Judge Bridges has ruled against the plaintiffs and let stand the results of the 2004 governor's election. He did not accept the use of proportional deduction and did not find fraud either by the election workers or the parties. So, given that the Supreme Court will most likely not change findings of fact and therefore not overrule, Christine Gregoire will be governor through 2008.
But Judge Bridges did find that many irregularities took place, and he put the burden explicitly on the voters to hold elected officials and elections officials accountable for these problems. Where the law will not provide relief because it is not specific enough or sets the wrong standards, we must work through the political process to change the law. Where officials have low standards, we must work to replace them with officials with higher standards.
As voters, we have all the power we need to make these changes, regardless of the decisions of any court, executive or legislature. Our remedy is to be more organized and to work for candidates who believe as we do. This is one election. There will be hundreds more in our lifetimes and we must contest them all. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Posted by Andy MacDonald at June 06, 2005 09:52 AM | Email ThisCordially...
Posted by: Rick on June 6, 2005 10:02 AMI recomend starting in Ohio... if you can find a R' Supreme not recused because of coin scandal, or SOS the same, or governor the same, or Att General the same...
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
agree w/that. Thank God for honest Judges in Wa. state.
Posted by: jdm on June 6, 2005 10:02 AMHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Rosi Lost on June 6, 2005 10:03 AMHe puts the burden back on us voters. What a novel solution. I like it.
Posted by: swatter on June 6, 2005 10:04 AMNow get....
Buh bye.
Posted by: Janet on June 6, 2005 10:05 AMThey face a contest under a statute that had a burden so high as to be impossible to meet.
Hopefully the voters do not forget soon what happened, and how misconduct and incompentence trashed an election and gave us an uncertain mandate.
Posted by: karl on June 6, 2005 10:05 AMHis call for the voters rings hollow. What difference does it make who votes if those who count them are dishonest?
Our democracy just took a huge hit.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 6, 2005 10:05 AMIn effect he said that petitioners must either show clear fraud or that the ballots directly affected the outcome in a particular way. With secret voting that is impossible.
Unless there is a change in the law then I think his ruling has effectively made election contests impossible in this state.
Posted by: TonyG on June 6, 2005 10:05 AMAnyone need a Unix/Perl guy in Alaska?
It is time to return home; where the corruption is manageble.
Posted by: Gary on June 6, 2005 10:06 AMWe knew the Democrat party machine was stealing elections but it took this past election to finally motivate someone to do something...
now, the cat's out of the bag...
we know who the enemy is....
there will be other elections, and if this past election and this expose of fraud doesn't motivate the fringe voter to vote down the Democrat party, I don't know what will...
thanks to Shark, this thing really moved...
We live to fight another day, and that day will come sooner then we think, and next time, we will be prepared....
I think the Democrat Party rule is going to end very soon in Washington....I think they have blown their "wad" so to speak in stealing this election as well as the Cantwell election...
Congrats again to Shark.....you are a true patriot ......
Posted by: lee on June 6, 2005 10:07 AMWe just need to work together to get GOP majorities in both the state House and Senate in 2006. With all this anger at Gregoire, it should be easy to do if we do it.
Posted by: Kyle on June 6, 2005 10:07 AMBridges disagrees w/that assumption, as does the evidence.
Posted by: jdm on June 6, 2005 10:07 AMWe knew the Democrat party machine was stealing elections but it took this past election to finally motivate someone to do something...
now, the cat's out of the bag...
we know who the enemy is....
there will be other elections, and if this past election and this expose of fraud doesn't motivate the fringe voter to vote down the Democrat party, I don't know what will...
thanks to Shark, this thing really moved...
We live to fight another day, and that day will come sooner then we think, and next time, we will be prepared....
I think the Democrat Party rule is going to end very soon in Washington....I think they have blown their "wad" so to speak in stealing this election as well as the Cantwell election...
Congrats again to Shark.....you are a true patriot ......
Posted by: lee on June 6, 2005 10:07 AMEven those who were found guilty of voting twice were given a slap on the wrist and basically we were told that it's ok to vote twice if your loved one or spouse died.
This is not a ruling for Justice, but a ruling for Kings
Posted by: FireWolf on June 6, 2005 10:08 AMIn effect he said that petitioners must either show clear fraud or that the ballots directly affected the outcome in a particular way. With secret voting that is impossible.
Unless there is a change in the law then I think his ruling has effectively made election contests impossible in this state.
Posted by: TonyG on June 6, 2005 10:08 AMBridges disagrees w/that assumption, as does the evidence.
Posted by: jdm on June 6, 2005 10:09 AMCordially...
Posted by: Rick on June 6, 2005 10:09 AMA watershed event for me. Working harder in this system is simply playing their game.
The 2nd amendment was created for these times.
His call for the voters rings hollow. What difference does it make who votes if those who count them are dishonest?
Our democracy just took a huge hit.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 6, 2005 10:09 AMHow can you use "the process" to change "the process" when "the process" itself is corrupt? How can you throw out of office the same cheating, lying, corrupt officials who control the elections? Just like he imposed an impossible standard on the plaintiffs (prove who the specific illegal votes were cast for), Bridges has placed an impossible task upon the honest voters: throw out the corrupt officials who control the very election process by which you seek to throw them out.
Bridges disagrees w/that assumption, as does the evidence.
Posted by: jdm on June 6, 2005 10:11 AMThe real purpose (I believe) of this court case is to shine a light on the Ron Sims Administration and the need to change it. If this cannot be accomplished, we are going to lose control of honest elections in this state and will continue down the path of Chicago, Los Angeles and other corrupt election systems.
Posted by: jaybo on June 6, 2005 10:11 AMYour "HAHAHAHAHA!" will com back to bite you (You know where) during the next election. This NOT a good thing for Dems. It may not be what "we the people" wanted, but we WILL get what we want in the future.
Posted by: Kell on June 6, 2005 10:11 AMNotice how he cited all the serious problems, even Nicole Way's problems. He cited these to point out that the law doesn't address this. That tells me our law is unjust.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 6, 2005 10:12 AMWe just tried.
Posted by: Barcroft on June 6, 2005 10:12 AMOr if 1000 extra votes show up in the accuvote there is no way to invalidate because you can't show which ones were illegal and who they voted for..
This just encourages more cheating. Ridiculous and stunning decision...
Posted by: Mark on June 6, 2005 10:13 AMSupposedly, the earring worn by Bridges had already leaked word of the decision to the Seattle times over the weekend.
Posted by: John Billings on June 6, 2005 10:14 AMWho took a huge hit was Rossi. May he crawl back into the cave from which he came.
Good riddance.
Posted by: jim on June 6, 2005 10:14 AMLooks like you owe your buddy Goldy an appoligy! But then again, thats not something neocons do best, now is it?
Posted by: DamnageD on June 6, 2005 10:14 AMWho took a huge hit was Rossi. May he crawl back into the cave from which he came.
Good riddance.
Posted by: jim on June 6, 2005 10:15 AMNo more claims of fraud without proof.
No more claims of military ballots being messed with without proof.
No more use of selective statistics to bolster a partisan point of view.
No more use of over the top rhetoric without basis.
No more listenting to only propogandistic sources of information that agree with only one side of an issue.
No more name calling of those who point out failures of logic on my side.
If we start with these principles, we will truly have a democracy to be proud of.
Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 10:15 AMJosef Stalin
Posted by: Aaron on June 6, 2005 10:16 AMBut the elites protect themselves, public be damned. So fraud it tolerated, which is why often there so much of it in near-100% Democratic precincts. A specialty.
Sigh. Re-defeat Gingoire in 2008. How's that for clever?
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick on June 6, 2005 10:16 AMAnd it's obvious there was fraud. Gregoire's vote count didn't randomly get closer and closer to victory until the final hand count --when, voila!, it magically went over the top. This was systematic theft. And that's not even getting to the fraud before the polls closed on election day. The Republicans should have taken it on as Job #1 to find that fraud, and Job #2 to prove it in court. They didn't. It seemed like they never even wanted to go there.
Posted by: jaybird on June 6, 2005 10:17 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 6, 2005 10:17 AMWho took a huge hit was Rossi. May he crawl back into the cave from which he came.
Good riddance.
Posted by: jim on June 6, 2005 10:18 AMHugh Hewitt is right: if it's not close, they can't cheat.
Don't let it be so close next time.
***
And I've been saying all along that there seems to be grounds for a federal case, even if the US attorney has been mum on that.
Voting in Washington is based on the honor system, therefore if illegal votes are cast, an election contest is contingent on those who cast an illegal vote doing the honorable thing and identifying the fact they violated the law and disclosing whom they voted for when they violated the law. Then and only then can a ballot be contested under the law.
Since this isn't going to happen, lets just end the charade of the state actually having an election challenge statute.
Mark
Posted by: Mark D on June 6, 2005 10:18 AMWho took a huge hit was Rossi. May he crawl back into the cave from which he came.
Good riddance.
Posted by: jim on June 6, 2005 10:19 AMLOSERS!
How's that feel, you would-be election stealers?
Get a life, rather than filling up the courts with more frivolous lawsuits, willya? Somehow I doubt it - and you'll mask your lack of evidence with more worthless statistical analysis which everybody knows is as crooked as the GOP is.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!
Posted by: name on June 6, 2005 10:19 AMWhy is it you people in 2000 were joyous and ecstatic you were able to cheat to win, but in 2004, with no evidence of cheating, you none the less tried to change the rules in the middle of the game, tried every trick in the book to justify a recount or a new election ... Gore (and Slade Gorton in 2000!) were gracious in defeat.
The Rossi Republicans in 2004 were anything but.
See you in the next election, can't wait for Chris "whiny pants" Vance's latest spin to show up in the news over this decision.
Posted by: Dave D on June 6, 2005 10:19 AM2 - is the owner of this blog going to stand by his assertion that the judge "side"s "with Stalin"? Yet another example of extremism that is, of course, completely irresponsible.
Long and short of it is - get out and vote (at every level), but realize that in the grand scheme of things (of which there is none), this and everything else are mere blinks in the realm of existence.
C'mon, folks, it passes the day, makes for some interesting reading/listening - but is it truly worth the extremism?
Posted by: TJ on June 6, 2005 10:19 AMWhile he agreed there where far more illegal votes than the spread, he concluded that the Rossi team failed to show "causation" (i.e. that enough illegal votes went to Gregoire to change the election). I don't agree with his causation requirement because it is vitually impossible to prove who all the illegals voted for given the constitutional right to secrecy. While a few felons testified they voted for Rossi or Bennett, it does not go to the vast majority of illegal votes. I noticed Bridges did not cite, discuss or distinquish the Foulkes case. In my opinion, the errors, mistakes and omissions speak for themselves and should be enough. The law has a term: res ipsa loquitur [i.e. "the thing speaks for itself"]. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence whereby negligence of alleged wrongdoing may be inferred from the mere fact that the accident happened (e.g. plane crash). Here, the election process/system crashed to such a degree that the number of illegal votes far exceeded the spread. To require Rossi's team to prove how each illegal voter voted was and is impossible.
Posted by: Newman on June 6, 2005 10:20 AMhe was very clear: there were no crimes.
But that's almost always the case with vote fraud, which is among the reasons why it's so practiced in near-100% Democratic precincts.
if you listened to Bridges detailing of county by county problems (reconciliation in particular), he made clear this assumption of yours is false as well.
(and apoligies for my multiple posts: maybe SP getting overwhelmed, as my browser just "hung" for each subsequent one. again, apologies).
Posted by: jdm on June 6, 2005 10:21 AMHaving awakened some years back to what the dimocraps routinely do, this was STILL a shock.
Essentially, I get the impression that stuffing the balot box was just declared legal :-(.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -Joseph Stalin
So next election:
Not bother to vote?
Register 25 or 30 times and stuff the balot box on my chosen side?
Neiter is acceptable.
I do think that the dimocraps have, hopefully, commited political suicide. We can only hope.
Restored confidence in the election process - not for me.
/SO Disgusted.
Posted by: Fox3 on June 6, 2005 10:21 AMBut I'll settle for our state, for now.
Posted by: Will on June 6, 2005 10:21 AMI hope the next few months are so hard on her, resignation would sound like sweet salvation.
More ballots then votes... A fitting end to the 2004 election.
Posted by: Joe on June 6, 2005 10:23 AMNext election, Vote Twice!!!
Posted by: Brent from Clark County on June 6, 2005 10:23 AMAs far as election reform and contest laws, it should be changed by initiative. That will take the power out of Olympia. I would start by proposing that the state outsource elections to a big 8 accounting firm. It would be run with an unbiased efficiency, competency, and would save the taxpayers big $$.
Posted by: Bill on June 6, 2005 10:23 AMBridges knew all along the GOP could not prove who the illegals voted for. The Washington statute is meaningless or Bridges was the ultimate activist. According to Bridges logic, no matter what degree of illegal voting, it could have been 50,000 votes, it would not have changed the outcome! Judicial Trickery!
Get rid of Bridges!
Posted by: blasater on June 6, 2005 10:23 AMBut I'll settle for our state, for now.
Posted by: Will on June 6, 2005 10:24 AMWhile he agreed there where far more illegal votes than the spread, he concluded that the Rossi team failed to show "causation" (i.e. that enough illegal votes went to Gregoire to change the election). I don't agree with his causation requirement because it is vitually impossible to prove who all the illegals voted for given the constitutional right to secrecy. While a few felons testified they voted for Rossi or Bennett, it does not go to the vast majority of illegal votes. I noticed Bridges did not cite, discuss or distinquish the Foulkes case. In my opinion, the errors, mistakes and omissions speak for themselves and should be enough. The law has a term: res ipsa loquitur [i.e. "the thing speaks for itself"]. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence whereby negligence of alleged wrongdoing may be inferred from the mere fact that the accident happened (e.g. plane crash). Here, the election process/system crashed to such a degree that the number of illegal votes far exceeded the spread. To require Rossi's team to prove how each illegal voter voted was and is impossible.
Posted by: Newman on June 6, 2005 10:24 AMOthers of their ilk control our State's government and have changed the laws to prevent their removal.
Are we left with only the Second Amendment to set things right? Is this what the Legislature wants?
Posted by: lee egg on June 6, 2005 10:24 AM
Therefore, we will see MORE fraud, not less, because of this ruling---until the law is changed.
Until that day comes, a republican will NEVER, ever win a close statewide race in Washington because the 'fix' has just been de facto blessed with no real consequences.
This is a tragic day for the citizens of Washington
Posted by: Michele on June 6, 2005 10:24 AMAs long as the election process is controlled by felons and ballot stuffers, there is no hope that voters will ever be able to fix problems.
I am sorry to say but democracy is lost here. Voters can't get it back through a delusion that it still exists.
Even if 100,000 angry voters show up next election to vote in candidates with higher standards, the elections office will allow those votes to be cancelled by illegal and invalid votes.
For real voters to prevail they need to have a democratic system. It does not exist now.
For those that are familiar with Washington State law, there is no hope of using the initiative process either. Because election laws can only be changed by amending the State constitution.
Again sorry to say this is an enormous loss for all those that believe in justice and democracy.
Posted by: Michael on June 6, 2005 10:25 AMI take back what I said earlier about moving to Alaska when I finish college. I'm packing my family up and getting them out of here before Comrade Christine gets her re-education camps set up and closes the border to keep us from leaving. God knows she gets whatever else she wants.
Posted by: Jarhead on June 6, 2005 10:25 AMHopefully you'll soon get out from behind your keyboards and then we can have it out. I, for one, am sick and tired of dealing with your crap. From McChimpyBushitlerstein, to Howard Dean to the rest of you on the miserable Left - come on out and play. You said you were going to "riot motherf***ers" if Bush won, but ya didn't. You say you're going to all these other things to overthrow the facists in office, but you never do.
Please. Light the fuse.
I know I don't speak for many people on this board, but I do know a lot of people share similar feelings. The sooner we get this done, the sooner we can get on with fighting our other enemies overseas.
Posted by: jimg on June 6, 2005 10:25 AMHopefully you'll soon get out from behind your keyboards and then we can have it out. I, for one, am sick and tired of dealing with your crap. From McChimpyBushitlerstein, to Howard Dean to the rest of you on the miserable Left - come on out and play. You said you were going to "riot motherf***ers" if Bush won, but ya didn't. You say you're going to all these other things to overthrow the facists in office, but you never do.
Please. Light the fuse.
I know I don't speak for many people on this board, but I do know a lot of people share similar feelings. The sooner we get this done, the sooner we can get on with fighting our other enemies overseas.
Posted by: jimg on June 6, 2005 10:26 AMBridges knew all along the GOP could not prove who the illegals voted for. The Washington statute is meaningless or Bridges was the ultimate activist. According to Bridges logic, no matter what degree of illegal voting, it could have been 50,000 votes, it would not have changed the outcome! Judicial Trickery!
Get rid of Bridges!
Posted by: blasater on June 6, 2005 10:26 AMBridges knew all along the GOP could not prove who the illegals voted for. The Washington statute is meaningless or Bridges was the ultimate activist. According to Bridges logic, no matter what degree of illegal voting, it could have been 50,000 votes, it would not have changed the outcome! Judicial Trickery!
Get rid of Bridges!
Posted by: blasater on June 6, 2005 10:26 AMAs a trial judge, Bridges was bound to take the statutes at their word, and they are completely inadequate to deal with this situation. At the end, he ordered that the illegal votes be deducted from the total votes cast, but could not and would not deduct any portion of those votes from the totals counted for each candidate. The statutes provided no method for him to do so.
What he did do was make the inadequacy of the election contest statutes clearly visible for everyone to see, and the Supreme Court is not bound to follow them. The SC can address this public policy issue as a case of first impression; it can decide whether the democratic process requires a clear winner; and it can void the election on that ground and thereby force the legislature to revise the statutes. It can also recognize that the current statutes, as written, and as made evident by this case, create a legal standard for a successful contest that is actually impossible to meet (so long as we have secret ballots), and direct the legislature to revise the statutes accordingly.
Will they? We'll see.
Good work.
Losers.
Posted by: A Winner on June 6, 2005 10:27 AMOther than that, we're supposed to fix a broken voting system by using the broken voting system?
Posted by: Steve N on June 6, 2005 10:27 AMBridges knew all along the GOP could not prove who the illegals voted for. The Washington statute is meaningless or Bridges was the ultimate activist. According to Bridges logic, no matter what degree of illegal voting, it could have been 50,000 votes, it would not have changed the outcome! Judicial Trickery!
Get rid of Bridges!
Posted by: blasater on June 6, 2005 10:28 AMBridges knew all along the GOP could not prove who the illegals voted for. The Washington statute is meaningless or Bridges was the ultimate activist. According to Bridges logic, no matter what degree of illegal voting, it could have been 50,000 votes, it would not have changed the outcome! Judicial Trickery!
Get rid of Bridges!
Posted by: blasater on June 6, 2005 10:28 AMThe judge did not call Rossi's case frivolous, not by any means.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 6, 2005 10:28 AMIt 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!
No, when the SoS has certified an election the peoples voice doesn't matter!
WE MUST HAVE REAL ELECTION REFORM!
If all Vote-By-Mail is adopted we may never get this chance again.
Posted by: Splatter on June 6, 2005 10:28 AMIt 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!
Rossi's win was just too small! We need a 100,000 vote advantage to assure the result.
Posted by: Jim Thomasson on June 6, 2005 10:28 AMIt 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!
Wow, this sounds like karma here. Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004? Wonder if we would have noticed the cheating that happened in Florida and Ohio, respectively, if those elections weren't so close.
But I guess it's only a crime if the other side does it, right? After all, for Dems, Democrats can do no such wrong. For Rethugs, their politicians are guiltless too, right?
Posted by: Sputnik on June 6, 2005 10:30 AMSo -- time to change the state laws! This case has highlighted the flaws in our system and we need to fix them. All crowing from the liberals aside, I'll bet even most of them are aware of the need for better election management.
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 6, 2005 10:30 AMThey now know for sure that if they can just GET an illegal ballot into the hopper, it will count, regardless of what else happens. That's how it will be until the law gets changed.
This is a tragic day for Washington state. The Stalinists who 'counted' the votes and got access to all the blank ballots they wanted got their way.
Posted by: Michele on June 6, 2005 10:30 AMI hope it can handle the traffic!
Posted by: Deborah on June 6, 2005 10:30 AM
They kept saying that they couldn't figure out which way he buttered his toast.
Always remember this...
As I said before, Liberals camouflage themselves and this judge camouflaged himself throughout this trial. That is how I knew he was a liberal. If this judge were a conservative you would have known it. It would be evident. That is how conservatives are. There aren't any guessing games or hiding/stalling tactics.
Liberals are liars and cowards. They have to hide their intentions to push thier agenda through the courts because they can't win at the polls nationally when they reveal who they are. Look at Hillary Clinton...
Does anyone believe that she is a centrist? Well she is "moving to the middle" and pushing this moderate nonsense now (holding hands with Mccain and Gingrich) but we all know who she is. We know who her husband is.
I think it is time to wake up and realize that these liberals can NOT be bargained or compromised with. Not any more. It seems like the big mistake here was the Republicans bargaining/compromising with the Dems on this judge. This guy was a liberal plant from day one and they knew it.
Bridges essentially said that an election contest statute is only useful in those rare situations where the direct evidence of the distribution of illegal votes is reasonably obtainable, clearly not the case here. In other words, errors that reflect broad trends are not contestable because evidence related to broad trends, the ecological approach, is not acceptable. Put another way, one can make decisions to shortchange electoral safeguards, reap the benefits of such decisions and not pay a price. We know that there was no effort at all in King, and apparently Pierce Co., to bar voting by felons. And it is unlikely there will be any strengthening of these processes in the future.
Posted by: barchester on June 6, 2005 10:33 AMGod help us.
Posted by: Keri on June 6, 2005 10:34 AMI can't believe it is now the practice to give credibility to felon affidavits. They now get two bites at the apple. First they get to vote, negating a legal vote. Then, they can sign an affidavit "claiming" to have voted for a candidate, potentially negating another legal vote.
These guys who admitted voting need to be prosecuted to make this scenario a little less appealing.
Posted by: California Dreamer on June 6, 2005 10:35 AMNeither in FL 2000 or OH 2004, did I hear ANY talk about all the stuff that this case has PROVEN that KCE committed.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 6, 2005 10:35 AMNincompoop: One deficient in judgment and good sense: ass, fool, idiot, imbecile, jackass, mooncalf, moron, ninny, nitwit, simple, simpleton, softhead, tomfool. Informal : dope, gander, goose. Slang : cretin, ding-dong, dip, goof, jerk, nerd, schmo, schmuck, turkey.
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 6, 2005 10:36 AMWe can never trust our ballots to be handled properly. They can be "lost", enhanced with felt pens or cancelled out by a felon or deceased persons vote. Voting is a farce, it is merely a bone to toss to the drones to make us feel that we are part of the process, when in fact we are anything but. We live in a dictatorship.
Posted by: Vicki on June 6, 2005 10:36 AMListen, from the left, I've seen and participated in a similar myopic view. It clouds your vision, causes you to look for evidence in only one direction, and in the end, eliminates your ability to see and think clearly.
This web site has reflected this type of thinking for months. There has been no rational discussion going on here.
I am a dem, and I applaud this ruling, not because the Dems won, but because it makes legal sense, and is good for the ongoing democracy, inspite of the hysteria displayed by some here.
I am not evil. I do not condone fraud. I would willingly and gladly support the removal of Gov. Gregoire had fraud been shown. But, it hasn't been.
This is not you vs. us. This is us. We disagree, but I have lots of GOP friends, and I'll continue to engage in persuasion and discussion with all of you, and we'll continue to work together to improve this State.
I acknowledge your dissapointment. I reject your label of me as evil and dishonest. I am a concerned citizen and patriot just as you are, and I too want fair and honest elections.
Let us move forward together.
Posted by: Timothy Killian on June 6, 2005 10:36 AMDon't register multiple times. Don't vote twice or more times.
Also, don't let this get you down! Ultimately, we will win.
Vote in the next election, once. And get all of your neighbors to vote, once. You do not defeat evil conspirators with more evil conspiracies. You defeat them with honesty, integrity, and accountability. Remember how Moses defeated the Egyptian Empire. That's what we need, and that's what we're really fighting for. Do you think Ron Sims and Christine Gregoire are more powerful than the Egyptian Pharoah? Do you think they are stronger than King George, Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, or even Gorbachev? We defeated them all.
*WHEN* Ron Sims et al gets held accountable they will be punished justly. Don't screw things up for yourselves!
Remember, we are a nation ruled not by men and not even by laws, but by God. Petition him and see if he will restore the election and justify all the wrongs committed. That's how General George Washington defeated King George and his immense empire. That's how Reagan beat the Communist Empire. That's how we are going to beat King Sims.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 6, 2005 10:36 AMJust beat them and take away their power. If they act this ridiculously immature when they win, imagine the howls when they lose.
That will be a beautiful thing.
Posted by: Slublog on June 6, 2005 10:38 AMIs Rossi just another political hack wannabe?
He should run for Governor in 2008 or not at all.
Posted by: Hippo Krit on June 6, 2005 10:39 AMI have been reading this blog every day of the trial and had hoped for a common sense "we the people" outcome. I feel bad for WA residents. My advice, give up and get out of there - it will only get worse in CA, OR, and WA.
I moved to Houston, Texas this spring from California, precisely becasue I could no longer stand the dishonest, duplicitous, and MEGA-EXPENSIVE government owned by lefties.
For my move, I sold a crappy little 900 sq. ft. house on a very busy street corner in a Los Angeles burb for $500,000. I bought a 4,000 sq. ft. house on 10 acres with a pool, spa, and sauna for $200,000!
Houston Rocks Red!
Posted by: Will on June 6, 2005 10:39 AMFirst, I'll have to wait for a more careful reading of the decision, but it seems as though there was, in fact, a nearly impossible hurdle to jump to explicitly identify which way individual votes went. This is something I'll be following far more closely. As it is, I find it difficult to imagine how fraud could ever be demonstrated.
Second, I suspect the R's knew this would be the case, but went to trial anyway to, as someone else pointed out, win the PR battle. It's clear at this point that King County swung the election, the counting was suspect, the reconciliation was suspect, and to any reasonable person the actual outcome is, in fact, unknown. Of course, once KC was able to get their hands on actual ballots everyone knew they'd never let a Republican win, so that was a foregone conclusion.
So, in large part they probably accomplished what they set out to do: Show that KC installed Gregoire as governor. Her polls seem to be reflecting that.
Posted by: Frank Black on June 6, 2005 10:39 AMMake sure to have all your dead relatives sign twice!
Posted by: rick D on June 6, 2005 10:39 AMWhat is your take on the law here? Bridges did admit that the margin of error was much larger than the margin of victory. He basically said that that isn't enough reason under WA state law for him to do anything.
So what's your opinion of this law? Is it fair to honest voters?
How much certainty do you have that Gregoire won honestly?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 6, 2005 10:40 AMBased on the law as written it's hard to fault the judge for his decision. He did make at least one ridiculous assertion on his part though, such as his finding that a male felon would most likely vote for a male candidate. Where did that come from? He said you couldn't judge how a felon would vote based on precinct, but you could based on sex? Give me a break.
Posted by: Tucker on June 6, 2005 10:40 AMAs for the smuggness of the trolls, I just offer that winning graciously is as just as much as an art as losing graciously. And before we travel down the slippery slope of "Rossi shouldn't have brought this election contest", I say wrong, the result was simply too close to call especially in light of evidence of illegal voting. And a 133 vote victory does not a mandate make, so I would say that the WA is changing.
Personally, and I know I'm probably alone here in this, is that I wish there wouldn't be an appeal. I realize why it is necessary, but I would prefer to move on and get down to the real work -- starting with getting Ron Sims OUT. There's the key to all it. IMHO.
Posted by: Emily on June 6, 2005 10:41 AMSnuffy
Posted by: snuffy on June 6, 2005 10:41 AMThat is EXACTLY what I plan on doing. Free reign!
Posted by: Rich on June 6, 2005 10:41 AMI respect what you're trying to say.
But "good for the democracy"? Where in hell do you get that?
Why is it good for a democracy to have *zero* accountability for the people in charge of elections?
No, I'm sorry...I've no room left for compromise with the democratic party. They will never get another vote from me in my lifetime, don't care if the GOP puts up Bozo The Clown.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 6, 2005 10:42 AMRon Simms, what do you think? we could re-hometrain everybody.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 6, 2005 10:42 AMThe 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 10:43 AMI propose that we start the dismantling brick-by-brick beginning with Komisar Sims! King County should get a taste of citizen revolt and repulsion of the electile dysfunction that allows illegal votes to be counted.
Undermine the Queen at the grass roots, one stooge at a time. This will open the next governor race in 2008 to be waged on a fair field.
I will throw my time and energy into the removal of Ron Sims...this needs to be the large staged demonstration response to the court loss. Tactical strikes against the foes in KING COUNTY who screwed up the entire state election. Do not let them face the public without constant reminder of their acts.
Posted by: Elvis is the King County on June 6, 2005 10:44 AMWe need to get some R's into the big house soon
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
I also applaud Rossi's team for doing this. Otherwise, the full extent of KCE's shenanigans would not be known.
As it is, the public has become much better educated about the election process and can monitor the appointed officials much better.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 6, 2005 10:45 AMFirst, the judge's ruling was partially based on there being an inadequate legal basis to rule on the Republican's behalf—the language was unclear. Legislation must be drafted to create a more failsafe quality control system for the procedure we use to conduct and certify elections. The current system is rife with loopholes; some might say purposefully. The nation is putting more political and judicial energy into making professional sports a level playing field than in the foundation of our political system. In a free society, the electing of representatives is crucial to it’s legitimacy.
The Republican Party must also energize to draft an army of volunteers of every stripe and strata to do work for the party in preparation for the next election. I stated earlier that the people need to be able to react to "discrepancies" real-time. Obviously it won't be enough to find out about "errors" through discovery in a legal proceeding. Think of it as you might a coach's challenge in NFL football. Throwing the red flag during the election may be the only way to stop Dems from using this ruling to turn this state into a turn-of-the-century political machine.
This process has consumed a lot of energy but it can’t be over. In the next few years we are certainly going to be voting on a lot of levies, bond issues, and other spending related ballot choices. The Dems are already in juggernaut mode in Olympia and this ruling is almost certainly going to embolden them. This is no time to sulk back into the malaise of a ruling-induced depression. No matter what the basis for the judge’s ruling, the polls seem to indicate that the people of Washington State smell something rotten in the way this last election was managed. King County voters may have no way to hold Ken Logan and his staff accountable, but that’s the great thing about our system of government—Ron Sims is next in line on the accountability ladder. Every voting opportunity is going to give Republicans--and the masses of disgusted independent voters--an opportunity to send a message to the Dems. They will get the message sooner or later.
It seems the voters need some how-to info.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 6, 2005 10:48 AMSeriously though, What's more important? Having your candidate win? or letting the law of the land prevail?
For all yr. (Republican's) talk about "activist judges" you all should be quite willing to be accepting this.
Oh, why don't you guys draft Tim Sheldon into the party? We'd love to be rid of him.
Love,
Big Biff the Democrat Dawg
Posted by: Big Biff on June 6, 2005 10:48 AMAs a proud Ohioan, first of all, my condolences to all of you who have to deal with this "traversty o'justis".
Having said that, yes, let's clean out Ohio... it's run by nothing but RINOs (except in Youngstown). Kick 'em all out and put some real conservatives in office!
Posted by: Snowy Owl on June 6, 2005 10:52 AMStill don't get it, do you? The law did NOT prevail because voter fraud turned an election. We were disenfranchised.
The law said the KC elections people had to do several things in specific ways, and they did not do them! They falsified reports, enter votes that should not have been entered, etc, etc, etc. No, the law of the land - honest elections - did NOT prevail.
Posted by: Shannon K on June 6, 2005 10:56 AMWe know two things for sure:
1) KCE Counted the Larry Phillips absentees which pushed Gregoire into the lead.
2) KCE did now count a number of other absentees.
We don't know for absolute sure that those uncounted ballots would have swayed the election back to Rossi. But in selectively counting the ballots, the partisan KCE folks managed to achieve a result that matched the party who appointed them to their positions.
Anyone want to start drafting an intitiative? Time to change the law to both better handle negligent behavior of election officials, and to make it harder to vote illegally in the first place.
It's certainly not going to be anything that the current legislature changes.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 6, 2005 10:59 AMSo it's back to business as usual. The only way the people of Washington State can affect the status quo is through the initiative. Will I-900 and I-912 win? I guess we will determine that.
So, King County voters how are YOU going to clean up YOUR elections department so the the votes of the rest of the State have some meaning?
As for the suggestion that 134 illegal voters should have been deposed, who would believe a thing they said? I would guess 80 to 90 percent voted for Illegit but would claim even under oath, since no one can prove how they voted, they voted for Rossi. That would simply be an exercise in futility.
Posted by: JC Bob on June 6, 2005 10:59 AMhttp://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fraud
Now that isn't the legal definition of course, but the legal definition is, if I recall correctly, even more stringent and definite about what is and is not fraud. Now unless the Republicans have proof that Democrats acted to stuff the ballot box or hide Rossi votes, they've got no basis to challenge the election last year. Those are examples of fraud. Not mistakes and/or errors.
Posted by: Will on June 6, 2005 11:01 AMBesides it ain't over till the fat lady sings...and she is on a diet today!
Posted by: Terry Clark C on June 6, 2005 11:02 AMI am confident, given the type of discussion engaged on this blog, that had Rossi won by 129 votes, that none of this discussion of fraud and incompetence would have been pursued; and that is disingenuous.
This was an historically close election. Nothing more and nothing less. In human endeavors, there is always human error. Would a revote have satisfied you? What if either candidate had "won" the revote by a similar margin? What would that have shown us? There would still have been errors, as there are in any election of this size.
What really disappoints me in this discussion is that several on this board are now advocating specific fraud in future elections. I'd never advocate or condone that.
I said on this board prior to the final recount that I'd support a Gregoire concession even had she lost by a single vote. I meant it then, and I mean it now.
In nearly 3 millions vote cast, you will find irregularities. That doesn't constitute fraud; it doesn't even tell us anything about where those votes ultimately went, and that's all the judge was saying.
Anyway, if you consider yourself a patriot, then you'll cease this hysterical witch hunt and seek to work with and understand those who hold differing political views than your own. Building stronger fortresses around your positions will not help our State become better and stronger.
I say again, lets work together, not against each other.
Posted by: Timothy Killian on June 6, 2005 11:04 AM I couldn't believe it. The judge virtually parroted the Democratic talking points. I know that the Dems are gonna be quoting his "no evidence" line ad nausium for the next 4 years- it'll be tommorrows headline in the newspapers. I just can't believe it.
As many have pointed out, the level of evidence required to contest the election makes the contest statute meaningless. Consider:
1: To deduct illegal votes you must have the illegal voters testify how they voted. Except the judge seems to have forgotten the 5th Amendment, which protects a person from making incriminating statements- and last time I checked voting illegally is a crime. That's not all, what about the right to secret ballot? Do we just through that out the window?
2: "no evidence of misconduct" by election officials? You had election officials admit, on the stand, that they falsified the reconciliation reports upon which the election was certified. That's not misconduct?!?
3: Finally, and most damningly in my opinion. The judge ruled:
A: The reconciliation process is "the one check" on either ballot stuffing, or the removal of ballots.
B: King County could not reconcile the number of votes with the number of voters. That there were at least 800+ more ballots than voters.
C: However, there is "no evidence" of ballot stuffing, despite the fact that there has never been given an reasonable alternate explination- just mysterious unspecified "errors"
What this ruling has done, is to make it so that, as a practical matter, to contest an election, you must have either videotape or eyewitness testimony of someone stuffing ballot boxes, or removing ballots from ballot boxes. If this is the case, why do we even bother with reconciliation?
To top it of, the judge didn't even give King County a "stern talking to". He found that they were "lax" and "unconcerned" with errors, but there was no editorializing about how their behavior had damaged voter confidence in the election, or admonishions demanding they improve their conduct so as to prevent this from happening in the future. To put it bluntly, the judge told the 50% of Washington State who voted for Rossi to go to hell.
Posted by: Sparrow on June 6, 2005 11:05 AM
It was indeed an honest election, your man lost by 129 (133 now) votes. Go call Sammy Boy Reed and he'll tell you the same thing. Is King County a big county? Yes. Do they have more people there than anywhere else? Yes. Is there elections department perhaps... "mismanaged" to put it lightly? Yes. But was there fraud, or the