument about a "few" mistaken votes invalidating the 2.8 million ones which were OK? Huh? Waddya say about that, huh? You don't wanna have to vote again, do ya? I've had enough democracy these past 8 months.
TomG

Posted by: TomG on June 5, 2005 02:28 PM
10. Whoa, dude, that jdb guy got it right. The republicans must be scared. What about Durkin's awesome argument about a "few" mistaken votes invalidating the 2.8 million ones which were OK? Huh? Waddya say about that, huh? You don't wanna have to vote again, do ya? I've had enough democracy these past 8 months.
TomG

Posted by: TomG on June 5, 2005 02:28 PM
11. "It is fundamental to our system that people have faith in our government and how it is chosen."

Nicole Way actually did seems to have faith in the system, too bad no one listened to her...

Lesson learned I hope. Too bad the hard working people so often quoted by the Dems are the first one's to be thrown to the lions...while the middle and upper level managers are still on the job recieving a paycheck...

Posted by: Cliff on June 5, 2005 02:31 PM
12. Victor - That is what really stuck out to me too.

Posted by: Mark D on June 5, 2005 02:32 PM
13. 10 years ago I would have awaited this ruling in confidence that judges and the courts would place justice and the law first. But it's not 10 years ago and I've lived the reality that judges more often act with political motivation when issues achieve a certain magnitude of importance. Politics and preservation of governments' interests are the most powerful motivation the courts bow to, and whenever an argument can be crafted to defend the politically correct ruling that sides with government and defends the indefensible, that will be the ruling made.

For all the incredible efforts by Stefan and others in analyzing this case and advancing the legal arguments, the law has nothing to do with this case. I wish it did, but it doesn't. The ultimate decision will be purely political. Regardless of what Bridges does tomorrow, the Supreme Court will make a political ruling, and if Rossi prevails I will be the most shocked person in Washington.

Posted by: Mike on June 5, 2005 02:39 PM
14. As to the position of the SoS office during this litigation; Jeffrey Even has a major conflict of interest in seeing that Gregoire prevails. This will come to light within the next few weeks.

Posted by: Don on June 5, 2005 03:07 PM
15. Durkan seems to score a lot in the "own" deparment.

Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 5, 2005 03:08 PM
16. Hey,

I have to give credit to Stefan here. He let some of the opposing arguments be aired so that there can be a debate on the matter.

Kudos!

Posted by: Erik on June 5, 2005 03:12 PM
17. "We actually have a workable election system IF THE LAWS ARE FOLLOWED!"

Oh but they mustn't followed! Because if they were then the no Democrat would ever win an election.
It is necessary for then to lie, cheat and steal their way into office (any office) Then proceed to shove their agenda down our throats. Because most of us won't swallow it willingly!

Posted by: rolling eyes on June 5, 2005 03:12 PM
18. I suggest that when the judge vacates tomorrow people congregate outside Fraudoire's mansion and/or the legislature w/ signs singing 'na na na hey hey hey goodbye'. Maybe the Ds can be shamed into giving up continuing to fight by the people of WA

Posted by: Tommy on June 5, 2005 03:32 PM
19. Is she even IN Olympia, or is she travelling on our credit card?

Posted by: Cheryl on June 5, 2005 03:44 PM
20. Mike, I fear you may be right. It's part of the legal culture that doesn't believe in following the law anymore, but creating it.

Posted by: Shannon K on June 5, 2005 03:44 PM
21. In that our judges are also elected, we need to remember that they are also concerned about being RE-elected - they will tread carefully here because their decision tomorrow will affect their future another day.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 5, 2005 03:48 PM
22. One of the Supreme Court Justices - Bobbi Bridges maybe- was a contributor to Gregoire - can she be forced to recuse herself?

Posted by: Cheryl on June 5, 2005 03:50 PM
23. Cheryl,
Good question.
Several of the Supremes graduated from Gonzaga. They should recuse themselves.
Justice Mary Fairnhurst worked with Chris. (In 1998, Attorney General Gregoire gave her Steward of Justice award to Justice Fairhurst.)
The only one left, with no obvious conflict, is Justice Tom Chambers from Wapato. ;~)

Posted by: cc on June 5, 2005 04:32 PM
24. Hey -- the trolls are back! I was wondering if someone had sprayed the site with Troll-B-Gone (TM). Don't know why liberals are so skeered of a little ol' revote. If Chris G. actually got the most votes the first time round, she should have no trouble coming out on top again, right? Or is it they know -- deep in their cold stone hearts -- she won't even manage a tie this time?

The Dem lawyers have shown a lot of empathy and concern for the poor overworked election workers, but very little for the poor disenfranchised legal voters. That won't play too well on the stump.

Posted by: starboardhelm on June 5, 2005 04:36 PM
25. Republican radio talked about this Sat. There is actually only 1 SC justice who has not given $ to one side or the other. Not sure of what the breakdown is D vs. R. I can't see everyone recusing themself.

My gut is that the SC will let Bridges ruling stand (whichever way it goes). To change his ruling is to ensure a loss for that judge in the next election.

Posted by: Tommy on June 5, 2005 04:37 PM
26. Cheryl and CC,

Fairhurst will have to recuse herself, and so will CJ Alexander.

I got an email from a very well known election law attorney who strongly believes Bridges will rule in favor of Rossi and the the WA SC will affirm such a decision. This person thinks the GOP attorneys are doing an excellent job.

Posted by: Don on June 5, 2005 04:46 PM
27. Cheryl - "One of the Supreme Court Justices - Bobbi Bridges maybe- was a contributor to Gregoire - can she be forced to recuse herself?"

She can't even be forced to do time for hit-and-run. Incredably, the excuse was "too drunk"!! Don't expect to force that cretin to do anything.

Posted by: Dogbert on June 5, 2005 04:48 PM
28. starboardhelm - "I was wondering if someone had sprayed the site with Troll-B-Gone (TM)."

I did. Gonna need the long-acting formula with DDT. They just can't resist this place.

Posted by: Dogbert on June 5, 2005 04:51 PM
29. Let's think before we start insisting on recusals, because Sanders (a good guy) would probably be among the first. He's had his problems with Gregoire and he has close ties with Republicans.

Posted by: ScottM on June 5, 2005 05:12 PM
30. I got an email from a very well known election law attorney.

Don, I hope your contact is as could as it sounds. But no matter what way this turns we gotta be proud of Rossi, his team, and Stefan. This has been a great read on SP the past few months and I cannot wait for the next chapter to start.

Posted by: 4pawz on June 5, 2005 05:33 PM
31. Good link ScottM. I suspect both sides have their opinions on who should recuse themselves from hearing this case. Sounds to me like it is entirely up to the justices and if they feel they can rule impartially, they will not recuse themselves.

Posted by: cc on June 5, 2005 06:29 PM
32. cc - "if they feel they can rule impartially, they will not recuse themselves."

Whether they intend to rule impartially, or not.

Posted by: Dogbert on June 5, 2005 06:31 PM
33. lol @ dogbert

Posted by: cc on June 5, 2005 06:37 PM
34. I have to agree with Tommy (@ 4:37 pm). I am inclined to think that whichever way Bridges rules, the SC will affirm his decision and let it stand by refusing to take the case. To take the case would lead to political implications for the SC that might hurt them all come time for re-election. Unless something in Bridges' ruling is way off base, I don't even think the SC will touch it.

Posted by: JRR on June 5, 2005 07:37 PM
35. JRR: "I don't even think the SC will touch it."

Would that that were so! But I don't think they'll be able to resist. Cameral face time alone is a compelling lure.

I want to extend my thanks to Stefan for his courageous, tenacious and determined willingness to stay on this. No matter what happens, you and the other SP contributors will have changed this world for the better.

Also thanks to Deborah, Michele, Orange Robyn, Methow Ken and the many other (non-troll) posters on this site. It continues to be a pleasure to enjoy your wit and wisdom.

Now, let's all retire to commune with the Deity of our choice to discuss our hopes for this election contest. To avoid misunderstandings with said Deity, I always end my thoughts with "Thy Will be done, of course."

Posted by: mac on June 5, 2005 08:14 PM
36. mac said: "Would that that were so! But I don't think they'll be able to resist. Cameral face time alone is a compelling lure."

Frankly, the face time is something they do crave, but the cocktail parties are a much bigger motivator. The supreme who choses not to take the case and overrule a decision in favor of Rossi will never be invited to another Olympia cocktail party again. That will cause the majority to intervene.

Posted by: Dogbert on June 5, 2005 08:19 PM
37. That's what I've thought for a while - Supremes don't want to get anywhere near this and Bridges covered all his 'appeal' bases so they have a way to turn it down.

Darn, the minutes are oozing by slowly.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 5, 2005 08:22 PM
38. "Now, let's all retire to commune with the Deity of our choice to discuss our hopes for this election contest. To avoid misunderstandings with said Deity, I always end my thoughts with "Thy Will be done, of course."

Mac,

Something like "When you've done all that you can and have prayed - you stand in faith and believe."

I can't think of anything that we haven't done that should've been done! I think there are probably more prayers coming from the people of this blog than the oppositions....And nothing seems to have shaken our faith in this contest!

Heh....WE ARE NOW AT THE STANDING PHASE!

Thank you!

Posted by: Deborah on June 5, 2005 10:01 PM
39. Cheryl, if she is traveling on our dime, what happens if she is out of town and suddenly her credit card stops working????? Can we make her pay back the money for her trip. :)

Posted by: Mark Beyer on June 6, 2005 12:23 AM
40. Troll B Gone
That is just too funny.

What we now need are Moonbat lights, similar in design to buglights, they zap any moonbat which cannot accept a truth or fact. BTW, sorry everyone for the prolonged OT post the other day. You all were right, it doesn't matter what facts you post, the moonbats will spin it and ignore what they can to make it sound their way. I was actually hoping the truth would change another ones mind. You know, reintroduce them to civilization. Unfortunately the brainwashing was set too deep.

Posted by: Mark Beyer on June 6, 2005 12:32 AM
41. Well, for all the "own goals" and claims that Ms. Durkan's close was bad, strange that the Judge agreed with all of it.

Just another case of Blog-fraud, I guess.

Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 11:48 AM
42. I guess this verse is more appropriate...

"Therefore, put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand."

I just didn't know that today would be the evil day.....but we are still standing!

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 11:23 PM
43. Deborah:

Rejoice and celebrate! The evil was defeated and Judge Bridges gave a decision that surely shows the hand of God in its wisdom and justice.

Amen!

Posted by: JDB on June 7, 2005 04:30 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?