A post-mortem from attorney Shawn Newman:
Recall my May 6 post to you [see Newman's comment at 9:13pm] where I predicted Rossi's team was in trouble given Bridge's pretrial rulings on burden of proof; 6-point requirement for showing how felons voted; and my prediction that he would reject proportional deduction based on the Frye standard. As for the trial, there's a saying: when everything appears to be going your way, you're in the wrong lane. It is easy to convince yourself of the strength of your case when you're in an echo chamber and the judge is making evidenciary rulings in your favor. From my experience, a judge will avoid reversal on appeal by granting a party's motions, evidence, etc.
As for his ruling, a couple of points. First, he did not cite or distinquish Foulkes. Second, the judge created a no-win situation for Rossi's team by demanding they prove how felons, dead people and illegals voted. Was Rossi's team supposed to subpoena all the illegal voters (including the dead and those out of state) and ask them to waive their 5th amendment rights and incriminate themselves? Even if that was possible, you can bet they would claim it violates civil rights (e.g. 5th amendment and the state constitution's right to ballot secrecy). So, how do you prove what Bridges hung his hat on: causation (i.e. that illegal votes caused Gregoire to win in round 3)? As I recall from Foulkes, causation was not required. The errors, ommissions and mistakes were enough because the amount in dispute exceeded the spread. That's the only logical approach. I view it like a plane crash where res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself - applies: the fact illegal votes exceeded the spread should be enough. I think the risk there would be other cases like this is very slim and would compel election officials to ensure only qualified voters are permitted to vote. I agree with Rossi that the litigation did do a public service by revealing that our voting system has fatal flaws. While Judge Bridges' gratuitious comment that easing voting will not necessarily increase accountability has essentially been ignored by the MSM, his statement that "its up to voters" ignores the fatal flaws in the system. As I noted back on May 6, the politicians want to move on. As previously illustrated by the SOS's election reform package (which included further restrictions on initiatives), those that oppose true election reform will use the case to further undermine accountability (e.g. expanding absentee voting which is, as the Christian Science Monitor editorialized years ago when Oregon went all mail, a "fruitful vineyard for fraud.") [Also see Professor Larry Sabato and Glenn Simpson's book: Dirty Little Secrets - The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics (Times Books 1996)]. Bob Williams and the EFF has done superb work on this, as have you and all those who share their thoughts on sound politics.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 08, 2005 01:24 PM | Email This
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/4929397p-4513319c.html
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 8, 2005 01:34 PMnone of this matters, the case was never going to decided based on any past decisions or law.
Lawyers are the problem not the solution. The solution is obvious.
Posted by: Jim on June 8, 2005 01:40 PMIf effect, he left us without remedy. Because the "problems" were perfomed by employees rather than elected officials we can't vote them out. The fact that the elected officials in charge of these employees benefitted from these "problems", there is no chance that the employees will be prosecuted or disciplined for thier "errors". And finally, since the county that was responsible for the majority of the problems is securely in the hands of the party in power by a significant margin, there is little chance to "vote them out".
Effectively, the rest of the state is held hostage by the partisanship if the party that controls the largest county in the state.
The judge provided an empty "solution" because the voters who are most affected by the problem (those in the other counties that are NOT democrats) are the ones that have no influcence over te part of the governemnt that has the problems, and those that do have the influnce are too partisan to correct it.
Posted by: Eyago on June 8, 2005 02:07 PMAlso when are we going to find out the breakdown on the latest 96 votes that were found in King County?
If I was so sure Christine won the election I would want those two pieces of information so I could use it as part of my argument.
Posted by: Frank on June 8, 2005 02:33 PMI wonder if Bridges just can't understand that, or doesn't care.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 02:33 PMThe judge didn't even require direct testimony (in court) from these criminals, which would at least have allowed him to look them straight in the eye while they lied about who they voted for.
Does anybody believe that these criminals told the truth about who they voted for? Of course they did not. They voted for CG, and then got to vote against DR by falsely claiming that they had voted for him (or the Libertarian...nice touch by the Dems not to have all five claim to have voted for DR), when the Judge ordered their "votes" deducted from DR's total.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 8, 2005 02:48 PMYou say: "As I recall from Foulkes, causation was not required. The errors, ommissions and mistakes were enough because the amount in dispute exceeded the spread. That's the only logical approach."
Your reliance on Foulkes is misplaced. The election contest statutes control here not Foulkes, and those statutes require that any alleged illegal votes, errors or misconduct must have in fact changed the outcome of the election. The statutes are very clear, and neither Judge Bridges or the Supreme Court is entitled to ignore those provisions.
Foulkes was a very poorly reasoned decision, and an example of 1960's judicial activism and arrogance at its height. In Foulkes the number of fraudulently altered votes actually exceeded the original winner's margin of victory, although not the winner's margin in the recount. So it can be argued that the fraud actually did change the results of the election. But the major problem in Foulkes is that it proposed an expansive judical power to correct wrongs based on the Court's notions of equity, but governed by no legal standards. At the time of Foulkes there were two election statutes the "errors" statute and the "contest" statute. The contest statute required any challenge to show that the errors or illegal votes actually changed the result of the election, the errors statute did not. Foulkes was supposedly decided under the "errors" statute, but the court appealed to some inherent "equitable" power also.
Since Foulkes the legislature has combined the two statutes and any illegal votes, errors or misconduct must be showned to have changed the outcome of the election.
I think this is a good policy, but if you don't your dispute is with the legislature not Judge Bridges or the courts.
The GOP claimed some 3000+ illegal and improper votes. Based on your reasoning any election with a margin of victory less than that should be canceled. Indeed, based on your reasoning, if Rossi had been declared the winner after the first count or recount, the election should have been canceled.
Posted by: chew2 on June 8, 2005 03:07 PMThis is common sense, and I'd bet that 90%+ of adults would agree, if you frame the question with a completely non-partisan issue.
Say you run a referendum to approve or reject something called plan A. If 1678 illegal votes are detected and the margin to approve the plan was 129 votes, phrased that way, I honestly think that most grownups would understand that the outcome is actually uncertain, that someone was trying to game the system, and that the question should be asked again, with a much closer eye to prevent cheaters.
But here we do see people disagreeing violently with this common-sense analysis, applied to a particular election.
I assume that some of them have to be entirely sincere. So how do we understand those people? All I can think is that they are so blinded by partisanship that they literally cannot think straight.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 03:09 PMIf the margin of error were less than the 3000 illegal votes (or we could just stick to the 1678 that Bridges recognized as illegal), then yes, the election should be redone.
No matter who won.
"Even" if the Republican won.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 03:14 PMAs far as your contention that the illegal votes must be shown to have affected the outcome, how do you propose that we do that? We can't keep track of how people vote. Civil rights violation and important safeguard on free elections.
We can't ask them how they vote. They would have to admit voting illegally in order to answer the question. Fifth Amendment says we can't make them do that. If we grant immunity how do we know that they are telling the truth. As has been pointed out earlier, if we take a felon's word for how he or she voted, we are in effect, giving them the opportunity to have two illegal votes instead of one. The judge allowed each of the felons that the Dems brought forward to have two free votes. They could have voted for CG during the election, then lied under oath and taken a vote from DR in court. How do we trust a felon who voted illegally to honestly answer the question in court? I certainly don't. Apparently you do since CG got an extra four votes for no apparent legal reason.
Posted by: Calvin A on June 8, 2005 03:25 PM"Effectively, the rest of the state is held hostage by the partisanship of the party that controls the largest county in the state."
Posted by: Shannon K on June 8, 2005 03:31 PMWhile Judge Bridges' gratuitious comment that easing voting will not necessarily increase accountability has essentially been ignored by the MSM, his statement that "its up to voters" ignores the fatal flaws in the system. As I noted back on May 6, the politicians want to move on.That's because it only becomes uncomfortable when it's close. When the election is this close and when the existence of fraud is this transparent, the mask slips and it becomes apparant that the outcome was determined by that fraud. But how often are there state-wide races that are thisclose? Not often, and the politicos and the MSM know it, so they want all this election reform business to just go away.
Sam Reed was in Vancouver and Portland yesterday. And today it's all over the Portland media that Washington is going to adopt and copy Oregon's vote by mail system. The Oregon politicos and media love it, because they really love vote by mail. All kinds of shenanigans take place behind the scenes in Oregon's vote by mail system that ensure that the "right" candidates win, and that the elections are never close enough to get closely scrutinized.
Don't buy into the concept.
Posted by: jaybird on June 8, 2005 03:37 PMThis brings up a few questions about the Democrats discovery of these felons. Note the total ratio of the five affidavits brought forth by the Democrats: four for the Republican candidate, one for Libertarian candidate, and ZERO for the Democratic candidate. Even with the Democrats (laughable) charge that a majority felons vote Republican, we should expect that at least one of the felons would be voting Democrats. The ratio of the affidavits does not add up.
If they randomly picked out a group of felons, you would expect a certain number of Democrat felons in their grouping. Is it a failure of discovery where the Democrats were able to find “Democratic” felons than what was disclosed to the court? A failure to disclose ALL evidence to all parties within a trial is very serious.
If they are “Walk-in” felons that they were able to get affidavits from, isn’t it possible that these felons are doing it for ulterior motives, such as actually removing votes from a candidate that they did not wish to have in office? I don’t buy the criminals with conscience that are willing to right their wrongs by testifying their exact voting record without support of their exact ballot in hand. The temptation of continuing fraud is too great.
These are the exact reasons why so many other states and the United State House of Representatives rely on proportional deduction to remove illegal votes during election contests. It is now apparent that Washington has failed to remember or understand the electoral history of such notorious states as Illinois and New Jersey.
No matter who won."
Precisely. Not only because a FUBARed election shouldn't stand, but because if KC (or anyone else) FUBARs it, and then has to do it over, there will be a price paid by the FUBARers. What is needed is a disincentive to FUBAR.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 8, 2005 03:42 PMBridges said he found their testimony "credible."
I think he lost *his* credibility when he said that.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 03:45 PMI think that's the simplest and fairest way to correct a flawed election. No matter which party or candidate happens to be inconvenienced in any particular contest. The reason we have elections is to express the will of the lawful voters. Maintaining that principle is more important than giving the benefit of the doubt to election workers.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 8, 2005 03:48 PMGiven the misconduct and errors by KCE, NONE OF THE CANDIDATES should have be declared to have won the election.
Of course, the misconduct by KCE included presenting fraudulent reports that had the effect of concealing the misconduct and errors, so nobody knew at the time that there was a problem, let alone how bad a problem it was.
Had KCE submitted honest reports that gave an accurate picture of the extent of the errors, the election would never have been certified, because the actual result of the election would have been, and in fact is, unknowable.
Which last, of course, is precisely the point.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 8, 2005 04:00 PMPer the WACs, an audit trail was supposed to have been kept on the changes. Where duplicates were created, an audit trail was required. Were these audit trails created?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 8, 2005 04:14 PMCertainly we should expect that election officials should run a perfect shop and there should be zero illegal votes. This is clearly the desired goal but what if two fellons voted and the final count was a 1 vote difference. I don't think it is good public policy to spend the money to revote this case. The counting process itself is known to have a error rate of several hundred votes in a statewide election. This error rate cannot be eliminated. In my hypothetical election with a one vote difference in the final count, the counting error rate would most likely produce a different result each time the votes were counted. I would hate to spend the money to revote an election because two fellons accidentially (or intentionally) voted when in fact the election was really a statistical tie.
A better solution to the close election problem is to count three times and if the winning difference is within the vote counting error rate, the election should be decided by lot. Currect law already sets the 'game of chance' as the propoer way to decide an election that is a tie. We should expand this law so that an election is decided by chance when the election is a statistical tie, too.
Posted by: Gordon on June 8, 2005 04:26 PMThat is actually a sound concept. I would support the concept. I just worry about the actual rubber-meets-the-road implimentation details. It just seems like lots of room for monkey business.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 8, 2005 04:36 PMNice point. But the biggest problem is the lack of audit trail that you mention.
Posted by: Eyago on June 8, 2005 04:39 PM"Your reliance on Foulkes is misplaced. The election contest statutes control here not Foulkes, and those statutes require that any alleged illegal votes, errors or misconduct must have in fact changed the outcome of the election. The statutes are very clear, and neither Judge Bridges or the Supreme Court is entitled to ignore those provisions."
First, the election contest statutes include RCW 29A.68.011 which provides that:
"Any justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, or judge of the superior court in the proper county shall, by order, require any person charged with error, wrongful act, or neglect to forthwith correct the error, desist from the wrongful act, or perform the duty and to do as the court orders or to show cause forthwith why the error should not be corrected, the wrongful act desisted from, or the duty or order not performed,whenever it is made to appear to such justice or judge by affidavit of an elector that ... (4) A wrongful act other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been performed or is about to be performed by any election officer"
Based on that statute,I successfully secured a TRO from then Suprme Court Justice Charles Smith against the Pierce County Auditor in 1996. That TRO forced changes in the WACs which were a harbinger for changes in the election statute(s). Rossi's team did not pursue that argument. Consequently, they were left with RCW 29A.68.110 which states: "No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person's legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person."
Second, while Foulkes was from the 1960's, Bridges cited cases from the early 1900's. While the Foulkes case concerned a county commissioner's race rather than a state wide election, it still involved the same fundamental right to vote.
Finally, I agree with the other comments that, regardless of who got more votes, if the number of illegal votes exceeded the spread that should be corrected and there be a revote. Contrary to what you assume, I am not a member of any political party. I am concerned with the integrity of the process both locally and nationally.
This "judge" (goof ball), accepted the following argument as factual and decisive:
KC Election Officials: We're stupid, incompetent, bumbling, blithering idiots who couldn't find our a$$e$ with both hands, but you should still trust our election reports, incomplete and flawed as they are, and trust us to run elections in the future.
IOW, the "I am stupid but I can't help it" argument won the day. It's a laughable, pathetic defense that anyone in their right minds would be ashamed of, but these are 'Rats we're talking about, and they only care about "winning" and protecting Fraudoire. Having any sense of honor or self-respect is secondary to protecting The Big Cheese.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 8, 2005 04:56 PMThis "judge" (goof ball), accepted the following argument as factual and decisive:
KC Election Officials: We're stupid, incompetent, bumbling, blithering idiots who couldn't find our a$$e$ with both hands, but you should still trust our election reports, incomplete and flawed as they are, and trust us to run elections in the future.
IOW, the "I am stupid but I can't help it" argument won the day. It's a laughable, pathetic defense that anyone in their right minds would be ashamed of, but these are 'Rats we're talking about, and they only care about "winning" and protecting Fraudoire. Having any sense of honor or self-respect is secondary to protecting The Big Cheese.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 8, 2005 04:56 PMFocus on slaughtering Maria Can'twin's potential campaign.
Posted by: Sailor Republica on June 8, 2005 04:57 PMYou both raise questions about Bridges accepting the five felons' testimony about how they voted (given that they well could have been convicted of lying, etc.). And Balkstar questions whether it was somehow improper for the Dems only to bring out felon testimony that helped them. There are easy answers to both those questions and they both derive from the same key point -- the Dems just plain did their homework.
First, the Dems presented corroborating evidence about the felons' Republican-voting ways, including a thank-you note from George W. Bush (for a campaign contribution I think) and a photo of him sent as a thank you to one of the felons. They probably found those people by using internet-searchable databases on who's made what political contributions to whom, that sort of thing. (Go to www.fec.gov and check on your family, friends, and neighbors if you like. Creepy, but anyone can do it.)
Second, there's nothing wrong with doing your homework. The fact that the Dems chose those felons is no crime, and they didn't do those depositions secretly -- there was a schedule of depositions in this case, and each side knew exactly what was going on every step of the way. The R lawyers were at those felon depositions to ask any questions, raise any objections, etc. that they wanted to (they just must not have had much to say in light of the corroborating evidence, beyond the testimony itself, of how these folks voted). With all of the information in hand, the R's were free to find their own felons to depose if they wanted to. That's how the system works.
As a lawyer, you're free (in fact, obligated) to present the evidence that helps your own case and leave it to the other side to present counter-witnesses. That's not misleading the court; the Democrats never claimed that those five felons were perfectly representative of all felons (ie, that the illegal felon vote statewide was exactly 80% Rossi, 20% Bennett, and 0% Gregoire) and they obviously would've looked stupid if they'd tried. They used that evidence mainly to poke holes in the R's statistical expert witnesses' theories about proportional deduction.
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 8, 2005 05:11 PMHe would have been as meaningful and helpful if he had read from the Wenatchee phone book.
Posted by: Danny on June 8, 2005 05:16 PMKeep in mind that Bridges was not simply relying on the felons'a affidavits - the Dems also submitted corroborating evidence of the felons' prior political activities, including donations to Republican candidates, letters of appreciation from Republican officeholders, etc., etc. The Dems actually believed Bridges when he laid out his evidentiary requirements before the trail, whereas the Repubs apparently didn't think they would have to meet that standard, and put all of their eggs in the "proportional deduction" basket.
Had the Repubs presented evidence to show that 150 identified felons had illegally voted for Gregoire, I suspect Bridges would have felt bound to subtract those votes from her official total, as he did with Rossi's. Of course, I'm guessing that the Dems had a lot more than just 5 cases in their files, in case the Repubs did exactly that - so the ultimate result may not have changed.
Then again, how many felons have letters from politicians thanking them for their contributions? The 5 the Dems trotted out may well have been the only ones they could find....
Posted by: Patrick on June 8, 2005 05:16 PMRCW 29A.68.011 is the "errors" statute and was originally enacted to permit correct errors in printing ballots and in primary elections. It's wording was made more general, but the Court in Becker said that it did not authorize the setting aside of an election which was only authorized under the election contest statute. In any case, both 29A.68.110 relating to illegal votes, and 29A.68.070 relating to malconduct by an election officer state that you cannot set aside an election unless you show the alleged misconduct changed the outcome of the election. Those provisions limit and qualify the court's power under 29A.68.011. Getting a TRO against some election official was not setting aside an election.
If you want to change the rule because it's too hard to comply with, then go to the legislature and have them do it. The courts cannot make up the law just to give the GOP a remedy.
My personal view as a policy matter is that the fact of illegal votes shouldn't in an of itself change an election result. There are illegal votes in every election. So what. I think you should show that those illegal votes changed the result. You can argue about how strong that showing needs to be, but in this case, even using the GOP's bogus proportional reduction method, they couldn't show enough votes changed to give Rossi the victory. If you really are outraged about felons voting, then do something about keeping them off the rolls.
29A.68.110 states that you cannot invalidate an election unless the illegal votes "appear[ed]"" to have changed the outcome. But 29A.68.050 states that the court can declare another person the winner if it "appears" he got more votes. I do not think the legislature intended to give a judge the power declare another person the winner based on some proportionate reduction formula. That really is too much of a judicial infringement on the political process. But if you want to give that much power to a judge, then go to the legislature and clarify that statutory language.
OP could have sampled the felons to fin
Posted by: chew2 on June 8, 2005 05:25 PMIf you want to settle close gubernatorial elections by drawing lots, like elections are sometimes decided when there is a tie for the highest number of votes (counted, not necessarily real or legitimate, just counted -- wouldn't want to ignore reality), you would need to amend the state constitution to do it right.
ARTICLE III, SECTION 4 RETURNS OF ELECTIONS, CANVASS, ETC. The returns of every election for the officers named in the first section of this article shall be sealed up and transmitted to the seat of government by the returning officers, directed to the secretary of state, who shall deliver the same to the speaker of the house of representatives at the first meeting of the house thereafter, who shall open, publish and declare the result thereof in the presence of a majority of the members of both houses. The person having the highest number of votes shall be declared duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given to such person, signed by the presiding officers of both houses; but if any two or more shall be highest and equal in votes for the same office, one of them shall be chosen by the joint vote of both houses. Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law. The terms of all officers named in section one of this article shall commence on the second Monday in January after their election until otherwise provided by law.
Or, I suppose you could do it the same way our outlaw legislators have done in the case of tied elections: Ignore the constitution they swear to uphold and enact a law requiring a decision by drawing lots.
RCW 29A.60.221 Tie in primary or final election.
(1) If the requisite number of any federal, state, county, city, or district offices have not been nominated in a primary by reason of two or more persons having an equal and requisite number of votes for being placed on the general election ballot, the official empowered by state law to certify candidates for the general election ballot shall give notice to the several persons so having the equal and requisite number of votes to attend at the appropriate office at the time designated by that official, who shall then and there proceed publicly to decide by lot which of those persons will be declared nominated and placed on the general election ballot.
(2) If the requisite number of any federal, state, county, city, district, or precinct officers have not been elected by reason of two or more persons having an equal and highest number of votes for one and the same office, the official empowered by state law to issue the original certificate of election shall give notice to the several persons so having the highest and equal number of votes to attend at the appropriate office at the time to be appointed by that official, who shall then and there proceed publicly to decide by lot which of those persons will be declared duly elected, and the official shall make out and deliver to the person thus duly declared elected a certificate of election.
Ain't it great how carefully the Washington legislators follow the constitution?
My bad.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 8, 2005 05:45 PMSecond..we MUST identify voters more accurately and continuously cleanse and update that database.
GET FOCUSED ON S**T THAT MATTERS!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 8, 2005 05:50 PMThis race was probably not as close as it *appeared*, and that is the key. (Actually it definitely was not as close as it appeared; there was a distinct pattern.)
But by your reasoning, as long as a race *looks* close, we treat it as a tie. That simply rewards distributed voter fraud.
What if there had been, say, 50000 illegal votes. Would you still believe the race was a tie?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 05:54 PMThey've got that base covered already. How are you going to figure out where the dirtbag actually lives who registered to vote listing your own home as his residence?
RCW 29A.08.830
Affidavit -- Administration, notice of challenge.
(1) Any registered voter may request that the registration of another voter be canceled if he or she believes that the voter does not meet the requirements of Article VI, section 1 of the state Constitution or that voter no longer maintains a legal voting residence at the address shown on his or her registration record. The challenger shall file with the county auditor a signed affidavit subject to the penalties of perjury, to the effect that to his or her personal knowledge and belief another registered voter does not actually reside at the address as given on his or her registration record or is otherwise not a qualified voter and that the voter in question is not protected by the provisions of Article VI, section 4, of the Constitution of the state of Washington. The person filing the challenge must furnish the address at which the challenged voter actually resides.
Cute, huh? You can swear that you built your own house on bare ground where no human being other than you has ever lived, but it's not good enough to remove the dirtbag from the rolls.
Posted by: Micajah on June 8, 2005 06:25 PM"I agree with Rossi that the litigation did do a public service by revealing that our voting system has fatal flaws."
Yes, that is the dividend that is growing. As an anecdote, I live in the heart of McDermott's district. My neighbor has always been a lover of liberal and democrat issues. She told me today that she and her husband are not happy with having to put up with three more years of Gregoire.
I don't believe people will forget this travesty of democracy. People seem energized as never before to send a clear message to Olympia. And many democrats that I know seem to want not to be associated with the truth discovered in King County elections.
Posted by: Michael on June 8, 2005 07:00 PMRemember, most apathetic voters will jump on some clerk for issuing the wrong change or not giving them the "sale price." However, when it comes to handing over REAL power over our very lives and earnings, we "never read the owner's manual."
Let this (election) be the fire bell pealing in the night. Now or never. Change or be crushed by the mediocre breaucracy. I choose not to be among the victims again. Think of the Amimal House (movie) rallying speech by John Belushi---
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 8, 2005 07:19 PMYes, that is the dividend that is growing".
Yes I believe that in the end, maybe this was the desired result. The trial brought the chamber pot out into the middle of the parlor for all to behold. If a judge rules that it doesn't stink, somehow the parlor still isn't a pleasant place to be. I think even the trolls know this, which is why they are howling so.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 8, 2005 07:22 PMMaybe we should all be banking where Ron Simms/Paul Berendt do. I mean their bankers appear to be so accountable and the interest rates are sooooooo good....
Posted by: Cliff on June 8, 2005 07:26 PMI don't feel the situation is as hopeless as many here want to gloom and doom about. First off, if I lived in KC, I would put together an initiative (charter amendment, or whatever it is called on the county level) to change the auditor to an elected position. Ron Sims shouldn't have this responsibility. I personally would like to see all election officials (county auditors and Sec. of State) changed to non-partisan, but I am sure both parties would fight this move.
Second, KC voters can oust Ron Sims and vote for different people for the county council.
Third, voters of the state can change Olympia. Vote for a change of your legislator. They obviously aren't doing their job, so vote them out. Get someone in their that actually wants to work for the best interest of the state instead of themselves.
Finally, there should be a new initiative for term limits for state and local offices (may take two initiatives). The reason the last one was thrown out was it included federal offices and thus was against the US Constitution. Let's make our legislators and elected officials temporary offices instead of life-long careers. It would be good to bring in people from private industry to shake things up, instead of life-long politicians. Make all terms a maximum of 8 years and require that politicians can't serve more than 8 years at a time in any position without at least a two year break (e.g., they couldn't serve in the legislature for 8 years and then serve as a State Senator for another 8 years). Let's get regular turnover built into the system. Maybe the politicians would then start thinking more about the state instead of their own careers.
Posted by: tc on June 8, 2005 07:27 PMIf Sims stays, this crooked sloppy election stays! No republican Governor would have a chance!
Posted by: GS on June 8, 2005 07:47 PMhttp://drewweb.phenominet.com/MtStHelens/miniwindow.php
Posted by: Splatter on June 8, 2005 07:58 PMThe King County Executive is a very powerful position and has often been the springboard for a run at the governor's office. Locke himself had a short tenure there before moving into the governor's mansion.
I pray that Rossi will consider how much good may be accomplished with him at the helm of King County and help us all by pursuing that office. He has indicated that he is not that interested in political offices that remove him from the state and given what we have all gone through since November I simply cannot imagine a more powerful gift to the people who have supported him than to run for County Exec.
Draft Rossi !! And watch the groundswell of support turn to a monumental landslide. Sims must be terrified of the possibility of facing Rossi in the fall. What poetic and righteous justice it would be,
Posted by: MichaelC on June 8, 2005 08:04 PMKing County LOVES Felons!
- And I'm sure they LOVE King County and the Democrats as well! Remember these famous felons? I wonder how the Judge could not consider them and their history in his ruling?
And - as of the writing of this article (2003) Both Jeff Dean and John Elder were still connected to Diebold and PSI - both companies involved with King County Ballot processing, printing, mailing, sorting, software, etc.....
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0312/S00191.htm
"While in prison, Jeffrey Dean met and became friends with John Elder, who did five years for cocaine trafficking. At the time of this writing, Elder is still on Diebold’s payroll; in fact, he manages a division and oversees the printing of both ballots and punch cards for several states. Punch cards, remember, can also be rigged, by selectively die-cutting so that some chads dislodge more easily than others. Diebold’s printing division also bids on printing for Sequoia.
King County contracts the mailing of its absentee ballots out to Elder’s division, and Elder’s division subcontracts with a firm called PSI Group Inc. to sort the incoming absentee ballots — the most high-risk security point for absentee ballots. You see, we know how many absentee ballots we send out, but we have no idea how many are filled out and sent back in, especially if they pass through a middleman before being counted by elections officials. The elections division may tell you they count the ballots before outsourcing for precinct sorting, but in major metro areas, up to 60,000 ballots arrive in a single day and they are simply not staffed for this. It makes no sense to count ballots by precinct and then send them out for sorting.
According to a 2001 SEC document, our felon friends had contracted for absentee and ballot processing for the following counties:"
Posted by: Deborah on June 8, 2005 08:04 PMWe need to push County Auditors to be a bit more aggressive and use their authority or discretion more often because the RCW you site RCW29A-08-830 is quite impractical, unreasonable and undoable if enforced verbatim.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 8, 2005 08:11 PMSo from your point of view, it is correct that Gregoire won the election because she won the last count except that there were illegal votes. So what do we do about the illegal votes. We can do proportional deduction. OK. Bridge's looked at the math and said that if we do proportional deduction on all the illegal votes, versus just the illegal votes in KC, "Gregoire wins anyway".
OK, so proportional deduction doesn't work to overturn and election, how about a revote because of the illegal votes. This isn't the best idea. Revotes are expensive. It is possible that everyone votes the same way and we get right back to the same result with Rossi winning the first two counts and Gregoire winning the third. If you say, "we won't let that happen, we will work harder this time"...that is a new election contest and is best handled during the next election.
Diebold is the company headed by Walden O'Dell who promised to deliver Ohio for Bush in 2004.
Posted by: mls on June 8, 2005 08:28 PMDiebold management past criminal history Source: Court papers filed in Maryland, Wired news, [29] Dec. 17 2003 - "At least five convicted felons secured management positions at a manufacturer of electronic voting machines, according to critics demanding more stringent background checks for people responsible for voting machine software. "The programmer Jeffrey Dean wrote and maintained proprietary code used to count hundreds of thousands of votes as senior vice president of Global Election Systems, or GES.The other reported felons included a cocaine trafficker [John Elder] and a man convicted of engaging in fraudulent stock transactions."
King County WA. is the same county which Diebold internal memos say "are famous" for illicit access to voting systems and where a 3 hour section is missing from a security log during the September 2004 Primary.
LOL
Posted by: Dogbert on June 8, 2005 08:35 PMYeah? Says who?
That would be the rumor I'd start - if I wanted to throw off those who's lightbulbs go off....
Make up some false connection between Bush and Diebold so no one thinks to look at the obvious!
Posted by: Deborah on June 8, 2005 08:39 PMhuh? I just posted the facts Dogbert! It was our visitor *mls* who ventured into grassy knoll territory with her/his marriage between Bush and O'dell!
I just think it's ironic that the Judge placed so much weight in the Democrats felon voter statements in his ruling....and here - the Democrats in King County have such a warm and fuzzy history of felon relations! That relationship may be on going...who knows?
Posted by: Deborah on June 8, 2005 08:50 PMEvery step of the elections process in King County must be made transparent and open to public scrutiny if we are ever to feel confident about elections here again.
Sheesh! I'm just shaking my head at the history of King County elections! They actually hired felons to work the GEMS! Hah! Maybe the numbness of the past 6 months is beginning to wear off and I'm just now processing these precious little bits of fact.......
Posted by: Deborah on June 8, 2005 08:59 PMThe judge layed out 6 criteria for burden of proof. Laid them out in black and white. Why didn't GOP legal team provide detailed data that met each of the 6 criteria for each illegal vote?
Of course we got our butts kicked ! We didn't even attempt to meet the requirements. Dale Foreman is an idiot.
Posted by: Mark on June 8, 2005 09:09 PMI believe that Bridges threw out the proportional reduction from the mere fact that it didn't provide clear and convincing evidence - but guess what ? the Repub counsel did not realize that and the Rats knew that if they created enough doubt about the methodology for the judge - he would not accept proportional reduction. I have to believe that the laws in this state are archaic and need to be changed - but a citizens initiative will have to be required. Finally, Shawn Newman Esq. initial prediction was spot on ! Micajah's was also there..
Sorry to rub a little salt in the wounds, but hopefully something will be gained from this and am sure that the Rossi team clear and convincingly won the PR battle. In the future, it would benefit the Repubs to be more prepared for street fighting when taking on Democrats, in other words - in the first hint of mischief after an election during vote counts - take it to court and cherry pick the judge, just like the Democrats do - that's what it takes to win a legal battle. The PR battle is a different story - it can be won with truth and objectivity.
Posted by: KS on June 8, 2005 09:10 PMPresident Gore will be happy to hear this...
Those 6 criteria would have been *honestly* impossible to meet....It was however, *dishonestly* possible, as the Democrats showed us........
From Judge Bridges pre-trial ruling:
Court should exclude all evidence of illegal felon voters unless the petitioners can prove six elements. One, that the -- that the vote was -- that the voter was convicted as an adult, that the voter was convicted of a felony that the voter had not been given a deferred sentence, that the voter had not been discharged pursuant to RCW 9.94A.637, that is, not had their civil rights restored. Fifth, that the voter cast a ballot in the 2004 general election and finally number six, that the voter marked the ballot to indicate a vote for a gubernatorial candidate.
Posted by: Deborah on June 8, 2005 09:26 PMI cannot disagree with you.
And in hindsight - it appears that the Judges pre-trial ruling on the 6 criteria - was orchestrated for the felon affidavits that the Dems already had in their possession and his entire conclusion was a sound bite of Jenny Durkens closing argument...
I think the Judge played everyone here....And I truly liked the guy! Sigh...
Posted by: Deborah on June 8, 2005 09:39 PMI don't know the dates those felon affidavits were collected...
I would be just a wee bit suspicious if they were dated before the Judges pre-trial ruling....because they fit so perfectly with his 6 criteria. AND because the Judge had an odd exchange with the Dems over the CFR's and what conviction information they contained..... It all seems hokey now...and purposeful..
Perhaps the Rossi team should have prepared 4 analyses:
1) Proportional deduction based on precinct
2) Proportional deduction based on demographics (gender, age, race, etc. -- whichever factors worked to their advantage)
3) Poll of illegal voters
4) Testimony of individual illegal voters (just the ones who appeared to be Dems)
They could have had experts testify as to which was the most accurate approach. But more important, they could have argued that for the statute to be meaningful, there must be some way to ascertain who it "appears" the illegal votes were cast for, and the judge could take his pick.
I'm not sure what Judge Bridges would have done with this. Nor do I think that Rossi would have won by most of those analyses. But that's the only thing that would have convinced me.
I actually said something like this here weeks ago in response to the question of what would convince me. I thought that was a wise question. But apparently most of you were too excited by your little conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Bruce on June 8, 2005 09:55 PMWell, it's a record any bank would be damsure proud of!
/sarcasm off momentarily
Next time you see a Libertarian, be sure to thank them for this mess. The 65,000 morons who threw away their votes for Libertarian candidate to "make a statement" sure made one. Hope they're happy.
Posted by: Mark on June 8, 2005 10:06 PMTo the Judge - It was never about proportional deduction. It was never about the number of illegal votes cast in the election. It was never about Nicole Ways testimony of falsifying absentee numbers or all of the unexplained descrepancies or the unaccounted blank ballots...etc...
It was about framing his ruling to fit what the Democrats had to work with.
Posted by: Deborah on June 8, 2005 10:10 PMThe Repubs assumed to much and they could have asked for clarification from the judge instead of going about their merry way. Why couldn't they have pinned him down more ? The Rossi Team were polished, but not very tenacious about getting more information, when they needed to be.
Posted by: KS on June 8, 2005 10:21 PMI said this before, but I'll rephrase it: In the long run, whether the R's could have won this case or not in unknowable, but probably not important. The exercise was worth it because all of the discovery and testimony shined the light of day where none has ever shown before.
If a judge rules that an outhouse doesn't stink, people aren't going to stop holding their breath. They know better. Intuitively. The more I look at this, the more convinced I become that this is going to cost the donx big in '06 and bigger in '08. And there is nothing that the MSM can do about it. Because everybody knows an outhouse when they smell it.
I predict that Sims and Co. will make some lame attempts to appear to reform, and declare that everything is fixed. And outside of the city limits of Seattle, it'll fall on deaf ears. He's over. This whole thing may have simply been a gambit.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 8, 2005 10:41 PMIn the Judges pre-trial ruling, he stated that the Petitioners motioned for clarification in determining the burden of proof and the Intervenors (Democrats) were the ones who filed to have the Judge require those 6 elements...
(Recess taken)
(Oral Argument
All right. THE COURT: There are actually two motions before the Court. They are, if I can use the word, companion motions. The first is the petitioners ' motion to clarify the
burden of proof with respect to illegal votes, and the counter motion brought by the intervenors is a motion in limine to exclude evidence of petitioners ' illegal convicted felon
voters. The Court understands, first that the petitioners intend to offer evidence of votes which were cast by felons who were disqualified from voting under the Washington state
Constitution and that the argument is that upon a prima facie showing by the petitioners that a voter is a felon and that court records do not reflect any restoration of civil rights
that the respondents should be -- should bear the burden of showing that the felon s civil rights have been restored through either a certificate of discharge issued by the felon s sentencing court or some other paperwork and that absent such a showing by the respondents here, the intervenors, that the Court should deem the felon s vote
illegal and invalid.
The companion motion filed by the intervenors is this that the intervenors assert in their motion in limine that the Court should exclude all evidence of illegal felon voters
unless the petitioners can prove six elements.
What do we do now? What steps can we take to make this horrible wrong right? What can we do? If anyone says anyting about voting I am going to throw rocks at you:/
Posted by: Hanna on June 8, 2005 11:13 PMWe have to get Ron Sims out of King County and put a Republican in his seat. We have to change the party dynamics in our State Legislature. David Irons, Reagan Dunn, Steve Hammond and a host of other good Republican candidates are available for those races when they come up. We need Chris Vance and the WA State Republicans to quit being nice and take their gloves off when the campaigns begin! This is no longer a Gentlemens game! It's a War! They need to set the people of this state straight on the facts! They should be all over the media right now clarifying that the Judges ruling DID NOT clear any of the wrong-doing or the errors or the falsifying of the records of last Novembers election! They need to make the people aware and concerned!
Posted by: Deborah on June 8, 2005 11:45 PMI vowed several months ago not to spend another dime in King County until the next Governor election. I assumed it would have been sooner than later, but I'll stick by my word. My Christmas shopping will be in Pierce County, and sadly there won't be any M's games for a few years for my family.
Again, I'll reiterate, if someone wants to put full page advertisements in some newspapers across the state to the same effect, I'll donate a bit to the cause.
The key thing is to keep a message in front of Joe Voter who gets his "news" from the TV every night. If you're really lucky, Joe Voter will ask you "what do you mean 'illegal votes stole your voice?'" That's when you need to be prepared; armed with facts. Explain to curious Joe Voter that King County elections employees failed to reconcile the number of ballots they received back, and that their number of votes didn't match the number of voters. Explain that in a finding of fact the court acknowledged 1600+ illegal votes were irretrievably mixed in with the legitimate votes. And finally, remind curious Joe that the margin of "victory" in the final recount was 129, and that it all boils down to 10 times more illegal votes than legal votes separating the candidates. Any objective person will recognize that this is a stalemate.
Another way to impress the message on people may be to put it in terms of an analogy that might hit a bit closer to home. Imagine you got a call from your bank one day, saying that you were $129 overdrawn and would have to pay millions of dollars in new taxes..er... overdraft fees. So you say to the bank "But that cannot be! I balanced my checkbook!" After several months of arguments, the bank admits that they may have miscalculated your balance by $1600, but they are still going to hold you accountable for the $129 overdraft. And as a kicker, they just found 150 one-dollar bills stacked in a corner, but it's too late to count those, so they go into the shredder. Ron Sims might think that's a great bank, but I guarantee you he would NEVER have to wait in line for a teller.
The immediate enemy here is now time, and the short attention span of the American voter.
Lastly, remind anyone who will listen of a key fact, one that made for an outstanding line in Stefan's rally speech: That an election exists solely to measure the will of the people. An election is simply a means to an end, a tool, not and end in and of itself. "Public confidence" in the "election community" is misplaced if the elections that "community" administers don't accurately measure the will of the people. And when the precision of the measurement tool isn't good enough, we don't just "guess" the answer. We build a better tool. When the tool could have worked, but we didn't get a good measurement due to operator "error" we don't just guess. We measure again, after impressing upon the operator the importance of using their tools correctly (or better yet after firing the operator and hiring a competent one).
Aside from "passive" "Ask me!" methods, I think it might also be interesting if a group of like-minded citizens were to initiate a campaign of letter-writing/pamphlet distribution/etc. to spread the word to their neighbors who did not follow the trial closely and who have only a cursory (if any) understanding of the issues that were raised there. We could have some fun with this in tandem with the bank analogy; a "mock bank statement" might have a pretty good punch factor.
Anyway... Whew.. Oh dear.. I've rambled. OK, off to bed! Hopefully I've provided food for thought.
Regards,
RR
You're probably right about the voting thing. Trying to use your vote to change things in a corrupt election system probably isn't going to get you very far.
What then? Well, other forms of "direct action" that conservatives have traditionally been loathe to even consider, much less implement. Quite a few have mentioned the "economic warfare" tactics here and on other threads and I think those are a good idea. Do as much business as you can outside the state or by mail order. Don't do anything, as best you can, that generates revenue for a corrupt state government headed by an illegitimate governor.
I have suggested "outside the box" thinking and there are any number of things in that category that could be considered. For example, I have heard a rumor somewhere that Republicans hold a majority in Washington DC. Maybe use that against the cheating 'Rats in WA state. Take away their toys. Tell Bush no more wining and dining of an illegitimate governor. When Fraudoire comes to town with the usual entourage of sychophants and hangers-on to plead for their "share" of dollars to slop from the federal trough, arrange "high-level" meetings for them, maybe, for example, with the White House gardener or bathroom attendants. Tell the WA 'Rats to send a legitimate governor to plead their case.
For those marginalized on the east side of your state, if there is some way to get this State of Eastern Washington thing moving, now is the time. Trouble is, I don't know how to suggest going about doing that. Such a state would have considerable power and influence. It would have a lot of resources the western part of the state needs, probably the most valuable being water and electricity supply. I've also heard eastern Washington has considerable value in planted crops, things like grapes and hops needed for the westerners to make their wine and beer.
Finally, when all else fails, I guess you'd have to take a clue from our forefathers who got no satisfaction from trying to work within the system designed and ruled by King George III and Lord Frederick North. Advocating violence? No. But some measure of non-violent protest might be in order. Time to brush up on the tactics used by Gandhi and others to effect change when the systems they tried working within were corrupt and stacked against them.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 9, 2005 06:11 AMWe need something organized. Something simple that can be widespread throughout the state, both east and west. The main problem is King County to be sure but this attitude about elections is statewide and the same problems go on in most counties, and even in the counties that did a good job, they are still part of that "elections community".
We need to pick a target and fire all we have at it.
Posted by: Hanna on June 9, 2005 08:42 AMIf the Gemocrats had been able to substantiate their bogus cheating accusations in 2000, then why didn't they file a lawsuit about that?
If they actually believed that large amounts of voter fraud had happened in 2000, they would have gone to court to try to prove it.
Instead they went to court to try to get extra recounting in specially selected FL counties. That's quite different.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 9, 2005 08:44 AMThat target is called I-912.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 9, 2005 09:05 AM