I'm about to leave for Wenatchee. This is my final post before the ruling.
As I've mentioned before, I'm predicting that Judge Bridges will set aside the election. This is, of course, far less than 100% certain, but it's based on the common sense notion that election officials are obligated to adhere to at least some standards as set forth in statutes and administrative rules; and if failure to obey the law leads to an at best uncertain outcome then the people's will has not been expressed and the election is not valid. Given the court's expressed concern for the future and palpable distaste for Dean Logan, I have to think that Judge Bridges will look for a path to establish clear consequences for the misdeeds of Dean Logan and others --
I'll leave it to others to debate the extent to which the specific facts in this case conform with the specific provisions in the election contest statute and other election laws. I'll also leave it to others to debate the applicability of the case law to the specific elements here. But I do suspect that standards from Hill v. Howell might apply:
the power to throw out an entire division is one which ought to be exercised with the greatest care and only under circumstances which demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the disregard of the law has been fundamental or so persistent and continuous that it is impossible to distinguish what votes are lawful and what are unlawful, or to arrive at any certain result whateverThen there is the Foulkes v. Hayes standard that "neglect of duty" such that "the exact number of ballots which had been altered could not be ascertained" might apply. Think of the neglect of duty of the various counties in, say, reconciliation of their absentee ballots. The fact that this neglect led to dozens of ballots to remain uncounted, only to be discovered months after the election, seems to suggest that the exact number of ballots so affected cannot be ascertained. Or the widespread neglect of duty and disregard for the laws by pollworkers that allowed an unascertainable number of unlawful provisional ballots to be stuffed into AccuVote machines.
You get the point.
Of course, the contest statute imposes a heavy burden. So I could also imagine that the judge might issue a stern rebuke to the various counties for failing to comply with the law and for certifying a certifiable mess, or words to that effect. But also expressing dismay that his hands, as a Superior Court judge, are tied by too heavy a rope. That might, at least, leave the door open to the Supreme Court to set aside the election. And in any event it would encourage those of us who are concerned about the integrity of elections to hold accountable and take out the state and county officials who failed to do their jobs, and to implement sensible election reforms. It would also make clear that Gregoire took her office only through election official misconduct and legal technicaliites, and not through a bona fide political decision.
Then again, he might surprise us all.
Watch the proceedings on TVW, starting at 9am. In the meantime, for real legal analysis, read yesterday's commentary from Shawn Newman and the Stealth Legal Expert and today's analysis from Croker Sack.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 05, 2005 07:06 PM | Email This-JB
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 5, 2005 07:19 PMThanks for all you have done and will do!
Posted by: sgmmac on June 5, 2005 07:27 PMTomorrow's the big day
Judge Bridges will be giving his verdict in the Rossi election contest suit.
I won't predict how he'll decide.
I will say that if he upholds this election (and the decision is upheld by the state Supreme Court), it will mean that we effectively have no election law in this state. If county officials can simply ignore mandatory requirements which are in place precisely to ensure an accurate count, and still certify a "winner," then the law has no force. It's just pretty words put on paper to sucker us into thinking that our votes count. Elections officials will be officially placed above the law, and will be able to do whatever they want. If the "winner" happens to be the person who gets the most legal votes, it will be by courtesy of the "counters," not because there is any legal requirement for counties to certify accurate numbers. And every single elected official in Washington State (even the ones in honest counties) will be holding office illegitimately and in defiance of basic principles of republican government.
That's the issue upon which Judge Bridges will be ruling tomorrow.
Incidentally, if Judge Bridges upholds the validity of the election, I don't think there's any way he'll be overturned. If he sets the election aside, he might or might not be overturned.
As it has been throughout the Great Fiasco, the best place to be at 9:00 tomorrow morning (and before) is Sound Politics.
Posted by: ScottM on June 5, 2005 07:30 PMAm I the only one who has already set two alarms for 8:00am and think that It's going to be hard to get to sleep tonight? (I know many have to get up for work, I'm self-employed and work from home so I rarely have to get up at any particular time.)
Mark
Posted by: Mark D on June 5, 2005 07:31 PMHere's a different twist...I am certain common sense will prevail. The only question is will it prevail with Bridges tomorrow, or will it have to wait for the slaughter at the ballot box, or elsewhere?
Posted by: Danny on June 5, 2005 07:40 PMI would have to agree with you. My only fear is if the judge rules for the R's and then we do not vote the D's out in 2006 because we have short memorys.
The truth, it seems, is lost in the MSM. Non-coverage, partial stories, carefully sifted letters to the editor. Hard-hitting journalism has taken a seat to P.C. lovefests. Papers were once feared as watchdogs. No more. No wonder they are dying.
I'm sure hundreds out here would love to buy you a beer, lunch, coffee or whatever. However, we understand the need for security and privacy. So---when can we expect the "Shark Fan Club?" (just kidding) Anyway, safe travels and hurry back.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 5, 2005 08:47 PM
That's what the tip jar is for =)
Posted by: Mike H on June 5, 2005 08:53 PMStefan and this blog will make history Mon when a fraudulantly elected Gov's election is voided. Even more amazing is that SP was able to achieve this without breaking numerous laws and 'removing' ethical barriers a la Woodstein. The timing could not be more ironic and the contrasts between Woodstein and actual journalism could not be more stark.
This blog and how objective research was performed and reported should be a required course for every journalism major. SP my hat is off to you!
PS - May I suggest that you call your book All The Gov's Henchmen (disgraced pictures of Sims, Logan, and Hennekens on the cover!)
She reminds me more of Bruennhilde in Die Walküre. Can't you picture her on her horse (donkey?) with a helmet with horns and a brass bra?
Posted by: Dogbert on June 5, 2005 09:40 PMSo....It all comes down to this!
Sure, tomorrows ruling will certainly be followed by an appeal to the Supreme court....
And after Durkans long winded closing argument on Friday, the SC may just deny her appeal and save themselves a lot of time in a coma...
Without YOU - none of this would have made the news. The people would never have known. The elections fiasco would have gone unnoticed.....again.
Stefan - I do not know how you do it! Heh.. I know how hard it is to juggle kids, home, schedules, sleep, etc...and still have the energy to visit this blog every day! Yet - you've been so incredibly faithful to us!
May G-d bless your wife and family!
Thank you!
I also predict he will rip the Democrats for putting together a terrible case -- and King County for putting together a terrible election system -- and commend the Republicans for putting together an excellent one. But in the end, I don't think he will find that the evidence of mistakes and fraud meets the high threshhold required for the question of setting aside an election.
That's the wrong question, though.
I don't think mistakes alone justify setting an election aside, in the general case. Nor even mistakes combined with fraud on behalf of unaffiliated individuals (the hundreds of felon voters). There is always the possibility of mistakes, and you can't throw out an election just because there are some; if you do, then there can be no such thing as a close election. You always will have a new election if the difference is smaller than a certain percentage, which doesn't strike me as particularly democratic.
However, that assumes that the given election system is well-designed and well-run, and that everything reasonable is being done to eliminate such mistakes. It assumes that the election system is designed to respect and protect the rights of the voters.
And therein lies the problem: in Washington, the Democratic-controlled legislature and Secretary of State's office, and some county elections offices, have done a lot to make sure we don't eliminate mistakes.
They refuse to purge voter rolls, to properly identify voters, to limit mail-in voting, to match up votes to voters, to make different ballot types (provisional, absentee, etc.) look different, and more.
The absence of these provisions is what gave us almost all the "mistakes" shown in court the last two weeks. And the government refuses to fix them. They refuse to protect the rights of the voters by having a good elections system, and worse, they actually -- if not intentionally -- invite fraud, as they provide no means to defend against it.
If the election system is broken, and if the government refuses to fix it, and the result is close enough to be in question, I can see only two remedies. One would be to set aside any close election until the problems are fixed. The other would be simply to order the government to fix the problems for next time.
Given that the legislature just spent a lot of time on election reform earlier this year, and didn't fix the problems, I don't think anyone should have faith in the latter option.
I've been going over this in my mind the last few days, and I was thinking I might come down in favor of the Democratic position in this case. But then I got to the end of the tunnel, and I see no other reasonable option. All the arguments for letting the election stand rely on faith in the election system, which is a losing argument.
I hope I'm wrong, and the judge sees it this way tomorrow, but I wouldn't bet on it.
If this happens then remember, we could not have done it without the Democrats (can’t believe I said that).
The only thing we can do is win Republican majorities in the state House and Senate in 2006, and have Dino Rossi be (re?) elected Governor in 2008.
Posted by: Kyle on June 5, 2005 10:03 PMFolks, find it in your hearts to forgive this pathetic man who was cursed at birth with the voice of Pee Wee Herman, the looks of Gilbert Gottfried and the personality of BUD BUNDY (the annoying little prick on Married.....With Children).
As Goldstein writhes in pain tomorrow following Judge Bridges ruling....perhaps you can find it somewhere deep within you to muster a smidgeon of Compassionate Conservatism......or pity will do too!
God made Goldstein as a punching bag. A Bozo blow-up Punching Dummy that you can smack and he just keeps bouncing back for more.
In future years, I think it only appropriate that we honor LEFTIST PINHEADS far and wide for their incredible lack of intelligence, forethought and any redeeming value with an award. As I was watching the Tony Awards tonite with Mrs. C, it dawned on me the only name for the award.
Heretofore....we will honor the aggressive stupity of the LEFTIST PINHEADS with (drumroll...............................)
THE GOLDSTEIN!!
It is a trophy made of the finest bovine excrement molded in Goldy's likeness.
THE GOLDSTEIN!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 5, 2005 10:06 PMYour humor helps lighten the more morbund posts! Too bad it's wasted on Goldstein and co. No matter what the judge rules they'll spin it as a victory of some sort. Now if we could hook that up to a generator we'd have the energy problem solved!
Posted by: Victor on June 5, 2005 10:11 PMThough I obviously lean for the election to be set aside it's still a toss up with the possiblity of a third way... like keep Gregoire but indite KCE. Of course though Bridges may rule in an excellent fashion the SC is a political animal and I don't trust them.
Posted by: Victor on June 5, 2005 10:17 PMTHE GOLDSTEIN!! "
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 5, 2005 10:06 PM
Excellent Mr C but I think equine excrement is what you meant !
:)
That works for me. How about "Gregoire" for best Actress then!
Posted by: 4pawz on June 5, 2005 10:29 PMYou get a Jenny!
(I ain't kidding!)
After that performance she should get something...
Mr. C.....
It is about this time every night - that I indulge myself in a bowl of cereal......and quietly catch up on my reading of new post's in the blog.....It's always my hope that during this pleasant time - no one will post something so funny and shocking - that I'd be forced to laugh out loud with a mouthful of Raisin Bran.........
But NOOOOO!
Ya had to go an pull a "Goldstein" on me and now I have Raisin Bran in my keyboard!....
Hmmm...I wonder if those cool little keyboard dust vacumes work with raisin bran?
Turn that keyboard upside down and smack it like a newborn baby's bottom - gently but with purpose.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 5, 2005 10:57 PMBy the way, there were no recounts. There were only counts. In each count votes were added or subtracted from outside the pool. Which of course is against the law, but who cares, no big deal. Just like jaywalking.
No heads will roll. Handy will continue to serve the election community, Logan continues working on the machinery and all is well as they prepare for the next election. And when Hillary runs, it's payback. The other states have watched closly and now know how to win elections by counting.
Snuffy
Posted by: Snuffy on June 5, 2005 11:05 PMEveryone seems obsessed with Bridges looking to Hill v. Howell or Foulkes v. Hayes in his rulings, but the truth is this: no matter how hard Bridges looks, whether in Washington state or elsewhere in the Republic, he isn't going to find case law anywhere that will assist him specifically in this kind of an election contest and its particular intricacies. Bridges will be writing, and the Supreme Court of Washington possibly concurring, an opinion that will be looked back on not only by Washington State but every other state in our Union in such an extraordinary circumstance. That can't make the decision any easier, but it will certainly make it much more significant to future contests both in Washington and elsewhere. And I'm sure Bridges knows that full well as he has prepared his decision.
My question is: how well is Mr. Bridges sleeping tonight?
(Our alarm is set for 1 AM, Japan time.)
Posted by: JRR on June 5, 2005 11:17 PMOnly through SP can the world of lefties be so enlighten. Goldy must envy Stefan every time he sticks his nose and (foul mouthed self) into this website.
See you all tomorrow
Posted by: Jim L on June 5, 2005 11:36 PMI do hope our rights are restored tomorrow in Wenatchee!
Posted by: sgmmac on June 5, 2005 11:36 PMBRING IN THE FEDS!!
Yeay!!
OK....goodnight!
Posted by: Deborah on June 5, 2005 11:49 PMThat should be next on all of our plates no matter what the ruling tommorrow. If the Legislature won't clean it up, we will!
Posted by: GS on June 5, 2005 11:57 PMIrons is running against Sims...... that's why I suggested donating to his campaign. I did just for that purpose and I live in Thurston county. I would love to see Logan and Huennekins gone and they can take Garth Fell with them too!
The Feds sounds nice, but I'm sure they won't play because the Presidential counts weren't close, if they were they would have been all over King County!
Good luck to us tomorrow!
Posted by: sgmmac on June 6, 2005 12:14 AMGS, That next “King County Executive” (GOP) should be David Irons and we can all find ways to support him in kicking Simms out. This is the URL for the website for his run for the KCE office.
http://www.davidirons.org/issues.html
Thank you for all your hard work. As a resident of Vancouver, Washington politics can be tough to follow since our broadcast media is Portland based. Thanks to you and Victoria Taft of KPAM radio in Portland (the only station in the Portland area to give somewhat adequate coverage to this historic election contest) for keeping us informed. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
You have told the TRUTH, when it wasn't part of the MSM's (read DNC's) 'program'.
You have been attacked for nothing more than telling the TRUTH. America NEEDS more like you! \;-D Hat tip & wink!
I have another prediction: If (Please God) Judge Bridges sets this fiasco aside, Hilary will have to really think before running. The template she was to use to win, has been BROKEN!!
Posted by: arky on June 6, 2005 05:07 AMbtw-
"a stern rebuke" directed at liberals who have tipped an election means absolutely nothing. I beleive the Judge has the common sense to recognize that.
Goldstein aka BUD BUNDY will be spinning like a washing machine in perpetual spin cycle. The LEFTIST PINHEADS have already lost the PR war on this....because it defies common sense and decency to not be outraged at the conduct and attitudes of KingCo Officials. The more they spin...the more disgusting they look.
Let 'em spin!!!
I don't think we should take the awarding of THE GOLDSTEIN lightly. It should only go to a REAL PUTZ who is a PUTZ 24 hrs./day/7 days/week.
I was contemplating a certain ritual for the recipients to receive THE GOLDSTEIN. Just one thought to kick around:
How about having the recipients with their backs to the audience, pants down to ankles grabbing their ankles???? They can give their acceptance speeches with their LEFTIST PINHEADS upside down talking between their legs woth THE GOLDSTEIN tropy perched on their A$$.
And for the LIFETIME GOLDSTEIN AWARD....
Nixon Handy!
Posted by: Skeptical on June 6, 2005 06:09 AMMark, I believe you're correct. Directors direct, managers manage and supervisors supervise. IMHO, the misfeasance by several of these public servants, as attested through their sworn deposition and testimony, will be all Judge Bridges needs to decide in this manner. SCOW will not overturn his decision if he rules this way.
Posted by: GMT on June 6, 2005 06:43 AMThanks.
P.S. Set up an icon for contributions to your campaign fund.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 6, 2005 08:57 AM"There is no evidence that ballots were changed, the ballot box stuffed or that lawful votes were removed from either candidate's ballot box," Bridges said.
Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 09:52 AMThe judge did find as fact that there were 1,600+ plus illegal votes. That is the finding of fact that matter the most. Finding deliberate fraud would have been icing on the cake.
His decision not to allow proportional deduction may be appealed. That is finding of law, not fact. If the Supremes overrule this finding of law, how to implement proportional deduction for those 1,600+ votes could revert to Judge Bridges, or could be decided by the Supremes.
But, the Supremes will probably not rule in Rossi's favor.
The election fraud was perpetrated by Democrats under the assumption that voter's memories are short, and, because of that, the benefits of cheating, namely the governorship, exceeded the costs of engaging in such an enterprise. If the people of Washington don't remember, and punish, that act of fraud, the Democrat's calculation that the benefits of fraud exceed the costs will have been vindicated.
Make sure you change your voting registration IMMEDIATELY to vote at your local precinct... DO NOT MAIL in your ballot... CHANGE BACK NOW!!! or risk having your ballot lost or misplaced...
CHANGE YOUR STATUS NOW. MARK "NO" in the ONGOING ABSENTEE REQUEST
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/pdf/VoterForm_20040803.pdf
"As I've mentioned before, I'm predicting that Judge Bridges will set aside the election."
It is one thing to have a passion for something, and to want with all of your power for it to become true. But it is quite another thing to let your mind defy all logic and common sense and predict the unfathomable.
There was NEVER any CHANCE based on common sense and applicable LAW that the judge could make any ruling other than that which he made.
How come none of the fools in eastern Washington seem to notice that the only effect this website has had anywhere is to get the host a job at a democratic partisan newspaper in Seattle?
Now what in the hell are you people thinking?
Posted by: KingCountyIsTheOnlyOneThatMatters on June 7, 2005 10:47 AM