June 06, 2005
Judgment Day

The hotel in Wenatchee has excellent Wi-Fi. Who knew?

Today is the big day. Will Judge Bridges side with common sense and rule that election officials can't just keep counting ballots again and again and get different numbers every time without also showing that every ballot has a voter and every voter a ballot? Or will he side with the Democrats and Josef Stalin and rule that he who counts the votes makes the rules and doesn't have to obey any laws?

Watch on TVW starting at 9am and post your observations in the comments!

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 06, 2005 06:50 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Thanks, Stefan! I've learned more on this blog about Washington State politics and elections than I learned in my previous 53 years living here. God Bless you!

Posted by: Saltherring on June 6, 2005 06:56 AM
2. Stefan -- that is the best, most succinct and accurate summary of the essence of the whole contest that I have seen -- the fingers are crossed

Posted by: Bill on June 6, 2005 07:03 AM
3. Can anyone post or are some people banned because you don't like their opinions?

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 07:12 AM
4. Everyone but you Headless

Posted by: Elias on June 6, 2005 07:13 AM
5. Well brainless, I sure don't know what you have to do to be banned...would have assumed you had met the standard. Oh well. Welcome back (holding my vomit)

Posted by: Danny on June 6, 2005 07:16 AM
6. Ditto!!! We the people would never have reached this day in history if not for your tenacity to unveil the lies and deceit of those who are willing to prostitute themselves for a few lousy votes. Greed will motivate people to do anything to win and this is a prime example.

Hopefully Judge Bridges will side with the people and rule for a new election. In a few hours we'll know the results.

Again thanks.
Mel

Posted by: max on June 6, 2005 07:16 AM
7. Stefan--Thank you so very much for all your time spent researching and for all your illuninating comments. What happened in Washington State could happen anywhere. The court's decision is a most momentous one. KUDOS.

Posted by: maggie on June 6, 2005 07:17 AM
8. Well said Saltherring. That goes for everyone who has contributed to this blog. Its been an education.
7:19 AM and counting

Posted by: Son of Liberty on June 6, 2005 07:18 AM
9. I have to be on the road today. Does anyone
know if this will be on the radio?

Posted by: mark on June 6, 2005 07:25 AM
10. Mark, check Seattle's KVI 570 AM. They announced they will be broadcasting the decision, live, with subsequent analysis by John Carlson.

Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on June 6, 2005 07:28 AM
11. Mark,

I believe 570-KVI is going to have live coverage.

Posted by: MikeF on June 6, 2005 07:29 AM
12. Headless,
Do you still not understand? This is a public form, to view all sides. It is called Sound Politics, not Sound Republican Politics.
If you have something to say, say it. If you disagree with anything, explain it. If you have hatred in your soul take it to HA. If you want to be a crazy nut go to Crazy Nut Politics.com
Your posts (as for me) are welcome. From what you have posted, you do not have sound politics or a sound mind. Just my Opinion.

Posted by: Son of Liberty on June 6, 2005 07:29 AM
13. P-I Blog thread... go help the moonbats.

Posted by: bmvaughn on June 6, 2005 07:30 AM
14. Ninety minutes. I wonder if this is going to be one of those "Where I was when Kennedy was shot" moments?

Naw... probably not. But who knows?

Posted by: Dan on June 6, 2005 07:33 AM
15. Would being Stefan's sycophant fit the standards? I hear he's a kiss up/kick down kind of guy.

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 07:36 AM
16. Well done Stefan, a tremendous public service. Thank you.

Regardless of how this turns out, the work is not done. Get the brooms ready, there is some house cleaning to do in Olympia.

You can be sure that next on the agenda for the Dems is social engineer and business taxes. I've conducted my own informal poll and 6 of the 7 business owners I've spoken to have already begun to quietly investigate moving their firms out of state.

The light at the end of this tunnel may indeed be an oncoming train.

Posted by: danno on June 6, 2005 07:38 AM
17. And with that said I'll leave you all to your daisy chain.

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 07:39 AM
18. Gosh Lucy, you are sure up and at school awfully early today. You should wait for an adult to be there before you play with the computers.

Posted by: MikeF on June 6, 2005 07:42 AM
19. Does that mean class is starting, Lucy? Everything that is wrong with the Seattle Public Schools comes down to the type of people they insist on hiring. Until that changes, their enrollment will continue to drop. HL is just another reason to fight for vouchers!

Posted by: suzy homemaker on June 6, 2005 07:45 AM
20. Don't go away mad headless, just go away!

Posted by: Elias on June 6, 2005 07:45 AM
21. Well thats one piece of good news today.

Thank you Stefan for all your hard work, all your comments and explanations, and for doing so in a level-headed, respectful manner. I really appreciate you and all your hard work regardless how this turns out. No one can say that you did not do all you could to bring to light the horrors in King County.

Waiting with bated breath and fingernails chewed to the quick:)

Posted by: Hanna on June 6, 2005 07:46 AM
22. Nicely done! May the force be with us.

Posted by: Jim on June 6, 2005 07:50 AM
23. http://www.uhaul.com/trucks/splash-truck-bridge.jpg

Posted by: Baynative on June 6, 2005 07:53 AM
24. Are John Carlson and Stefan Sharkansky going to hold each other's hands, while they goosestep back from Wenatchee, after they get their asses handed to them?

Posted by: LiveFromSeattle on June 6, 2005 07:56 AM
25. To Lucy--you might want to be a bit more circumspect about using the boss's computer. He might chastize you... maybe even make you quit using the computers. But then he may just figure that it's better to have you spending working time blogging and surfing rather than fouling up some project.

Posted by: maggie on June 6, 2005 07:57 AM
26. The smacking sound of mandibles in close proximity to gluteus-maximae is hilarious in the SP zone. You call this an open forum? Half of your own posters are gone to HA because it's just too boring here.

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 07:57 AM
27. HALF
Oh my god Lucy HALF??? It's so boring that you have already posted here 4 times.

Posted by: Joe on June 6, 2005 08:01 AM
28. Lucy is frothing because the US Supreme Court took away her "legitimate" medical marijuana.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 6, 2005 08:04 AM
29. Hey HeadGiving Lucy, You still do not have a clue!

Posted by: Budster on June 6, 2005 08:05 AM
30. I wish you all luck today. I've been quietly following this since the recounts. As I am from Ok. City this doesn't effect me directly, I do however believe the decision today will have some national ramifications. I'm happy to finally see the R's somewhere are willing to stand and fight for what's right.

Posted by: Elias on June 6, 2005 08:07 AM
31. Is there a chance that this case will go to the US Supreme Court?

Posted by: Budster on June 6, 2005 08:07 AM
32. Lucy - aren't you the webmistress over at ProfessionalVictim.com?
I thought your Whine List was cute!

Posted by: Victor on June 6, 2005 08:08 AM
33. And with that said I'll leave you all to your daisy chain.

hl's post proves you cannot believe anything a leftist says.

Posted by: otto on June 6, 2005 08:12 AM
34. Lucy,

To think you and I used to be on the same team as little as a month ago is making me question a lot of things these days. I want to thank you for your continuous string of mindless, empty posts.

There are a lot of what I'll call "good Democrats" who have debated credibly in this forum, during this trial.

Unfortunately, you are not one of them.

Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 6, 2005 08:13 AM
35. You're right, Lucy, only morons post here.

D'oh!

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 08:15 AM
36. She actually does us a huge favor.

Think of lucy in terms of your washing machine - politics, like your laundry, needs a good agitator to lift out the dirt and wash it down the drain.

Posted by: Good Morning, Governor Rossi on June 6, 2005 08:18 AM
37. You're a shill. Whodathunkit?

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 08:22 AM
38. Lucy's comments and others' responses reminds me of an old saying . . .
"You can't argue with a sick mind."
Why try? Ignore her and maybe she'll just go away.

Posted by: jb on June 6, 2005 08:23 AM
39. Unless you're staying at a fleabag, most hotels have wi-fi these days.

Posted by: b2 on June 6, 2005 08:31 AM
40. HL

Why don't you contribute to the Tip Jar??....you've used this site more than alot of us.

Posted by: Susu on June 6, 2005 08:32 AM
41. I see Orbusmax is predicting a GOP defeat. I won't predict anything, but I'm preparing myself for a less than satisfactory verdict.

Posted by: Tucker on June 6, 2005 08:32 AM
42. Seattle schools are doing so good (sic) from the lefty admin etc. here, that even CG feels WA has to get the education program from somewhere with a higher standard - Mexico.

Posted by: Fred on June 6, 2005 08:33 AM
43. I'm preparing myself for a less than satisfactory verdict.

Same here. I hope I am wrong.

Posted by: otto on June 6, 2005 08:38 AM
44. I can't wait to see this ruling. If Judge Bridges rules in favor of the R's, maybe Dandy Wetmeat will run an article/opinion piece asking the State Demo party NOT TO ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for the $750k cost of the hand-job (I mean, hand recount).

I suggested that in emails to Lisa Brown (Senate Demo leader), Frank Chopp (House Demo leader), and former AG Gregoire's office. None of the three even responded to my emails (although they were extremely respectful, and I didn't identify myself with any party).

I haven't heard what happened to that $750,000. I imagine it was returned to the Kerry and Dean campaigns by the state Dems, and we the taxpayers picked up the tab. If Wetmeat was so compelled to write a column chastising the R's for spending taxpayer money on this trial, he should have written the same chastising the D's for passing a $750,000 bill to the taxpayers for the hand job (I mean, recount).

Posted by: Spokane Repub on June 6, 2005 08:43 AM
45. Whatever happens today, you da man Shark!

Nobody has done more to expose incompetence and likely election corruption in King County that you. That includes doing more than the very people we PAY to manage elections and who are responsible for incompetence, fraud, and corruption when it occurs.

Yes, I am talk about YOU, good home trained Ron Sims. I would seem good home training does not include ethics in your case.

Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 6, 2005 08:47 AM
46. I just reviewed the daily trial summaries posted at www.democraticunderground.com. Heads over there are buried in the sand--all the way up to their shoulders. There's so little interest and such shallow and biased reporting that I have to conclude that there's a very good chance that Rossi will prevail in about 11 minutes.

Posted by: Far Star on June 6, 2005 08:47 AM
47. It is my understanding that the SoS will not release the Democrats' money untill after the election contest is over, and only if they "win."

Posted by: otto on June 6, 2005 08:48 AM
48. Justice for Dino! And the strong majority of this state who believe Gregoire didn't win.

Posted by: Michele on June 6, 2005 08:48 AM
49. My fervent hope for this trial is that it will smack down sloppy election practices and make it clear that the PEOPLE deserve far better than they have received.

My fear is that a Dem win will encourage worse behavior and no improvements will happen, just another coat of whitewash on the election building.

Posted by: Jack on June 6, 2005 08:48 AM
50. Washington State is an amazing case.

It amazes, just how corrupt, and unethical, the Democrat Party has become, or always was?

The DNC desperation is growing...

Washington State will not be the last time, they will try to steal an election.

Posted by: boy michael on June 6, 2005 08:49 AM
51. Spokane Repub.....Last I heard the $750,000 was still in the State Coffer's. The Dem's could get it back I suppose if they win....We will see... Maybe the judge will rule that the state gets to keep it since they screwed the voters of this state with an election so tainted.

Posted by: Chris on June 6, 2005 08:49 AM
52. "And with that said I'll leave you all to your daisy chain."

Lucy,

You can't even keep to your own word...how sad.

Posted by: misplacedtexan on June 6, 2005 08:50 AM
53. Don't feed the trolls. Although I'm curious to know what HA is.

If I may smack my mandibles for a minute... good job, Stefan. I don't know how Judge Bridges will rule (although I'm trying to be pessimistic; a pessimist can only be pleasantly surprised), but one thing is certain: you have made a difference. Single-handledly you have made changes. Kudos to you.

Posted by: Voice of Reason on June 6, 2005 08:54 AM
54. Bridges may have to look for another line of work if he is not careful.

Posted by: blasater on June 6, 2005 08:54 AM
55. Showtime

Posted by: Jack on June 6, 2005 08:56 AM
56. Chris and Otto, thanks for the info on the recount fund. I will renew my batch of emails to our prestigious state legislators and I encourage everyone else to do the same. How many kids can get medical insurance for $750k?

Posted by: Spokane Repub on June 6, 2005 08:56 AM
57. The fact that the Dems got money from outside the state for a state-run election recount bothered me from the beginning. Either their constituency wants it done and foots the bill (like we do with initiatives to repeal stupid taxes) or they don't want it done so they don't put up the money. Funny how the R's (who are supposed to be the party of the rich) get enough support from thousands of state residents giving less than a hundred bucks a pop while the D's (supposed to be the party of the working class) have to go outside the state to millionaires to fund their stuff.

As for the decision today, my apologies if I am less than confident. The evidence is totally in our favor, and judge Bridges seems like a reasonable guy, I simply have no faith in the courts anywhere.

Posted by: The Dude on June 6, 2005 08:56 AM
58. I've posted this before - but I will again - just for fun ;)

If you do a little searching - and I didn't save the link and don't care to do it again - you will find a little story written by hl - he tells us how he was riding his motorcycle through AZ and he decided to name his bike (and later his band) after an unidentified headless corpse that someone found in a garbage bin. The band never got off the ground - and alas he found a new use for the corpses tag name.

May be more than anyone ever wanted to know about him, but it helps me understand just where he's coming from...

Posted by: Julie on June 6, 2005 08:56 AM
59. 9:00 but no feed yet. Still waiting.

Posted by: Dan on June 6, 2005 08:59 AM
60. Stefan must not be to confident, but instead of activist judges, he now blames it on Stalinist Therory...Nice start to blame someone for the windmill that came crushing down on him. Next, now that this is done, let's tear down the infrastructure of the state with your newest rantings.....Then blame the govenor...shut up and pay your taxes...

Gas went down 9 cents last week anyone notice?
Must be all that Newsweek stuff was true.

Posted by: danw on June 6, 2005 09:00 AM
61. KIRO: Montel Williams, Kong: Tony Danza, King: Today show, Komo, Regis and Kelly

No news here? Seattle isn't following this??? Incredible.

Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 6, 2005 09:01 AM
62. Here we go! Live feed!

Posted by: Dan on June 6, 2005 09:01 AM
63. it's up on NWCN... he's in his seat... first a denial to strike Benson's testimony from the record.

Posted by: Editor on June 6, 2005 09:02 AM
64. He's going to rule for ROSSI! and the PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

WOW!!!

Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 6, 2005 09:03 AM
65. Doesn't sound good. This guy is going to cop out.

Posted by: The Dude on June 6, 2005 09:03 AM
66. OH!
Good Start!!!!

Posted by: Splatter on June 6, 2005 09:03 AM
67. Uh oh!

Posted by: Far Star on June 6, 2005 09:04 AM
68. who'd: I don't think so.

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 09:04 AM
69. "More than hiring more employees and new buildings..."

HA! Too funny Judge!

"Voters who should send the message."

Posted by: Editor on June 6, 2005 09:04 AM
70. Who'dathunk:

If this is your introduction to the surprising choices of mainstream press coverage, welcome to the dark side.

There are a lot of other things that the press has decided unimportant and not worth mentioning.

Posted by: Bostonian on June 6, 2005 09:04 AM
71. who'd,

Maybe they are scared of the result (I hope)

danw - gas went down 9 cents, so libs feel the government deserves it. Incredible!

Posted by: Fred on June 6, 2005 09:05 AM
72. Anybody got a feeling?

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 09:05 AM
73. He's punting to the voters.

Posted by: WMH on June 6, 2005 09:06 AM
74. "I don't have a spoonful of sugar for you or your clients this morning."

Posted by: Dan on June 6, 2005 09:06 AM
75. I love how he specifically mentioned Logan!!

Posted by: Mark D on June 6, 2005 09:06 AM
76. He's punting to the voters.

Posted by: WMH on June 6, 2005 09:07 AM
77. Whatever his decision, he sounds pretty peaceful about it. I'd be peeing my pants reading such a decision.

Posted by: Editor on June 6, 2005 09:08 AM
78. Heh, I was sooooooo right.

Posted by: pudge on June 6, 2005 09:08 AM
79. "I don't have a spoonful of sugar for you or your clients this morning."

Who was he talking to? The audio feed sucks...

Posted by: Rich on June 6, 2005 09:09 AM
80. Why can't judges just say yea, or nay, and then pass out hard copies of why???

Posted by: Grey on June 6, 2005 09:09 AM
81. Good news? Bad news? What's going on, I can't get a feed from where I'm at.

Posted by: Steve B on June 6, 2005 09:09 AM
82. Someone please tell me what he is saying. I can't watch the feed where I am.

Posted by: Bostonian on June 6, 2005 09:10 AM
83. Heh, I was sooooooo right.

Posted by: pudge on June 6, 2005 09:10 AM
84. "I don't have a spoonful of sugar for you or your clients this morning."

Who was he talking to? The audio feed sucks...

Posted by: Rich on June 6, 2005 09:11 AM
85. I believe the "spoonful of sugar" comment was addressed to petitioners; it's common to address the petitioners or plaintiffs when reading a decision. Doesn't look good.

Posted by: Voice of Reason on June 6, 2005 09:11 AM
86. He's running through the numbers... etc.

Posted by: Editor on June 6, 2005 09:12 AM
87. I believe the "spoonful of sugar" comment was addressed to petitioners; it's common to address the petitioners or plaintiffs when reading a decision. Doesn't look good.

Posted by: Voice of Reason on June 6, 2005 09:12 AM
88. He's laying out the facts of the case as presented in and to the court.

Posted by: steve matlock on June 6, 2005 09:12 AM
89. 9:13am The judge is reading his findings-of-fact.

Posted by: TimF on June 6, 2005 09:13 AM
90. He's just going through the history of the case.

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 09:13 AM
91. You really ought to pay close attention to, Good Morning, Governor Rossi. He's the bestest Rep. poster.....EVER!

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 09:13 AM
92. He's reading a timeline right now.

The audio keeps going out.

Posted by: rolling eyes on June 6, 2005 09:13 AM
93. You really ought to pay close attention to, Good Morning, Governor Rossi. He's the bestest Rep. poster.....EVER!

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 09:14 AM
94. You really ought to pay close attention to, Good Morning, Governor Rossi. He's the bestest Rep. poster.....EVER!

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 09:14 AM
95. Still going through 'Finding of Fact' reading. Reviewing all dates, filings, parties, etc.

Posted by: Dan on June 6, 2005 09:14 AM
96. He's laying out the facts of the case as presented in and to the court.

Posted by: steve matlock on June 6, 2005 09:15 AM
97. Going over dates of various filings to the court etc. Just get to the decision already.

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 09:15 AM
98. Recap....madam clerk could read what he's reading right now.

Posted by: MB on June 6, 2005 09:15 AM
99. He's laying out the facts of the case as presented in and to the court.

Posted by: steve matlock on June 6, 2005 09:15 AM
100. Also not good: he's emphasized twice that Petitioners made no allegation of fraud by election officials. Could be setting up to rule as a matter of law that the statute does not permit an election to be set aside absent such fraud.

Posted by: Voice of Reason on June 6, 2005 09:15 AM
101. Stephan - I have so appreciated your wonderful blog. I have my hope in Judge Bridges that his commonsense will prevail.

Posted by: Jan on June 6, 2005 09:19 AM
102. Is he saying he will not accept proportional deduction on the felon votes?

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 09:19 AM
103. Just deducted 4 felon votes from Rossi's total. Looks bad.

Posted by: Wilinsky on June 6, 2005 09:20 AM
104. Is it just me, or does he seem to be setting this up to void the election?

Posted by: Dan on June 6, 2005 09:21 AM
105. It's not looking good...sinking pit in my stomach...*sigh* "no evidence" over and over and over...I don't know how much more proof he needed.

Posted by: megs on June 6, 2005 09:22 AM
106. Man his leaning seems to be bouncing back and forth.

Posted by: Hanna on June 6, 2005 09:24 AM
107. I think that we will get the election set aside due to the evidence of King County's mistakes, omissions and neglect.

Posted by: Shannon C on June 6, 2005 09:24 AM
108. Looks Bad... he is just dealing with specific felon votes, and not the big issue of distributed fraud. Also very little evidence about non-registered absentees. This at 24 after 9am.

Posted by: Kebkeb on June 6, 2005 09:25 AM
109. How do you prove who cast illegal ballots when there is ballot secrecy? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 09:25 AM
110. He's going to punt

Posted by: hitest on June 6, 2005 09:25 AM
111.
Dan, I think its just you. Sorry.

Posted by: Mike on June 6, 2005 09:26 AM
112. I agree with megs, he keeps saying "there is no evidence..."

Posted by: theprez98 on June 6, 2005 09:26 AM
113. It's just you, Dan. Looks to me like he's setting this up to say that Petitioners have not met their burden of proof.

Posted by: Voice of Reason on June 6, 2005 09:26 AM
114. Megs, it's sounding like Clinton's impeachment trial in the Senate. Doesn't matter how much evidence there is, the verdict is a foregone conclusion.

Posted by: Interested Observer on June 6, 2005 09:27 AM
115. I'm putting my house up for sale. I can't take the raping anymore now that they can just steamroll over the voters.

Posted by: Rich on June 6, 2005 09:27 AM
116. He's following the law to the letter. You can't tell who voted for who and therefore can't prove the case. Sad.

Posted by: Jamie on June 6, 2005 09:27 AM
117. I think he's going to void the certification. I certainly hope so. He's setting this up for that.

Posted by: Dan on June 6, 2005 09:28 AM
118. "deep and significant problems in KC tabulation". Sounding better ...

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 09:28 AM
119. He's going through inaccurate vote tallies, and other issues now.

Posted by: Leonson on June 6, 2005 09:29 AM
120. So elections can be certified in defiance of the clear dictates of statutes and regulations precisely intended to ensure an accurate result, and nothing at all can be done about it.

Now, the question arises, if the courts refuse to enforce the laws already on the books, what's the point of passing new laws? Are the courts any more likely to enforce new laws than they are to enforce the old laws?

And what's the point of continuing to work through the "democratic process" if the officials in charge of that process are unrestrained by any law requiring them to report their returns accurately?

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 09:30 AM
121. He's ruling against us. I can't believe it.

Posted by: Renee on June 6, 2005 09:31 AM
122. "There is no evidence..." Over and over again.

Posted by: theprez98 on June 6, 2005 09:31 AM
123. It's over.

Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 09:31 AM
124. It certainly sounds like he is going to punt. Lots of evidence which is "no evidence".

Posted by: Barb on June 6, 2005 09:33 AM
125. My stomach hurts, the good guys lose....again. A sad day for the people of this state.

Posted by: Mr. Robert on June 6, 2005 09:33 AM
126. Looks like proportional analysis is out.

Posted by: theprez98 on June 6, 2005 09:34 AM
127. No evidence, no evidence, no evidence, ....

"Voters in Washington are treated on the honor system...elected officials do not have the right to challenge their qualifications."

"In 2004 there were no databases to check for registered felons."

He's burning the professors testimony.

He's going to rule against the republicans. I'm sick.

Posted by: Paul on June 6, 2005 09:34 AM
128. Turn out the lights. He is not allowing proportional deduction. Its over.

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 09:35 AM
129. Why doesn't he just say it's all fouled up and we don't know who the hell won?!?

Posted by: Rich on June 6, 2005 09:36 AM
130. Geez, this is sounding worse by the minute. He's negating the proportional analysis as "relying on assumptions". Yet, if we don't allow it, look at all the assumptions we rely on - like officials following election laws....

Posted by: Ken on June 6, 2005 09:36 AM
131. In other words, you can steal an election if you can osbcure it with enough chaos and incompetence.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Bivouc Ponzetti on June 6, 2005 09:36 AM
132. Is it me, or is the judge slightly myopic? He can't see his nose to spite his face.

I sure hope he throws out the election anyway, but I sure don't like his tone about "no evidence.... no evidence... no evidence..."

Sheesh!

Igor

Posted by: igor on June 6, 2005 09:37 AM
133. ScottM, not only what is the point of any new laws, what is the point of *any* law, if the courts are not going to adminster the law in a fair manner? And by that I mean a system wherein justice plays as important a role as process, and doing the right thing has a weight equal with doing things right.

Posted by: Interested Observer on June 6, 2005 09:37 AM
134. I believe it. I predicted it, almost precisely. :-) But all is not lost. A Fourteenth Amendment claim could be made to the state Supreme Court.

This judge said, in no uncertain terms, that the election system is flawed, which necessarily means that the rights of legal voters are being abridged, and he said he fears the legislature just made the problem *worse*. If the legislature won't fix the problem, who will? The judge said the voters can fix the problem by electing new people, but that's begging the question, since we have to use the admittedly flawed system to do that.

Posted by: pudge on June 6, 2005 09:38 AM
135. What a wuss. You can get away with anything these days.

Posted by: The Dude on June 6, 2005 09:38 AM
136. All that is left to do now is drink.
And for the poor citizens of Washington to get ready for a hard rod.

Posted by: DJ Florida on June 6, 2005 09:38 AM
137. Now the next question: is it worth appealing?

Posted by: theprez98 on June 6, 2005 09:39 AM
138. The verdict: "They stole it fair and square, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it." It is time for retribution against liberal institutions. There are actions we can take that will harm the liberal cause without breaking the law. Lets do it.

Posted by: Gary on June 6, 2005 09:39 AM
139. He is basically ruling that there is no possible way to overturn an election based on illegal votes.

Posted by: B Knotts on June 6, 2005 09:40 AM
140. I had hoped there would be some justice done in judge Bridges' courtroom. Fool me. I should have known better.

Posted by: rolling eyes on June 6, 2005 09:40 AM
141. Bridges better look for a new job. Chelan county should throw him out

Posted by: Blasater on June 6, 2005 09:40 AM
142. Actually, I'm not feeling too bad. Bridges may still rule for us. And if he doesn't... well, his findings still include over a thousand illegal votes. All it would require for a reversal is an additional conclusion of law that such a huge number of illegal votes relative to the margin of victory is sufficient to void an election.

Posted by: Voice of Reason on June 6, 2005 09:41 AM
143. So long, America. It's indeed a sad day for democracy.

Semper Fi.
Mike

Posted by: MikeF on June 6, 2005 09:42 AM
144. He's throwing out ~1,600 votes.

Posted by: theprez98 on June 6, 2005 09:42 AM
145. "Voters can fix the problem by electing new people"??? How the !@#$%^&* do we do that when the political party controlling elections illegally gives the election to the twice certified loser?

Posted by: Scott C on June 6, 2005 09:42 AM
146. 1678 illegal votes? ya ok that means nothing?
Fry standard?

Posted by: chardonnay on June 6, 2005 09:44 AM
147. Hear that? As long as an election worker gives you the okay, you can vote all you want.

Good judge.


Posted by: blurp on June 6, 2005 09:44 AM
148. I'm tired of getting the shaft. If you can't beat 'em, then play by their rules, right?

I was going to volunteer to be a poll-watcher this November. Why bother? I'm going to put 10-15 provisionals straight into the Accuvote instead. I'll be home by lunchtime, and I'll exercise my franchise the way the Democrats want me to.

Posted by: Larry on June 6, 2005 09:44 AM
149. I don't think it's worth appealing. If this guy would screw us over, so would the WSSC.

Posted by: Renee on June 6, 2005 09:45 AM
150. Appears to be punishing GOP for being reactive instead of proactive in calling out these problems. Ignoring the fact GOP did not have full disclosure ahead of time.

Posted by: MB on June 6, 2005 09:45 AM
151. I suspected from the start this earring wearing judge wouldn't rule for a just and fair elections sytem. He is probably a closet gay that wanted to get back at Republicans for opposing Gay legislation.

Posted by: Bridges_to_tyranny on June 6, 2005 09:46 AM
152. I don't know about anyone else, but I won't be voting for Judge bridges for anything above "dogcatcher" Relatively intelligent but "gutless" I fear.

Wonder how long his judgeship will continue in a bastion of "intelligence and common sense" like Chelan County?

"Revolution Anyone"

Scott

Posted by: scotto51 on June 6, 2005 09:46 AM
153. Put on your bibs and set the fine china, looks like your all gonna have crow for lunch.

Ya might want to save the Dom for another day


cheers!

Posted by: DamnageD on June 6, 2005 09:46 AM
154. The testimony of a felon is "clear and convincing evidence"? Is this guy on drugs?

Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 09:46 AM
155. The way the audio is cutting out on me is driving me insane *grrr*
What little I hear is terribly bad, though.

Posted by: Barb on June 6, 2005 09:46 AM
156. So basically 1,678 votes were illegal, but we couldn't prove how those people voted.

Posted by: theprez98 on June 6, 2005 09:48 AM
157. Are you freaking kidding me? Rossi received illegal votes but there's no evidence that Gregoire did? What the heck did this judge see as evidence? This is pathetic and I am sick to my stomach. The election stands and the Donks are going to cheer for they got away with another one.

More specifically, King County is going to get away with incompetence and fraud. Completely sad.

I only hope that come the next governor's election Dino will win with such an overwhelming amount that their fraud won't matter.

Posted by: megs on June 6, 2005 09:48 AM
158. I didn't predict this would happen.

But, since it has happened, it is time to do what I think should be done:

1) Split King County
2) Kick Sam Reed out
3) Keelhaul Dean Logan
4) Wait for 2008

Posted by: Big M on June 6, 2005 09:48 AM
159. OK, sounds like he's going to hide behind the current inadequate statutes, so time to do something else:
1) push Initiative 912 as a "message to Fraudoire"

2) Get behind Cascade county as a "message to King County"

3) Rossi for Senator!

Posted by: John on June 6, 2005 09:49 AM
160. I never thought I'd envy the Ukraine.

This is why the founding fathers gave us the right to keep and bare arms!

Posted by: In Hiding on June 6, 2005 09:49 AM
161. He's pointing out that the law says there's no offense.

So there's no crime. And nothing to throw out.

Nice that he threw out the votes for Rossi and Bennett.

Posted by: steve matlock on June 6, 2005 09:50 AM
162. go to www.king5.com

they've got a better feed

Posted by: Tex on June 6, 2005 09:51 AM
163. Elections workers are just presumed to have acted properly.

Looks like there needs to be more Republican election workers so they can act "properly enough" to get a Republicans elected.

Posted by: blurp on June 6, 2005 09:51 AM
164. This is not a spoonful of sugar for Dems?

This seems to me like a truck load of sugar for them!

Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 6, 2005 09:51 AM
165. What do you mean "without breaking the law"? any and all law breaking is officially endorsed when it comes to elections.

From here on it's just who can steal the most votes, Republicans are at a deficit here, since they have no experience and a disinclination to violate written law, but hell it's open season now, my 3 dogs are already "legal" voters, the goldfish is beginning to complain about his disenfranchisement.

Oh and that guy is a real windbag, could have summed it up in 2 minutes

Posted by: Finney on June 6, 2005 09:52 AM
166. Judge: Cheating is allowed.


No possible way to overturn election on illegal votes, unless you cat get all the illegal voters to swear under oath that they voted illegally.

Posted by: B Knotts on June 6, 2005 09:52 AM
167. So democrats can commit fraud-double votes, felon votes (who then can lie about who they voted for-since evidently you have to prove who they voted for) and nothing can be done about it.

Posted by: Sue on June 6, 2005 09:53 AM
168. Bridges ruling in short: so long as the actual number of illegal votes is greater than the number of ones you can prove the bad guys win.

Posted by: rick D on June 6, 2005 09:54 AM
169. Judge: Cheating is allowed.


No possible way to overturn election on illegal votes, unless you cat get all the illegal voters to swear under oath that they voted illegally.

Posted by: B Knotts on June 6, 2005 09:54 AM
170. @scott c:
(...)when the political party controlling elections illegally gives the election to the twice certified loser

Bridges disagrees w/you on every point.

(court concludes)"certification of Miss Gregoire is confirmed".


Posted by: JDM on June 6, 2005 09:54 AM
171. the court concludes...

you can now dig into that crow!


Enjoy!!

Posted by: DamnageD on June 6, 2005 09:54 AM
172. Nothing about King County screwing this thing up Royall - amazing!

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 09:54 AM
173. I'm just sick to my stomach right now...

Posted by: NWarty on June 6, 2005 09:55 AM
174. So it turns out what we dear trolls have been arguing for the last six months is true.

You can't say that I and others didn't try to prepare you for this. The law was clear, and the evidence non existant. I think the following is the last word on this:

"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 09:55 AM
175. Ick. I'm going to barf. Give me a major break, people!! What in the heck?? Was this guy actually listening to the trial?? I'm with Larry. King County can count on at least 15 provisional ballots from me being deposited directly into the accuvote next time.

You win, King Sims, Ms. Fraudoire, crooked elections officials, and smarmy liberals in general, and all that's left to say is:

Kongratulations Kommandant Fraudoire. Next time, please use a little more lube. Ouch.

Posted by: Scott on June 6, 2005 09:55 AM
176. At this point violence is the only way to get a fair result.

Of course, most Republicans are too nice to pick up a rock and throw it through a window.

Posted by: blurp on June 6, 2005 09:56 AM
177. SAD DAY. FRAUD STANDS.

The Petitioners dropped the ball.

Posted by: Splatter on June 6, 2005 09:56 AM
178. He deducted 1678 votes from the statewide total, but set the standard of proof so high, no one could possibly meet it without knowing exactly how each individual voted.

Posted by: theprez98 on June 6, 2005 09:56 AM
179. cheating is allowed, if you cant proved who cheated.

Posted by: mogura on June 6, 2005 09:56 AM
180. I'm just sick to my stomach right now...

Posted by: NWarty on June 6, 2005 09:56 AM
181. I do not have a dog in this fight. However, I am disappointed that our elections have been hijacked by less than honerable people. I was hoping this election contest would send a message to the entire country that its citizens deserved honest elections. Obviously the court is not interested in legal, fair elections. I am sorry for all you Washingtonians.

Posted by: KS Observer on June 6, 2005 09:56 AM
182. @scott c:
(...)when the political party controlling elections illegally gives the election to the twice certified loser

Bridges disagrees w/you on every point.

(court concludes)"certification of Miss Gregoire is confirmed".


Posted by: JDM on June 6, 2005 09:57 AM
183. The election contest statutes are essentially useless unless you can prove with clear and convincing evidence who (with names) cast the illegal ballots. In other words, King County could be off 50,000 votes on crediting and it wouldn't matter because we would have no idea who cast them. Why even have these laws in place? Also, he gave King County a free pass and even said that election workers should be given the benefit of the doubt. Amazing!

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 09:57 AM
184. Nothing about King County screwing this thing up Royall - amazing!

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 09:57 AM
185. Larry, oh Larry!

Are you "twisting in the wind" yet?

Posted by: John on June 6, 2005 09:57 AM
186. This was so one-sided that he may have set himself up for appeal, not that I have a lot of faith in the SCOW, mind you.

Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 09:58 AM
187. JDM, Welcome to the of end of democracy and freedom. Don't worry JDM, they'll get to you eventually. Stahlin wins.

Posted by: scott C on June 6, 2005 09:58 AM
188. I don't know if you guys noticed this, but here is what Bridges did:

He said that 1,6xx votes were illegal and therefor needed to be deducted from the total.

However, he never said how they should be deducted, just that there was no scientific method presented in the Court to do so.

So, that leaves the Supreme Court to decide how those illegal votes should be deducted.

Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 6, 2005 09:58 AM
189. I don't blame Judge Bridges. He really didn't have anything to work with. In essence, our election contest statutes require that illegal votes count unless you get the bums to cop to it under oath. Our only hope all along was that the judge would rule outside the letter of the law. He didn't. As a conservative, I can't fault him for that.

Posted by: Poindexter on June 6, 2005 09:59 AM
190. Boy, that 'ruling' leaves me with a bitter feeling. The people I talked to about the case on the weekend were very smug and sure they would win, and they were right. I guess I read too much Sound Politics and not enough Seattle PI so as to be as well-informed as what was going to happen as they were.

Posted by: wilinsky on June 6, 2005 09:59 AM
191. Mogura:

No, the Judge ruled that if you can't prove cheating, you have no claim in court.

Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 09:59 AM
192. Strike 2of my previous comments......
1) I would not vote for bridges for dogcatcher EITHER now.
2)He is not fairly intelligent. He is a Moron and is now officially a part of the problem in this state.

Scott

Posted by: scotto on June 6, 2005 10:00 AM
193. "I suspected from the start this earring wearing judge wouldn't rule for a just and fair elections sytem. He is probably a closet gay that wanted to get back at Republicans for opposing Gay legislation."

Wow, so anyone that wears earrings now is a homo.

A few of my marine buddies would be intrigued on that one. I'll have to go inform 'em.

Posted by: Dustin on June 6, 2005 10:01 AM
194. It seems to me that this ruling sets the bar impossibly high. On the one hand, Bridges is correct that you can't set it too low. But in this case it seems clear that if one party controls enough of the machinery, that they can create a margin of uncertainty any time they wish in order to throw illegal votes to the candidate or issue of their choice.

It's a sad day for our state. It's also evidence that we need dramatic election reform. Think that will happen with the current legislature and governor?

The next step is to vote as many of them out as possible.

Posted by: Bivouac Ponzetti on June 6, 2005 10:01 AM
195. Since he removed those 1000+ votes from the total what is the final vote tally for each candidate? Is this something that could come up at the SCOW?

Posted by: Mark D on June 6, 2005 10:01 AM
196. Well, ladies and gentlemen, our anger will do nothing unless we do something constructive about it. The election contest statute as written leaves no hope for any contest to prevail.

In order to change this, we must change the statute. The legislature, controlled as it is by Democrats, will refuse to address the problem. It is up to us to force the change. It's time for an initiative.

Posted by: Nathan Azinger on June 6, 2005 10:02 AM
197. (speechless)

Posted by: JRR on June 6, 2005 10:03 AM
198. No, the Judge ruled that if you can't prove cheating, you have no claim in court.

Posted by JDB at June 6, 2005 09:59 AM

I just love the way you said that JDB.....Kinda like if you don't get caught stealing the car, your not a theif....

So much for morals and values....

Posted by: Chris on June 6, 2005 10:03 AM
199. Anybody understand why he didn't allow proportional deduction. Without knowing how each illegal vote was cast there is no other way to determine who got the most illegal votes. Is he basically saying, given the current statutes, there is NO WAY to win an election contest. Is that his way of getting legislatures to change the contest laws?

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 10:04 AM
200. I take it from Larry and Scott's idea to "put 10-15 provisionals straight into the Accuvote" in the next election that y'all aren't really concerned about fairness in the election process -- just about winning.

Just what I suspected all along.

Posted by: Bluebeard on June 6, 2005 10:04 AM
201. No, the Judge ruled that if you can't prove cheating, you have no claim in court.

Posted by JDB at June 6, 2005 09:59 AM

I just love the way you said that JDB.....Kinda like if you don't get caught stealing the car, your not a theif....

So much for morals and values....

Posted by: Chris on June 6, 2005 10:05 AM
202. So I am (trying) to catch the live streaming feed from Kyrgyzstan, and as you can imagine it's not working out too well.

However, with the limited amount that I have been able to catch, I've figured out a few things.

I grew up in Seattle. Born and raised, 18 years. Once I turned 18 and graduated I joined Uncle Sam's Misguided Children and went on to be stationed in a few spots around the globe. I got out around 2003 after a little stint in the Sand Box, and I spent 2 months in the states processing paperwork to go right back overseas and work as a contractor for the (I'm sorry, brothers, Semper Fi) Air Force.

I grew up typical Seattle I suppose, pretty liberal parents, went to an "alternative High School" and all that.

I will never live in Washington State again. I would rather live in Kyrgyzstan. You see, they had a botched election here not too long ago, and instead of some judge upholding an obviously illegal candidate, the people took it into their own hands and went to the "White House" (where the president conducts official business, or what passes for it here) and protested until he fled the country. There was some looting for a day or two, but in a relatively short period of time everything calmed down and now they've started work to hold elections free of Akayev's grip and control (which was pretty severe).

I don't see that happening in WA. You can't tell me that 1600+ voters that you can't identify much less verify don't have something to indicate about an election that was "won" by 129 votes. That is simply unrealistic.

Basically, I am trying to indicate that a former Soviet Satellite state has one up on my home. So much for the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Posted by: Aaron on June 6, 2005 10:05 AM
203. You have to love when the judge ruled that proportional deduction didn't meet the Frye standard, but even if it did, he would have found that Gregoire would have received more votes.

Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 10:05 AM
204. No, the Judge ruled that if you can't prove cheating, you have no claim in court.

Posted by JDB at June 6, 2005 09:59 AM

I just love the way you said that JDB.....Kinda like if you don't get caught stealing the car, your not a theif....

So much for morals and values....

Posted by: Chris on June 6, 2005 10:06 AM
205. No, the Judge ruled that if you can't prove cheating, you have no claim in court.

Posted by JDB at June 6, 2005 09:59 AM

I just love the way you said that JDB.....Kinda like if you don't get caught stealing the car, your not a theif....

So much for morals and values....

Posted by: Chris on June 6, 2005 10:06 AM
206. No, the Judge ruled that if you can't prove cheating, you have no claim in court.

Posted by JDB at June 6, 2005 09:59 AM

I just love the way you said that JDB.....Kinda like if you don't get caught stealing the car, your not a theif....

So much for morals and values....

Posted by: Chris on June 6, 2005 10:07 AM
207. You have to love when the judge ruled that proportional deduction didn't meet the Frye standard, but even if it did, he would have found that Gregoire would have received more votes.

Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 10:08 AM
208. The judge ruled that the "requirements" which counties must supposedly meet to certify elections are in fact entirely optional, and may be obeyed or ignored at the whim of county officials.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of Washington.

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 10:08 AM
209. I wonder which canditate(s) he subtracted the 1678 votes from? He's saying that 1678 people voted illegally, so he subtracts them from the total, but not from either candidate (besides the 4 from Rossi). His math is just as bad as King County's (maybe on purpose). This means that G's votes + R's votes is GREATER than the total votes!

Posted by: VaCSProf on June 6, 2005 10:09 AM
210. Looks like Bridges gave King County elections a clean bill of health. No impetus for them to change anything in the future, in fact it may even embolden them. No consequences for not following the rules and statutes regarding elections. Why even bother having them?

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 10:10 AM
211. Well, good for Bridges. Holding Petitioners responsible for proving their case. Guess Durkin did a better job than she got credit for here. Oh judge, we love you until you don't rule for our ridiculously unfounded accusations, then we'll hate you and say bad things, like...like....You are Gay! Bad Judge!

Posted by: Sal Jaxon on June 6, 2005 10:11 AM
212. Why not re-call her?

Posted by: kim in vancouver on June 6, 2005 10:12 AM
213. So, if an illegal ballot can be put into the system, unless you can prove who put it in and who they voted for, then they are magically "legal". Astounding. This will just encourage more illegal activity.

Our laws need to be fixed to remove as many cheating "aids" as possible.

Posted by: Jack on June 6, 2005 10:13 AM
214. Looks like Bridges gave King County elections a clean bill of health. No impetus for them to change anything in the future, in fact it may even embolden them. No consequences for not following the rules and statutes regarding elections. Why even bother having them?

Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 10:13 AM
215. For real analysis for the past three months, go to HA...for Windmills that tumble down on you, stay with the Snark. Stefan, Goldy may not be a lawyer, but he sure nailed everything on the head in every post how a court would rule maybe he plays one on TV...you had everything absolutly wrong...you win the Tariq Aziz award for Journalism.

Posted by: danw on June 6, 2005 10:14 AM
216. I think that even though he ruled against the petitioners, he laid out a very clear roadmap of what they need to provide for the appeal to the SC.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 6, 2005 10:15 AM
217. Sorry about the multiple posts....Having to refresh too many times...Sorry

Posted by: Chris on June 6, 2005 10:15 AM
218. A real shame (and sham).

The decision implies that illegal votes will count (and maybe twice!) and election laws can be vilolated at will without consequence. The only glimmer of hope is that these findings maybe counter to precident and reversable by the WSSC.

It is such a long shot, however, that they will accept the case.

Posted by: StephenR from Houston on June 6, 2005 10:16 AM
219. Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything.

Josef Stalin

Seems like the former government wher I lived just up and moved.

Posted by: Aaron on June 6, 2005 10:16 AM
220. I'd be especially careful with the guy who's glad that he still has the right to "bare arms."

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 10:17 AM
221. ‘But all is not lost. A Fourteenth Amendment claim could be made to the state Supreme Court.’
I believe Pudge is right (in all that he said). The Equal Protection argument may not be dead. It was raised in this court, denied, and that should still be appealable. It will be interesting to find out how Aurther Coday’s suit plays out also. It still has not been heard.

The 1678 votes were subtracted from the total for the purposes required by the SOS office for determining signature totals for future initiative and the such.

Posted by: RG on June 6, 2005 10:19 AM
222. Sal, you know as well as we all do (unless you're pig-ignorant and haven't actually been following the case) that King County not only didn't do the required reconciliation (which is required precisely to ensure an accurate count) and report their discrepancies, but actually falsified a document to make it look as if they had done the reconciliation and had no discrepancies.

And this is OK with you? Aren't you the slightest bit embarrassed?

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 10:22 AM
223. OK....

It appears that Judge Bridges ruling was more of a simple sound bite answer to Durkans long winded closing argument..
He mentioned the validity of 2.8 million legal votes over the 2000+ illegal votes - as did Durkan in her closing..
He mentioned the 4 certified Felon Statements indicating they voted for Rossi....and mentioned that the Petitiners provided no proof that felons voted for Gregoire..(as if certifications from felons could be considered reliable..)
He chose to question Gill and Katz proportional analysis - as recommended by Durkan in her closing...

His entire decision appears to have been made from the Intervenors closing argument - with little regard to the Petitioners evidence and findings during the trial....

I don't understand why......Doesn't make sense to me.. I'll have to ponder this awhile..

Regardless of the Supreme Court take on the Judges ruling in appeal - it is obvious now - that the responsibility of a fair and uncorrupted election is up to us - the people. And we must do all we can to insure that this fraud, error, and ignorance never happens again in King and other counties in this state!

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 10:24 AM
224. OK....

It appears that Judge Bridges ruling was more of a simple sound bite answer to Durkans long winded closing argument..
He mentioned the validity of 2.8 million legal votes over the 2000+ illegal votes - as did Durkan in her closing..
He mentioned the 4 certified Felon Statements indicating they voted for Rossi....and mentioned that the Petitiners provided no proof that felons voted for Gregoire..(as if certifications from felons could be considered reliable..)
He chose to question Gill and Katz proportional analysis - as recommended by Durkan in her closing...

His entire decision appears to have been made from the Intervenors closing argument - with little regard to the Petitioners evidence and findings during the trial....

I don't understand why......Doesn't make sense to me.. I'll have to ponder this awhile..

Regardless of the Supreme Court take on the Judges ruling in appeal - it is obvious now - that the responsibility of a fair and uncorrupted election is up to us - the people. And we must do all we can to insure that this fraud, error, and ignorance never happens again in King and other counties in this state!

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 10:25 AM
225. OK....

It appears that Judge Bridges ruling was more of a simple sound bite answer to Durkans long winded closing argument..
He mentioned the validity of 2.8 million legal votes over the 2000+ illegal votes - as did Durkan in her closing..
He mentioned the 4 certified Felon Statements indicating they voted for Rossi....and mentioned that the Petitiners provided no proof that felons voted for Gregoire..(as if certifications from felons could be considered reliable..)
He chose to question Gill and Katz proportional analysis - as recommended by Durkan in her closing...

His entire decision appears to have been made from the Intervenors closing argument - with little regard to the Petitioners evidence and findings during the trial....

I don't understand why......Doesn't make sense to me.. I'll have to ponder this awhile..

Regardless of the Supreme Court take on the Judges ruling in appeal - it is obvious now - that the responsibility of a fair and uncorrupted election is up to us - the people. And we must do all we can to insure that this fraud, error, and ignorance never happens again in King and other counties in this state!

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 10:26 AM
226. OK....

It appears that Judge Bridges ruling was more of a simple sound bite answer to Durkans long winded closing argument..
He mentioned the validity of 2.8 million legal votes over the 2000+ illegal votes - as did Durkan in her closing..
He mentioned the 4 certified Felon Statements indicating they voted for Rossi....and mentioned that the Petitiners provided no proof that felons voted for Gregoire..(as if certifications from felons could be considered reliable..)
He chose to question Gill and Katz proportional analysis - as recommended by Durkan in her closing...

His entire decision appears to have been made from the Intervenors closing argument - with little regard to the Petitioners evidence and findings during the trial....

I don't understand why......Doesn't make sense to me.. I'll have to ponder this awhile..

Regardless of the Supreme Court take on the Judges ruling in appeal - it is obvious now - that the responsibility of a fair and uncorrupted election is up to us - the people. And we must do all we can to insure that this fraud, error, and ignorance never happens again in King and other counties in this state!

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 10:26 AM
227. The problem, Chris & JDB, is that it's usually not possible to prove fraud in a situation like this...only that the circumstantial evididence is consistent with fraud, and that the opportunity for fraud existed.

When I heard the judge say that state law dictates that we assume the inherent goodness and honesty of those running our elections, I gagged and then spewed coffee all over my monitor.

He was speaking of a group that needed three recounts to find all the lost ballots, contact all the felons, stuff all the boxes necessary to change the outcome of the election.

The idea that after all we've seen about Logan & Co. we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt is quite preposterous to my mind, and it's an invitation to more of the same kind of chicanery in the future.

I have lost my faith in the integrity of the electionn process in King County. Unfortunately, judge Bridges, even in not invalidating the election could have done something in his ruling to call KC on the carpet and at least increase the liklihood of better integrity there in future elections. He chose not to do that.

I will continue to *believe* that this election was stolen, and believe that it's now more likely than ever that the same thing can and will happen again in the future.

Posted by: Bivouac Ponzetti on June 6, 2005 10:29 AM
228. RG: Are you sure? I thought the GOP declined to argue equal protection.

In any case, I don't think there's any way the Supremes wll overturn Bridges.

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 10:29 AM
229. Well, the R's mishandled the case, and the D's have the judge in their pocket.

*I* say the next move is to go DIRECTLY to the Feds and start screaming "FRAUD!"

...but that's just MY opinion, because I have absolutely no faith in the Wash. Supreme Court...

Igor

Posted by: Igor on June 6, 2005 10:31 AM
230. Okay now let me see if I have this right.

The judge ruled that the felons that testified are credible witnesses.

The judge ruled that 168 absentee ballots were found but don’t matter in the outcome of the race.

The judge ruled that 1678 illegal ballots should be subtracted from the total votes cast in the election, and not from any candidate(s).

The judge ruled that the election stands and that the former AG is Gov.

The judge ruled that this is democracy.

We need to stop the yackety-yak and rise up and RE-CALL the former Attorney General.

Posted by: kim in vancouver on June 6, 2005 10:32 AM
231. Kim in Vancouver:

First, we need to recall Bridges. Heaven knows I'm no lawyer, but even I can see that there was plenty of evidence that should have invalidated the election. IF NOTHING ELSE, the election certification was invalid/fradulent!!

Igor

Posted by: Igor on June 6, 2005 10:38 AM
232. 10-4, Deborah!

Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 10:39 AM
233. I think the outcome here, while unfortunate, was to be expected.

The fight, however, was very worthwhile. Here is why:

1) There was a slim chance the election could have been invalidated. That was certainly worthwhile.

2) If the case had not happened, much of what is now known by the public would not have seen the light of day. Documenting the ineptitude and corruption was worthwhile.

3) You must realize that the Dems were certainly surprised that the election was even close in a Blue state like WA. This opportunity to highlight the problems (i.e., "theft") would not have been available if the election had not been close. The Repubs had to take this opportunity to go to court and let the evidence see the light of day.

I agree with some posters here that this was more about fighting the good fight in a likely loosing battle so as to gain ground and ultimate victory in the war.

We have won much ground on the national level, and as many say, a backlash against liberals and Dems is simmering and may reach a boil in the years to come. That backlash will be felt in 2006 and 2008 in this state.

I applaud the Repubs/Rossi for all the work to bring this case despite tough odds. The R party knew this was important to the long-term roadmap for success.

Tom in Bellevue

Posted by: Tom on June 6, 2005 10:46 AM
234. "I think that even though he ruled against the petitioners, he laid out a very clear roadmap of what they need to provide for the appeal to the SC."

That's hopeless. There is no way Rossi is going to get justice from the WA SC. The conclusion is foregone, just like it was with Clinton's impeachment "trial" in the Senate. Rossi could haul 10,000 fraudlent voters into court who would swear they voted illegally for Fraudoire and the courts would still rule against Rossi.

Laying out a "roadmap" for appeal is nothing more than a cop-out. If Bridges thought there was an injustice done in the last election he could have acted to right it in his own court, not punted it to some appeals court. Fact is, he set an impossible standard for the plaintiffs, which made the whole proceeding nothing more than a kangaroo court.

Posted by: Interested Observer on June 6, 2005 10:48 AM
235. I think my days in WA are numbered. I refuse to live in a state where voting is only a formality (the '04 governor's race), and that when overwhelming majorities repeal a tax, the government ignores it (I-776).

Posted by: gop_jeff on June 6, 2005 10:48 AM
236. DON'T BE AN ABSENTEE VOTER!!!!

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

Posted by: carl on June 6, 2005 10:49 AM
237. I just heard KXL 750 Portland that Reps will appeal the decision as I expected, it's not over yet.
We all know that fraud was comitted and it will only be a matter of time untill Vance and
others pin the tail on the horsesasses...

ALSO>>>> SOS SAM Reed is going to speak at a town hall metting in Stevenson Wash next Tues.
7:00 PM
At the Rock Creek Center.
710 SW Rock Creek Drive

I srongly incourage anyone available to show up and express your views in light of all that has just happened!!

Posted by: Terry Clark C on June 6, 2005 10:51 AM
238. Forget recall. Can't be done to judges at all, and to other officials only if there are allegations of "malfeasance or misfeasance while in offie." (State Constitution, Art.I, sec. 33)

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/other/WA_CONSTITUTION.htm

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 10:52 AM
239. Wow! Dogbert
This site is about to blow!

I posted that at 10:26 and it hung - the site went down..so I posted it in another thread. I came back to this one and refreshed to see if the post ever took - It hadn't! I can't believe it finally processed through - and so many times!!

oh well....If I'd known it was going to repost so many times...I would have been more clever in my comments! heh..

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 10:54 AM
240. If you're whole thing is winning at any cost and you lose, as we all sometimes inevitably do, you don't have a clue as to how to learn to live and learn from your mistakes. I told you months ago and now you have to face it and yopu're unprepared.*

Posted by: headless lucy on June 6, 2005 10:55 AM
241. Given the law, Judge Bridges made the only judgement that was possible, given the case made by the GOP attorneys. Seems that we better look for new ones. Who picked this crew? Even as a non-attorney I saw/heard many chances to hang the opposition out to dry. Given the results I would propose that we stop with the dramatics and be a more open party. I'm tired of being too liberal for the GOP, and too conservitive for the Demo's.
I would propose that folks stop crying in their beer and start working for 06 and control of the House and Senate.
Stop micturating in you messkits, folks.

Semper Fi!
FMF Doc

Posted by: Mike H. on June 6, 2005 11:00 AM
242. Lucy, If retardedness was a video game, you would be the final boss..

Posted by: Ted on June 6, 2005 11:01 AM
243. Would someone with a Free Republic account explain to the people on this thread (munged because of SP's silly "questionable content" rules; remove the spaces):

www . free republic . com/focus/f-news/1417532/posts

that King County by is own admission violated the legal requirements to certify the election and falsified a document to make it look as if they had obeyed the law?

If even conservatives don't understand the issues involved, then any effort to restore republican goverment to this state are doomed before we start.

Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 11:08 AM
244. Aaron,

Your story is very powerful and your disapointment in our state "government" is extremely apparent...and mirrored. It is a very sad day for those of us who desire to make Washington a better place to live for ourselves, and for our children.

Judge Bridges, as impressed with him as I was, just minimized the meaning of every Washingtonian's vote and gave the crooked government an open-ended, first-class ticket to anywhere.

We live in one of the most beautiful places in the country with everything available to us that any person would envy...excluding, of course, the right of the people to a fair and honest election.

Posted by: NicMarie on June 6, 2005 11:20 AM
245. OK scottm - I have a Freepers account...
(if I can remember my password..heh)

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 11:32 AM
246. Given the nearly impossible high standard of proof required by the law as it is now written, I could not argue with Bridges ruling on this case. Who cast the alleged illegal votes must be shown, and since ballots are secret you can't show who cast the vote...end result...there are NO illegal votes. All things considered this is (IMHO) where the case was lost. Bad law leads to bad, but legal, decisions. The law MUST be changed

We have lost the battle folks but we have not lost the war. Olympia needs to be cleaned out...that is where it starts. Bridges made ref to this in his opening. It is up to the PEOPLE to change the current situation, not the courts..which I heartily agree with.

We conservatives complain about activist judges writing the law instead of interpreting it. Bridges did what he was required to do under the law. Tho I also agree with many who believe that Bridges has a deffinate liberal slant it is irrellivant(sp? sorry product of public ed) to the issue here.

Dump the calls for revolution, violence and such. The best way to fight this is thru the ballot box not the bullet. Enuff of us should be sufficiently pi**ed off to make real change in the future...next time around..ROSSI for GOV and THE SHARK for SOS!!!!!!!!....just my 2 cents worth

Posted by: Blueknight on June 6, 2005 11:36 AM
247. Blueknight is correct about our current election laws - as they are written - basically allowing this crap and corruption to continue!

We need to change those laws and tighten up loopholes and clarify all interpretations!

The problem is - to do so requires our legislature....and they very well may be the ones who profit most by doing nothing!

This is going to take some time to think about. We have a host of experts posting here from all professions relating to this...

Let's take a break - catch our breath - then regroup and come up with solid ideas to change things!

(scottm - I've been trying to log into Free Republic but the log in page just hangs...)

Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 12:03 PM
248. Deborah, the conundrum is just this: what Bridges has asked us to do is essentially impossible with the system we have. Bridges said it is up to the voters to change things. But the only way the voters are heard is through the electoral process. If election officials are corrupt, controlled by one party which is corrupt, how can voters change anything? Is the corrupt system going to magically clean itself up and allow an honest election when the time comes to "change things"?

As a student of history for most of my fifty-something years on this Earth, I have to say that what you are faced with in WA state is, in some ways, remarkably like what the Colonies faced in the mid-1770s. They were forced into a situation wherein the only way they could seek justice was to work within a system that was dedicated to denying them justice. Back then, what it came to was a group of farmers standing on a bridge in MA and getting shot at, and a certain Mr. Jefferson penning a certain document. There comes a time when the system has broken down so completely that it is impossible to "work within the system". Violence? No. Revolt? Well, maybe, of a kind. Ever hear of Gandhi?

Posted by: Interested Observer on June 6, 2005 12:39 PM
249. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson, 1787 Nov. 13

I'm a Republican. I know my fellow Republicans are loathe to anti-law and order action because law and order is the mother's milk of civil society. We disdain unruly mobs of angry citizens. Under our system of checks and balances and separation of powers, the courts are the final venue for redress of grievances. But Judge Bridges has failed in his duty to accept this role by placing the good people of Washington under the paradoxical remedy of using a corrupted ballot box to rid themselves of the corrupted ballot box.

Republicans can sit on their haunches talking about "next time", complacent in the self-righteous indignation they hold as the mark of martyrdom, or they can get off their arses and deal with this the way real men would.

Is there no limit, no point at which we break and resort to other methods of saying "NO!" to this form of governmental abuse? You see, this wasn't just the candidates cheating or John Q. Citizen getting away with a couple extra votes. This was about a corruption machine placed to negate the expressed will of the people in relation to how state power and authority over your family, money and property will be vested should their will run country to the interests of those currently vested with that power.

I remember reading in these blogs that your last election did not have nearly as many errors as this one. Why might that be? The answer is that there will always only be enough "errors" necessary to negate the expressed will of those seeking a changing of the political guard.

Look at your election laws and look at who wrote them. Then ask yourselves, "Why were they written such by those people?" Then look at who is responsible at the state level and at the KC level for your elections. Ask yourselves, "Why are those particular people there?"

With Judge Bridges decision, WA state voters have eclipsed the limitations of ordinary remedies available to the citizenry. You have no way out of this through any of the three branches of state government. So now what?

One choice is to stay in the system and: 1). appeal the decision to the state supreme court. Do you think you'll succeed in getting your electoral process purified through that entity? or; 2). try to force your legislature to repeal and rewrite these laws. Think that will work? or; 3). How about a ballot initiative? Maybe, but you're back to who's counting the votes with that one.

Another choice is to continue to wring your hands in despair and blame the lawyers and the people in control of state government, etc..

Or you can recognize that you're the frog in the pot who too late realized he was being boiled alive because the heat was turned up ever so slowly on him while his attention was willingly diverted with other amusements.

A successful frog would take the leap.

Posted by: Kitty on June 6, 2005 01:59 PM
250. Wow. As I heard my Republican friends say after the SCOTUS installed Bush, get over it.

Posted by: gus on June 7, 2005 02:31 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?