Those who have read my posts since the election know that I am nearly certain that fraudulent votes gave Christine Gregoire her narrow margin in our governor's race. But I also said, in this post, that I was not sure that Dino Rossi should go to court. And I worried that, if Rossi did go to court, he would lose in the battle for public opinion. I am happy to say that, at least according to the most recent polls, Rossi won the battle for public opinion — and would have to be rated the favorite in a 2008 rematch.
That's the bright side. The dark side is that my worst fears about distributed vote fraud* have proven true. Our current laws (and administrative practices in King County) encourage individuals to commit vote fraud — and make it extraordinarily difficult to prove their fraudulent votes changed the results of any given election. Before the trial, I tried to think of a way that the Republicans could prove their case to a judge who is, unless I missed something, not an expert in statistics or vote patterns. Nothing that I could think of was feasible, given the time and money available.
And that's the most infuriating thing about distributed vote fraud. That it has changed the results of some elections is certain, but it is almost impossible to prove that it did so in any given election. By disconnecting the people who commit the fraud (mostly individual voters) from those who benefit from it, distributed vote fraud makes it almost risk free to both groups. For that reason, I expect it to increase in future elections, unless we change our laws and our election officials — beginning with King County executive Ron Sims.
(*As always when I mention distributed vote fraud, I urge you to read my disclaimer on the subject, if you have not already done so.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 06, 2005 01:16 PM | Email ThisWhat a laugh. We have a legislature that essentially ignores the will of the people with regard to iniatives and legions of lawyers whose sole purpose in life is to block reform (see the No New Gas Tax initiative).
To top it all off, the mechanisms by which We the People are supposed to control the democracy are hopelessly corrupted. So what does he expect us to do?
Anyhow, all WA state really needs is a runoff provision. Any election with a margin of victory less than 1% goes to an automatic runoff between the top two vote getters. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 6, 2005 01:28 PM"The court threw out everything the Republicans were saying. What does this mean? It means that Christine Gregoire, excuse me, Governor Gregoire will be governor for at least 3 more years. Unless she REALLY screws up and needs to be impeached. After that... I hope the Rs can put up a good candidate. Rossi would probably win as most Washingtonians believe that he won anyway. I also hope that they do NOT try this before the Supreme Court. It would be better (politically) to let it go and concentrate on the future. And we all know our Supreme Court will NOT overturn this ruling.
This also shows that there is no point in contesting an election in the state of Washington. The burden of proof is simply too high. The Republicans (and Democrats) showed that there were FAR more illegal and inappropriate votes than the margin of victory. But because we do not know how these individuals individually voted, we cannot deduct them from the totals. Also, we know that whenever there are errors of these types in an election it will not matter, so they are effectively legal and acceptable.
I am convinced that the only way out of these situations in the future is to let this one go (for it is truly lost) and concentrate on true election reform. I would have to start with a people's initiative mandating that voters must show ID in order to vote. Permanent absentee balloting must go. We should re-request once per year, and show ID, if order to vote absentee. Allowances must be made for military voters. Next, all new voters must prove citizenship before they can register. After that, I would have the old voting rolls thrown out so that EVERYONE must re-register under the new law. We must cleanse the voter rolls.
This is a good place to start. After this... we can see where it goes.
Cheers."
Posted by: Jeff in KC on June 6, 2005 01:30 PMRossi could not be blamed for turning his back on the whole lousy, rotten, crooked mess of WA state politics. He took on this kamikaze ride at the urging of the bigwigs in DC and they turned their back on him when it came time to wine and dine Fraudoire in DC recently. He worked his butt off and ran a good, honest campaign and won the election and then had it stolen, and gets no justice from the lousy, crooked judicial system in this country. Just tell these lying, cheating politicans and judges to go stick their heads up their butts.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 6, 2005 01:31 PMHere is the best I have seen after scanning hundreds of posts today on this blog and in other forums:
"It is unfortunate that the Reps didn't ask the judge to reconsider his earlier ruling on crediting, in light of the trial testimony. However, if it can be shown that the judge erred in relying on the incorrect definition of crediting, and should instead have used the one that came out during the trial, then it may be possible to prove illegal votes based on the pre-canvass crediting.
These illegal votes would be the voterless ballots in both the absentee and provisional counts. For these votes, proportional deduction might be acceptable, as these votes constitute the universe of such illegal votes (as determined by the official KCE records), and also because these votes cannot be tied to specific voters, thus there is no argument that these votes differ in distribution from the rest of the votes, due to being cast by males, or felons, etc.
Having thus proven illegal votes, the misconduct by KCE would have to be reconsidered, in furtherance of the argument that misconduct by elections officials had rendered the actual result of the election unknowable."
ewaggin, this is very interesting and is easy for me to assimilate.
Do you think this would be grounds for an appeal? And do you think the WSSC would be an impartial body in this case?
>>>I have since sent this via email to Dino Rossi.
Posted by: Michael on June 6, 2005 01:33 PMBut he didn't say how the voters can do that now, did he. There are several options available. Some have been discussed here. Some have not.
Posted by: jimg on June 6, 2005 01:35 PMAnd when he cliamed a male felon is/is not more likely to vote for Rossi (not sure WHAT he was trying to say there) I just had to laugh in disgust. Personally I am looking forward to US Senator Rossi elected in '06 and Gregoire ending what is already a disasterous term in '08 with a GOP win. Change is hard and sometimes ugly, but the dems won a classic pyrrhic victory today.
Posted by: AJStrata on June 6, 2005 01:41 PMVoter reform will be passed by the democrat legislature on their terms.
I believe any citizen's initiative for voter reform will be struck down by any number of activist courts. I base this on privacy, intimidation, and conflict with existing statutes. The laws in WA have been written over many years by persons that are controlled by liberal unions. A study of election law in WA quickly shows these laws favor democrat activists. For example, the homeless are allowed to vote even if it is not known whether such a person exists or still exists within state borders, and so on.
The best approach I can see is my former post to Jim Miller regarding ewaggin. Although I could laugh away the prospect of appeal in a partisan supreme court, I don't know for sure the WSSC is not impartial. I just assume it is because everyone else believes it is.
I wouldn't give up the court case yet though because as Jim Miller observed, it has helped the Rossi team win the PR battle.
Posted by: Michael on June 6, 2005 01:43 PMYes, I think that this was one more case of a judge without the proper technical (in this case statistical) background coming to an incorrect conclusion based on junk testimony. How dare this turkey claim that Katz doesn't know what he's talking about, and Adoph (!) does?
There is a real problem with the courts "finding facts" (as opposed to determining them) using "experts". The judicial system itself is broken in this regard, and as more and more technical matters are litigated, we are going to see more and more rubbish decisions.
We can debate whether or not his hands were tied, and how bad the statuates are, but there can be no debate that he took every opportunity to bend things in favor of the D's.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 01:49 PMOkay, let's review the options and relevant timelines.
1. Voter reform initiative. This will take at least 2 years to write a good one and get it on the ballot. And that's assuming the legislature doesn't submarine it by passing sham "reforms". Chance of success = medium to low
2. Change the legislature. Timeframe: Next several election cycles. There's no way we're going to get a serious [R] majority in Olympia in the State House for at least 10 years. Let's not kid ourselves. The Senate is a possibility within the next 4 years. Still, that's 4 years
of Christine's tax increases. Chance of success = LOW.
3. Get Dino elected in 2008. This assumes he still wants the job. And without a friendly legislature, his hands are tied. Chance of success = high if Dino doesn't relocate to another state.
4. Boot Ron Sims the hell out of office in King County. He's the head of the snake as it were. As a matter of fact, I just gave $100 to David Irons' campaign. The odds of beating Sims in his county with the election department as it is are virtually zero.
5. Get an [R] dominated King County council. Also a virtual certainty never to happen.
If anyone has any other remedies or at least a more positive vision, clue me in 'cause I'd love to hear it.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 6, 2005 01:49 PMYou don't beat evil deeds with more evil deeds. Don't try it, it never works. It only brings you down. Take the high road, stay on the high road, and work ten times harder than the enemy.
Our system of government has a mechanism for peaceful revolutions and rebellions. We are in the middle of one. Is it pretty? Of course not. But it's a heckuva lot better than the alternative.
They may control the ballot box today, but we will eventually be able to wrest control from them, and we'll do it legally and with our vigilance. Sure we lost this battle, but the war doesn't go to the swift or strong!
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 6, 2005 01:49 PMThere's very little chance to win on appeal given the ruling, and there's a lot to gain politically from Rossi declaring that he's willing to abide by the judge's decision and taking the high road.
The Democrats will wish they had been more careful in what they wished for when the next election cycles come around.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 6, 2005 01:50 PMInstead of bellyaching about which way the cookie crumbled, why don't you all do some criticial thinking as to why Rossi could NOT gain a plurality of votes? Dems need to do the same, by the way.
Want to win the next election? Put forward a candidate with a plan, and mobilize your base. With all the paranoid talk of fraud, conspiracy, raising taxes, etc., you'd think that a plague of locusts were about to descend. Don't like it? Get a better candidate, mobilize your base. Period.
I agree. Going to the State Supreme Court is a total waste of time. The dems won this round. All we can do is work hard enough to make it so the elections are nowhere near close enough for them to cheat.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 6, 2005 01:53 PMWe are going to have twice as many able-bodied volunteers in this next election. If they try anything, they will get caught. If they lose and try to "fix" it we will know. They already got caught red-handed committing fraud, and we are going to shout that from the rooftops and tell the people of King County that this is what the D's give you!
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 6, 2005 01:53 PMI disagree that Ron Sims is untouchable. In fact, I think that he is very vulnerable at this time and the republican have a 50-50 chance of beating him.
There is no way that King County Elections will survive as it is today intact. Trust me there will be heads rolling in the short term by Sims in an effort to "shore-up" support.
Posted by: jaybo on June 6, 2005 01:57 PM- but we probably cannot
The court failed to do the job the check & balance system put them in place to do !
Posted by: roofdoggie on June 6, 2005 01:58 PMTime to move on and take Judge Bridge's statement to heart. The voters must make changes!! INITIATIVES ARE A WASTE OF TIME! We need systemic reform and the only way to get that is to run GOOD candidates and " clean house" in Olympia. Rossi gave the blueprint for running a successful campaign time for state candidates to use this and elect more reform minded individuals.
King county is a horribly ran county and we need a king county executive that will make changes. We also need someone better than David Irons to run against Simms.
I will leave on this note, Rossi should run for the US Senate and not wait until 08 to run against Gregiore. Rematches never work out! Reichert should be groomed to run against her in 08!
Posted by: Mr. Right on June 6, 2005 02:01 PMAs much as I'd like to believe that, David Irons has an even bigger uphill fight than Rossi did. Sims will get 90% of the Seattle vote as the propellerheads in Capital Hill and Fremont don't even think before filling in the [D] ovals. That's enough for him to overwhelm the rest of the county.
There is no way that King County Elections will survive as it is today intact. Trust me there will be heads rolling in the short term by Sims in an effort to "shore-up" support.
There will be cosmetic changes in KCE. Nicole Way is gone, and probably Fell. Other than that, Sims will push for his shiny new building and 14 more heads...and do absolutely nothing about the rest of it. Why should he?
The litmus tests are Huennekins (sp) and Logan. If either of those 2 morons still draws a paycheck 6 weeks from now you'll know that Sims isn't serious about election reform.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 6, 2005 02:02 PMHowever, I see a green light for sloppy voting in the future. It's a national embarassment of an election. Conservatives had better get a LOT more vocal like the immigration assistance groups and other government-freebie-loving lobbies.
Yes--I feel cheated, but I feel worse for our military voters and their families who are paying the REAL tab for this precious right to vote. My Thanks to our military, even if my vote was canceled by some illegal alien or dufus election bureaucrat.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 6, 2005 02:04 PMBut, for whatever reason, the Republicans cowered from claiming fraud, cowered from pleading fraud, and, for the most part, cowered from establishing fraud as part of their case. I suspect was a cue that Rossi dictated. Maybe Rossi didn't want to openly accuse Gregoire and the Democrats of stealing the election, perhaps believing that would turn public opinion against him. And that's why he lost.
Posted by: jaybird on June 6, 2005 02:09 PMI am a bit shocked that the judge just accepted the felon vote list from the Dems though. I seriously doubt that he or anyone else on his staff verified that their voter list was accurate. The GOP put a lot of effort in trying to make their list accurate, but of course it was incomplete, so of no real value in the end.
The judge seemed to buy into the Dem logic hook, line and sinker, "if you can't prove fraud you can't invalidate the election."
Also, the judge seemed to quote a lot of RCWs, but not many of the WACs governing the election, if any. Many WACs were not followed, but he didn't seem to care. "It's not my problem" is how he came across. "Don't bother me with this."
The judge spoke of election workers in King Co taking our money and not doing there job. Well, there is one judge sitting in Wenatchee that seems to be doing just the same.
At this point I think Dino should either drop politics altogether or run against Cantwell. I don't care what he said in the past about not wanting to do that. He's lost this challenge so he's not going back on any word not to run. Hanging around for 3+ years provides no guarantee of a win in '08. He's got the name recognition now and the voters behind him. I say go for the Senate :-)
Posted by: Tucker on June 6, 2005 02:09 PMThis decision sounds like a job for Karl Rove.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 02:10 PM"I would have to start with a people's initiative mandating that voters must show ID in order to vote."
Here's your problem with that:
Right now the burden of proof is on the government to show that you are *not* who you say you are. The presumption of identity rests with the individual. This is a libertarian approach, and thank goodness for that.
Think carefully before saying you would prefer the statist approach, where the burden of proof of identity is on the individual.
Remember, this is not private enterprise. This is not some bank, where to open an account you have to play by the bank's rules, take it or leave it.
No, this is our government, which no matter how you might feel today, is you and me and all of us.
This is not Democrat vs. Republican. This is not liberal vs. conservative. This is not Gregoire vs. Rossi. This is the individual vs. the state.
Think very carefully before you give the state the power to force you to prove your identity so that you can exercise your inalienable rights.
Posted by: Ivan on June 6, 2005 02:13 PMThe GOP and the BIAW cannot prove one instance of fraud, so back to the dry well of "distributed vote fraud" which allows you to use the word fraud and yet not mean fraud. In other words, more blog-fraud.
If you really want to direct your anger in a meaningful way, direct it against the people who lied to you, used words like "fraud" or "cheated" when they had no proof, people who played with your emotions just to make some cheap propoganda points. At least demand facts from your side, not just cheap propoganda. The next time someone on this board says there was fraud in an election, ask them to prove it instead of just submisively belieiving everything they said.
The truth is out there. Apparently for everyone but the people who only read this board or only listen to KVI, it was there to be had for months.
Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 02:16 PMThe truth is out there? Well, it sure isn't in the Dave Ross show or the PI/Times compost.
Still, nice reference to the X-Files. It's appropriate in that Space Aliens will land in King County on the same day we get meaningful election reform.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 6, 2005 02:18 PMOne of the major problems with this verdict is that it rewards officials for lying.
The problem isn't just that King County violated the law. It is also that KC Elections deliberately concealed these violations and other problems from the canvassing board (which is in itself a violation of the law, of course).
The canvassing board was kept in the dark about KC's failure to investigate poll-site discrepancies in violation of WAC 434-253-204.
King County Elections deliberately falsified a report to the canvassing board to cover up their failure to obey WAC 434-240-270 and reconcile the number of absentee ballots received with the number processed.
So the canvassing board illegally certified the returns in ignorance of the facts. The Secretary of State relied on this certification to certify the election, and the legislature to award the certificate of election.
But the real problem is not that the facts were concealed from officials. The real problem is that the facts were concealed from us.
The King County Canvassing Board works for the people of King County. The Secretary of State and the members of the legislature work for the people of Washington. We are entitled to know what they are doing. The facts about King County's lawbreaking should have been reported so that at every stage of the process there could have been an informed public debate about the proper course of action.
Had there been an opportunity for such a debate, based on all the facts, Judge Bridges' decision might have been easier to swallow. At least he would have been able to rightly claim that the people had been given an opportunity to make their opinions known to their representatives and elected officials, and that those officials had made their decisions in full possession of the facts.
Instead, King County officials managed to (illegally) cover up the true scope of the malfeasance until after certification, denying the people their right to an informed debate. Then the judge decided it wasn't his job to enforce the law.
This decision is a big "screw you" to the people of Washington.
Welcome to the Banana Republic.
Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 02:19 PMBe angry today fellow Conservatives, but be more determined tomorrow.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 6, 2005 02:22 PMThose that would say that in hindsight the GOP could never have won, I would make the following observations:
- Judge Bridges would have accepted the illegal vote case if he could be given evidence of who the illegal votes went to. For the five illegal votes he had that info for he ruled those votes should be deducted from the totals. Unfortunately for Rossi, that meant Gregoire's final win is now by 133 votes instead of 129.
- His ruling did not say you can't dismiss the result based on voter fraud, it said you can only do so with clear evidence of voter fraud. Had the GOP provided witness to the fraudulent acts or real evidence, then perhaps he would have had a more difficult time ruling otherwise. As it was, the GOP lawyers provided no evidence and made his job easy.
So what happens now? My guess is Rossi finally concedes. There is no chance of him winning an appeal since the verdict was so devastating. Rossi will try to look magnanimous, but he's already tainted, so fat chance that will work.
As for us, the little people, we have an opportunity to impress on all the counties, not just King county, that they need to do a better job on future elections. This is a bipartisan issue we should all be willing to agree on. Some election reform has been made, and some more will be needed. We should also expect it will cost money to make some of the needed changes, so we better be willing to accept that fact, or else we'll likely just recreate the environments that got us to this point in the first place.
I'm willing to back up any voices here in favor of reasoned election reform, with my own calls for such.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 6, 2005 02:25 PM"The Court also rules that KingCo be renamed ABSURDISTAN in honor of me"!
Posted by: dude on June 6, 2005 02:25 PMI guess if he looked into plane crashes the airline customers would have to start working on the planes and doing the pre flight checklist themselves lest they complain about being wrecked on the side of the mountain.
I guess it is in our hands to change the 'system' but will the Queen smite us down for daring to want a republic and not a dictatoriship with 'Viva Fidel' style voting?
We now have a system of perfect checks and balances......Move On Stuffs and the Candidate benefits and the payoff is right before us in the legislature and the 3 monkeys are the auditors.
Our checks and balances lie on the floor urinated on by Bridges finding the facts to be true but concluding it is better to kiss the Queen's ring rather than telling the castle owner's to run a 'fair' kingdom. Right is not fairness a virtue?There's some good crap over here.
I hear Jim loud and clear how would this have been proven....in court....it was, however, proven where it matters. Look for more desparate governace rather than governing.
Up 'til now, the Dems have been ham-strung (or incompetent, depending on your point-of-view) in the PR war. To give them their due, it is always harder to defend yourself in the press from a charge of fraud than it is to make that claim. But now, if the GOP screams fraud, all the Dems have to do is trot out the Judge's findings of fact about "No evidence" and scream, "Liar!" at the GOP. The GOP had every opportunity to introduce credible evidence of fraud or that illegal votes changed the outcome of the election -- this judge let in everything. But the GOP couldn't do it. You have to believe that if they could have done it, they would have. Since they didn't, they couldn't. Since you have to believe the GOP put everything they could into this, you also have to believe that they came up dry. There is no evidence that fraud occurred or that illegal votes changed the election. The judge's opinion could not have been more devastating to the GOP PR campaign than if the Dems had written it themselves (and I suppose that some of you will believe they did). The media advantage has shifted.
The polls will shift markedly. The GOP has succeeded in legitimizing Gregoire today and in taking Rossi down from the cross. This court determination undermines everything that the GOP has done with PR over the last six months. Sure, the right wing of the GOP still will believe what they are told, but the famous Washington independent voter will believe that Rossi had his day in court and couldn't make any of his allegations stick - in a Republican county court. Far better to have allowed Rossi to gracefully concede, to allow the state to move on, last December, and screamed fraud without having to prove it. Look for Rossi to concede today at 5 PM. That is the only way the GOP can possibly salvage this mess now.
Posted by: Northern Coho on June 6, 2005 02:30 PMFraud did exist. But the judge wouldn't allow it because it hadn't been raised in earlier pleadings. In addition, Rebublicans couldn't say who committed the fraud.
Several years ago, my house was broken into and many things taken. The thieves were never caught. This does not mean I wasn't burglarized.
Who illegally put provisional ballots into the accuvotes? Just because you can't identify them doesn't mean that they didn't do it.
What was stolen from the electorate was the certainty that every legal vote counts and that illegal votes will not be allowed to cancel legal votes.
Just like the D's, lets all vote absentee, then go to 10 different polling places and cast provisional ballots. The message sent this AM was that it cannot be proven as intential or illegal and if they slip through and get counted, oh-well thats just the way it is.
What a f#@ked-up system.
A Judge in the State of Washington, just told the World, their Democracy isn't real? He admits that the Election was severely corrupted, and he let it stand?
yikes...
Posted by: boy michael on June 6, 2005 02:42 PMLong live the rule of law!
Rossi can now go back to hukstering real estate!
Posted by: Donnageddon on June 6, 2005 02:45 PMREICHERT FOR GOV. IN 08!!!!
Posted by: johnny on June 6, 2005 02:49 PMBut in any case, I do agree it's time to move on. A WSSC appeal does not appear to be much good at this point. But Rossi should NOT concede. He didn't lose.
Send Fraudoire a message - www.nonewgastax.com.
Posted by: Palouse on June 6, 2005 02:54 PMIf the Supreme court side with Judge Bridges then they could have quietly ended the case. It is apparent that Judge Bridges had no interest in any prior legal precedent despite his lip service.
Considering his lack of courage to even speak out about the gross incompetance showed by King county makes me wonder why he did not just grant the Democrats motion to dismiss over a week ago.
Posted by: TG on June 6, 2005 02:54 PMThat's interesting. I wonder too.
Posted by: rolling eyes on June 6, 2005 03:01 PM"What bothers me is that the judge decided the case incorrectly on the basis he cited. My understanding is that if someone signs off on results knowing that they were fase, he committed fraud. "
What was missing is a showing that tied it to the proposition that the fraud was done to favor or help one side. As in admission to the effect, "I signed off on the false results so it would help Gregoire win." There was no such showing proving or even suggested that there was fraud for the purpose of helping Gregoire win. That is what was needed.
Posted by: jaybird on June 6, 2005 03:05 PM"The state legislature should have demanded a revote, if for no other reason than the election the state held had obvious defects, especially in King County. That would have pre-empted the need for a lawsuit and allowed for a positive solution and a chance to fix the problems with illegal voters. The failure of the state legislature to act in protection of the credibility of its electoral system should be a historical black mark on this group of legislators." (emphasis added)
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 6, 2005 03:05 PMSend you thoughts to the SOS office, let him know if your disgusted, remind him he won't be getting your vote next election cycle.
elections@secstate.wa.gov
Posted by: RDM on June 6, 2005 03:07 PMThere are those who say that violence is not the answer. They say that violence is never the solution. They say that violence solves nothing. They say it will only lead to bloodshed. They say that this is America. They are in denial. They fear. They are rationalizing their fears. They will do nothing.
Our forefathers knew that to wait for the majority to come around, to come to their senses, to see the wrongness, was a losers game. Freedom is won and kept by minoritys. How many free countrys are there in the world? The majority will NEVER come around.
Xiaoding
Posted by: Xiaoding on June 6, 2005 03:10 PMYou stupid dipshits are CATTLE up there in Washington State; I *told* you to protest JUST like the Ukranians and the Lebenese, but you SAT ON YOUR FAT FWUKING ASSES AND POSTED TO YOUR FAT FWUKING BLOGS ...
...and accomplished NOTHING.
Mooooooo on, you dumb cows.
Posted by: Mike18xx on June 6, 2005 03:14 PMGo ahead, repeal it. See what happens to jobs in this state.
You're right that judges are appointed to a case at random from the pool of judges available in that county. In the case of Chelan County, the pool consists of three, count them, three, judges (one of whom was struck by a red county auditor, presumably at the instance of the GOP). The point you seem to miss is that the county is entirely red and elects its judges. One can make some assumpotions about the values of the judges in the pool, without resorting to proportional analysis.
Posted by: Northern Coho on June 6, 2005 03:18 PMOr was that just Republican officials?
Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 03:22 PMWe can now move on and do other things. Like concentrate on surgically removing Maria Can'twin from her seat, metaphorically keelhauling Ron Sims, and making sure Graham Kerr makes some good food from his Skagit Valley home.
Posted by: Big M on June 6, 2005 03:25 PMI remember when Democrats said that government officials shouldn't be above the law. I don't ever remember when they believed it.
Rossi has stated that since he still has young children at home, working in Washington D.C. is not an option for him. Perhaps he will change his mind, but I don't think so.
I hope and pray that Ron Sims only makes "cosmetic changes" to the elections department, this will make David Irons job much easier.
I believe that the ideals of the conservative movement can get traction in this state. We need more conservatives that are not afraid to say the same.
Posted by: jaybo on June 6, 2005 03:41 PMThe whole point is that the fraud occurred and was testified to by the country electors. Who it benefited is totally beside the point. the people were cheated in either case because their votes were miscounted. Fraud occurs no matter who it benefits. If it benefited Rossi it would still have been fraud.
Posted by: dick on June 6, 2005 03:42 PMMany of us would like to know the answer to at least two questions. 1) what is the threshhold for filing election challenges (Bridges' decision has made them all but impossible, is that the legislative intent?) and 2) how do you account for the 1,600 votes that were discarded (even the Wisconsin method is better than not at all) I think Bridges decision has created more confusion and not less by providing no remedy for nullifying these votes.
Posted by: TG on June 6, 2005 03:42 PMThat being the case, why is Gregoire still Governor, 'possession is nine points of the law'?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 6, 2005 03:45 PMWhat makes you think repealing the gas tax will have a worse effect on jobs than keeping it? This is the fallacy that those who support this tax believe. That somehow creating these public sector jobs that go towards creating these behemoth projects will outweigh the private sector jobs lost because of higher taxation. Higher gas taxes = less disposable income = less to spend on those consumer goods which support our state sales tax. Not to mention the inflation it creates because everything you and I buy in the store gets here on a truck and they pass those additional costs along to their buyers who pass them along to us, a further drag on the economy.
We already have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, and guess what, increasing the gas tax by 33% isn't going to improve it.
Posted by: Bob on June 6, 2005 03:50 PMHe got rid of over 1,000 votes. So now aren't the totals that each candidate received meaningless? Wouldn't this be a huge grounds for the Republicans to appeal with? I don't see how CG could win by 129 now 133 votes after the judge nullified over 1000 votes.
Thanks,
Mark D
Posted by: Mark D on June 6, 2005 03:53 PM1687 illegal votes.
I am disgusted with the election community in this state.
I am disgusted with King County.
I am disgusted with the pap the legislature is disquising as election reform.
I am disgusted with the Office Secretary of State, despite the fact that the Sect. of State is purported to be of my preferred party.
This may be a done deal with this selected (by you Mr Reed, as well as King County corruption and the judge) Governor, but the citizens will not forget this slap to us and the integrity we should be able to expect in our elections. Our memories are long.
Please sir, enjoy your present time in office but do not bother to ever run for office as a Republican again, do not bother to ever ask for my vote again.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 6, 2005 03:56 PMThe Democrats in office will loose tomorrow!
The former A/G will lead her party down the drain.
Posted by: Dan S. on June 6, 2005 03:58 PMSome aggrieved persons may want to publicly display the King County flag with "slash-out" markings, or a "don't tread on me" watermark...
Or how about a public burning of the King County flag?
Posted by: SpaceNeedleBoy on June 6, 2005 04:01 PMHere is my simple question. Is there any number of illegal votes cast that would invalidate an election? If 1600 illegal votes do not invalid an election with a margin of victory of 129 would 16,000 illegal votes have invalidated the election? How about 160,000 illegal votes?
The judge has just legitimized illegal voting because illegal votes now count and thus invalidate the votes cast legally
Posted by: dmeyers on June 6, 2005 04:12 PMThat is my point it is now legal as long as you don't admit to it. Just think of the many ways it is possible to vote illegally and I bet you will see that it goes up exponentially from here.
Posted by: Mike IvotedRossi on June 6, 2005 04:16 PMhttp://www.metrokc.gov/elections/register.htm#form
Download and make a houndred copies, remember it is illegal only if you get caught and or admit to it. Since I am not Snoopy, it could not be me voting as Snoopy even if it did come to my work.
Posted by: Mike IvotedRossi on June 6, 2005 04:21 PMYou are all sore looooosers and crybabies. Why don't you all move to Texas or some other southern religious state where your every move will be monitored by the police and your pastor and your neighbor and you can get a job at the local WalMart or the state prison?
Posted by: Scott on June 6, 2005 04:22 PMI'll grant that this state is currently a "blue" state. Not for long. In most polls 57% of the population believes that Rossi won the election. Much more than the % that actually voted for him. There is probably about 35% of the electorate in this state that will vote for D's no matter what (about 70% of that in Seattle proper) and about 30% that will vote for R's no matter what. The remaining 35% are willing to listen to the arguments and be swayed each election. This 35% is actually more conservative leaning when faced with specific issues. As evidenced by the initiatives passed in the last decade. Well, this entire fiasco has certainly strengthened the base 30% of the Republican Party in this state. It has also enlightened the 35% of "undecided” voters.
The Japanese won a victory at Pearl Harbor. With that victory, however, they realized that they "awoke a sleeping giant." I'm positive that this sham of an election has awoken the "sleeping giant" of conservatives in this state.
Looks to me like you may have one the battle but will most assuredly loose the war.
Mark
BTW, the judge saying something like "no evidence of fraud was presented" is NOT the same as saying "there wasn't any fraud." It's like OJ's trial. He was found "not guilty," with is not the same as innocent.
Anyone with 1/2 a brain (which appears to include most Dems who post here) can see that over 1600 illegal votes were cast. To say they did not change the outcome of the election is fantasy. Does ANYONE truly believe most of those felon votes actually went for Rossi and not the queen? I'd bet 70% of them went for her... but try getting any felon to admit whom they voted for. The Ds had a list of over 600 and they came up with a big fat four "voters" that agreed to a deposition... and of course, none of that four said they voted for Gregoire did they.
And the ignorant judge bought into that felon arguement by the Dems. He acted like four lousy felons who admit they voted for Rossi from a Rossi-won precinct was enough to invalidate proportional analysis. I'd say a sample of four out of over 1600 is a pretty lame percentage to base your decision on.
Posted by: Tucker on June 6, 2005 04:31 PMAs to why Bridges didn't just "dismiss the case two weeks ago": He was bending over backwards to run this case efficiently. The way Bridges did it, he let all of the evidence in -- even when he had severe doubts about whether it would be relevant under the law -- so that the Supreme Court will have a complete record of all of the possibly-relevant evidence before it when it rules. If the Supreme Court believes that Bridges is wrong on his first point about proportional deduction and finds it valid science in this case, the evidence is all there for them to rule on Bridges' second point concerning the impact of proportional deduction. This means one trial in Superior Court, and one appeal to the Supreme Court. (If you do it the other way, and the Supreme Court disagrees on some of the preliminary questions, this thing could go on forever, like this: 1. Ruling by Bridges granting motion to dismiss and excluding evidence because proportional deduction isn't good science. 2. Months later, Supreme Court decides to accept proportional deduction, without evidence before it of what the effect of proportional deduction is. 3. Weeks or months later, back to Bridges' court, for evidence on proportional deduction; Bridges decides one way or the other about the effect of proportional deduction and whether it shows Rossi wins by "clear and convincing evidence." 4. Months later, after additional briefing, a new decision by the Supreme Court.....)
Mark D,
The illegal votes are deducted from the statewide totals for the limited purpose of determining how many signatures are needed to qualify voter initiatives, etc. (those standards are based on a percentage of the votes cast in the gubernatorial election). But because we only know that the votes were illegal, but don't have clear and convincing evidence to show how those votes were cast, no deductions in Gregoire/Rossi/Bennett's totals (other than those few proven by deposition testimony).
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 6, 2005 04:34 PM1) SAM REEDS OPPONENT
2) JUDGE BRIDGES OPPONENT
All that Judge did today is give the democrats carte blanch to cheat every election as long as they keep it close.
Change to officals in this state, how you vote them out and they cheat to win. WHAT IN THE HELL DID THAT DUMB HICK JUGDE THINK WE WERE TRYING TO DO IN THIS ELECTION. We were trying to get rid of them and they just stuff enough to put them over the top.
THIS IS A COMPLETE F-JOB FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM - I'M OUT HERE AND THIS STATE CAN CONTINUE TO SINK TO THE 7TH LEVEL OF HELL.
God Bless Good luck to the rest you your going to need it.
Nope. I'll stay right here, thank you. If you think for a minute that this is just going to go away, then you'll be very surprised when the fun starts.
Besides, weren't you all supposed to move to Canada after NcChimpyBushitlerstein won in November? Twice?
Posted by: jimg on June 6, 2005 04:40 PM3) RON SIMMS OPPONENT
4) No New Gas Tax Initiative
I tend to think that Carlson is correct, this is all about PR, and Rossi won't appeal.
Posted by: JDB on June 6, 2005 04:41 PMHe changed the vote difference between the candidates by a zero deduction from Gregoire, 4 vote deduction from Rossi, and a 1 vote deduction from Bennett.
Gordon
I'll never vote for one again, not even for dogcatcher. This is the last straw.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 6, 2005 05:27 PMI think its time that East Puget Sound and other rural areas set up their own county and succeed from King.
Earl
I hope it's haunted.
Posted by: rolling eyes on June 6, 2005 06:06 PMOf course. That's what this whole thing as been about.
Posted by: scott158 on June 6, 2005 06:13 PMAnother thing, I don't think our chances of changing things are really so bad. After all, even with all the problems of starting as a virtual unkown, going against the local liberal MSM, and with all the fraud and cheating, Rossi still won. He's only gained in stature, and I expect will continue to do so. If this gets people motivated to do something more than fire off the occasional SP comment, if enough of you actually get involved, then we're sure to change things.
Not overnight, but eventually.
And if not, then I am outta here for Idaho! ;)
Posted by: chuck Miller on June 6, 2005 07:12 PMFunny you should say that. I'm giving it until 2006. By then it ought to be appearent which way things are going. If there isn't a revolt by then, I'm trying to decide between Sand Point and Coeur d'Alene. They both look nice.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 6, 2005 07:38 PMThat is the problem. Forget election reform initiatives the state of WA needs an entire new law governing contesting an election. It should be real simple. If the number of illegal votes or unreconciled votes is greater than the margin of victory then the results cannot be certified.
How ridiculous is the ruling because the republicans could have shown that 1million illegal votes were cast but because you cannot determine how those 1million voted the election is valid.
TIME FOR A NEW CONTEST LAW
Posted by: dmeyers on June 6, 2005 09:48 PM