Mike Siegel had a very interesting interview with former State Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge this morning.
Talmadge says that Bridges did a reasonable job as a trial judge, but there are substantive legal issues that could have been pursued on appeal at the Supreme Court level. Bear in mind that Talmadge is a progressive Democrat. Among his points --
* The key question is "How do you go about proving a flawed election?" In this particular setting, Judge Bridges focused only on the interests of the litigants and not the larger interest that the public has in the election process being clean and that the results are the results of their decision-making. The Supreme Court would be concerned with the larger societal interest.
* Talmadge cited Foulkes v. Hayes (though not by name) as a relevant precedent where the Supreme Court set aside an election that was inherently flawed, without placing the burden on the petitioner to prove that the flaws necessarily changed the outcome.
I've posted the mp3 of the entire segment here, courtesy of KTTH 770. The substantive part of the discussion starts at 1:10.
Even though Dino Rossi has gracefully bowed out, the issue of elections integrity really is a much larger public concern that dwarfs the specifics of Rossi v. Gregoire. It's awfully tempting to draft Talmadge to argue the matter before the Supreme Court, either by appealing Borders, or taking on one of the other unresolved contest lawsuits.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 10, 2005 03:18 PM | Email ThisI am disappointed in the court results about the election but I can live with that, for now.
What really bothers me is that nobody (in a position of power) seems to think anything about the judge allowing CONFESSIONS of crediting fraud and other WACs not being followed, yet NO legal repercussions for that.
If I break the law, I have to pay a penalty. Why is that not the case here? Where is the Attorney General in this mess?
Do you know if there is anything going on in the background as far as bringin these pepolpe to justice, regardless if CG stays as governor?
Posted by: Elmo on June 10, 2005 03:30 PMIf I were a state resident, I would be very concerned about my next vote and whether it would be canceled out. I would not have much confidence that the state officials would keep my vote safe.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 10, 2005 03:35 PMGee, you don't suppose that had anything to do with why Phil sounded so Shark-like this morning? He now makes his living as a lawyer handling appeals. Even "progressive Democrat" lawyers need to eat.
Posted by: The Ump on June 10, 2005 03:59 PMGee, you don't suppose that had anything to do with why Phil sounded so Shark-like this morning? He now makes his living as a lawyer handling appeals. Even "progressive Democrat" lawyers need to eat.
Posted by: The Ump on June 10, 2005 03:59 PMHe also suggested that the Justices would be disturbed to learn how "cavalierly" (his word) King County treated people's ballots.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 10, 2005 04:06 PMAnd I believe that same attitude directed how the court case was prosecuted and handled by the Republicans. For reasons never really explained, Rossi and the Republicans never pleaded fraud and they never attempted to prove fraud. It seemed to me that Rossi didn't want to come out and say it out loud, "This election was stolen by fraud, either by Gregoire or by her supporters, but one or the other or both stole this election." It was as if he was afraid to say it directly and out loud. And who knows, maybe he was right not to say it. Maybe the media would have skewered him for making that accusation, and maybe his image amongst the public would've suffered.
But it's clear that there was fraud with the way the provisional ballots were handled. And what about the 700+ "lost" ballots in King County miraculously found during the hand recount? What was that all about? That was where the election was lost. A serious and aggressive challenge would have included investigators climbing into the underwear of every single King County election worker to dig out every bit of information that could be gleaned, and then liberally subpoenaing many or most of those workers for depositions. Put 'em under oath and make 'em account for their actions and the actions of their co-workers. Make 'em sweat. I don't know if they undertook that kind of investigation. I don't believe they did. I don't believe they wanted to.
And it seemed to me that Bridges kept repeating throughout the pendency of the case, in a half-quizzical way, "There is no fraud alleged here? There is no fraud alleged here?" It was as if he was telegraphing a message to the Republicans --consciously or unconsciously-- about what their theory of the case ought to be if they wanted to prevail. All the way up to and including his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, when he reiterated all the fraud that hadn't been shown in the evidence.
The question is, has the problem in King County been rooted out and/or sufficiently intimidated to behave, or are the same set of characters still there, still in place, still ready willing and able to shade the election results their way in furture elections?
Posted by: jaybird on June 10, 2005 04:14 PMI am extremely disappointed they did not appeal the Washington State Constitution Article One, Section 19 guarantees me as a citizen of this state that "All Elections shall be free and equal". This election was the farthest from "free and equal" that is possible and that alone should be a grounds for appeal.
The other issue is whether the standard the Judge used to have to identify the voters and how they voted before they could be used in the contest in not only obsurd it should be considered arbitrary and capricous because our state require that voting is absolutely secret..
"The legislature shall provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy" (Article VI Section 6)
Notice the term "absolute".... How can it be that a law exists that requires that the voters name and who he voted for is even asked? How can a state even pretend to ask someone who he voted for when absolute secrecy is guaranteed by the constitution? Surely this law must be un-constitutional...
Arrrrg.......
Posted by: Cliff on June 10, 2005 04:50 PMNot only because of what I belive are relevant legal issues, but also because Washingtonians expected this.
Aside from a few positive thinkers here at SP, the consensus of opinions was against Bridges reaching a decision in Rossi's. Weren't Rossi's team planning for the appeal? I can only assume that Rossi's money ran out.
Again, I am very dissappointed in Rossi for not defending not only his rights but the rights all Washingtonians for clean elections.
Oh, and Tim and/or Chris, ARE YOU LISTENING?
Posted by: Deadwood on June 10, 2005 04:59 PMIt would be interesting now that Gregoire is off on her European Vacation for one of the Borders et al group to file an appeal.
That would be mind-boggling to these LEFTIST PINHEADS (but I doubt it will happen).
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 10, 2005 05:50 PMFor a very intersting look at how election fraud has permeated KING COUNTY, go to another source: www.corrupt-union.com
once at that site, read THE HAC REPORT II.
Its scary stuff.
Again...I am severly disappointed in no appeal.....
ARE YOU LISTENING CHRIS?
I would respect someone who stood up & took his legal lumps. However, we are stuck with entrenched apathy and massive incompetence.
Being in the private sector and seeing many COMPETENT & GOOD people fired for WAAAAAY less just gets my gourd. No one will pay. No one falls on their sword. Everyone still collects a paycheck or gets moved around to live another day. We are told to "move on." What a travesty.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 10, 2005 06:19 PMAt best, this case may provide a way to see what people can agree is missing from our election laws.
For example, ask yourself how we are really supposed to arrive at a decision that someone was "duly elected."
Then, ask how that decision is supposed to be reviewed, if it appears to have been made arbitrarily.
We are more or less accustomed to the idea that someone would be charged with the legal responsibility to present truthful information to another person or group of people, so that the decision can be made.
In this particular case, Huennekens seems to have been the presenter, but he kept the canvassing board in the dark about material evidence. The board was the group charged with the responsibility to make the initial decision for King County's returns -- that is, to determine whether the "auditor's abstract of votes" was true.
So what is supposed to be the responsibility of the person presenting evidence to the board? He is supposed to take an oath before the canvassing begins "attesting to the authenticity of the information presented to the canvassing board." Does anyone think it's OK to have Logan take an oath when Logan isn't the one presenting the information? Is it OK to have the person who is under oath plead ignorance about every material fact that was hidden from the board? (Never mind that Logan's oath was apparently done at the close of the canvassing, not the beginning, and said nothing about the authenticity of the information presented to the board.)
The King County canvassing board had the legal responsibility to "verify the results from the precincts and the absentee ballots." "Verify" means to determine if they're true.
Does anyone think the King County canvassing board even came close to verifying the returns? Look at their so-called certification of the returns. It simply says the attached is a true copy of the abstract -- and says absolutely nothing about the truth of the abstract itself.
Then, a review of the canvassing board's decision is supposed to be done by the group that determines whether anyone was duly elected. That's the legislature that is charged by the constitution to do so -- before issuing a certificate of election that declares someone to have been duly elected.
Does anyone believe the legislature made anything other than an arbitrary decision to issue a certificate of election?
When governmental entities make arbitrary decisions rather than decide based on the facts, what do we normally expect? We expect that a review of that arbitrary decision will occur, and that the arbitrary decision will be set aside.
Why wasn't it?
Because no one looked at it from this aspect.
Instead, the certificate of election changed everything. Rather than try to figure out whether anyone was duly elected, the court treated the question as solely one of deciding whether Rossi really got the most legal votes.
No one was duly elected, but the trial court behaved as though someone was -- because no one was even hinting that the decision by the legislature was arbitrary.
Would it have made a difference under current law if the petitioners had attacked the very basis for G's certificate of election?
Maybe not. Which means the question now ought to be: Should our election laws be amended so that it does make a difference when the certificate is issued arbitrarily?
It undermines the integrity of the justice system almost as much as KC has destroyed the integrity of fair elections.
But if you've seen how family courts at the county level ignore and invent law- this shouldn't be much of a wake up call at the higher level.
I'm not surprised that victims of anti-family / pro-child rape Gregoire are coming out of the woodwork. How they keep these and all the other dead bodies hidden is beyond belief.
http://lbloom.net/ok21.html
Posted by: Andy on June 10, 2005 06:47 PMAnd that is the point I guess, if you have a system that guarantees absolute secrecy and then base your laws on proving how a voter voted it seems a rather impossible hurdle to overcome.
There was plenty of evidence, that evidence was not accepted by the court due to arbitrary, capricous and un-constitutional laws written by our legislature many moons ago.
The Constitution gave the power to the Legislature to develop the election contest laws and those laws need to follow the constitution to be legal. I cannot imagine the WSSC not throwing the election contest law out for the above reason alone. What would happen after that and how it would affect Rossi who knows but at this point in the game it does not help anyone who wants to see "free and equal" elections in this state.
The SoS probably should do that, but alas, they were too busy protecting their own backsides and those of their friends.
It's hopeless. With the Dem machine locking up everything for their own extremist benefit, the only avenue for getting ANYTHING that mildly represents what people want is to do innitiative after innitiative. Most of them will be struck down or simply ignored by the legislature. But, a few will make it through.
I'd just forget about the election system. It's not going to be reformed.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 10, 2005 06:50 PMTake a look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals(a.k.a., 9th circus). I think everyone would agree they lean way to the left politically.
Posted by: Tucker on June 10, 2005 09:07 PMI would have liked Rossi to continue with the election contest if he thought there were sufficient grounds to appeal to the WSSC. I think there are more than sufficient grounds, but I am not fluent in legalese or convoluted logic. Let the Supremes make their decision, because Judge Bridges' ruling is not the only ruling that one could argue based on the facts of the case. Let the Supremes tell Washingtonians that their legal votes do not matter because of flawed laws. We do vote for these people, don't we?
"Which means the question now ought to be: Should our election laws be amended so that it does make a difference when the certificate is issued arbitrarily? " That makes sense, if we want to be able right corrupt/wrong results like this last election. Also, a threshold like 0.1% difference would automatically trigger a revote or a coin-flip. To safeguard from King County being able to keep counting until that magic number is reached, another law needs to be crafted, then passed by citizen's initiative which makes it mandatory for all counties to certify at the same time (no results released until all counties have certified). All future election laws up through 2006 will have to be citizens initiatives.
Posted by: KS on June 10, 2005 09:56 PMOh please!
How soon you forget the little *filibuster* issue going on right now with Bush judicial nominees!
You are in NO position to accuse Rossi of attacking judicial integrity!
It's just right out of the liberal Dems play book - to launch false accusations when they themselves are guilty of the same or worse charge!
Posted by: Deborah on June 11, 2005 12:45 AM'Of the PEOPLE, By the PEOPLE and For the PEOPLE!'
If there is any aspect of your governing body that is NOT serving YOU, YOU HAVE the POWER, to CHANGE IT!
If enough of you DON'T want to put up with Fraudire, get off your butts and BE the PEOPLE the Founding Fathers expected!
They left you a way to FIX IT!
If this had been a boxing match Rossi would have been down and out in the first round.
Posted by: mickh on June 11, 2005 09:46 AMPerhaps so, but it wasn't a boxing match.
What is the meaning of "it" in your "give it up" statement? Would you have us give up the principle that citizens of a republic choose their government leaders through elections? Is that "it"?
Posted by: Micajah on June 11, 2005 10:27 AMLook at the WDOT. Now there is corruption in a major way. Where does the money from the taxpayers go?
Look at SPI. Just what on earth are they doing with all of that money? This bureaucracy gets the biggest piece of the pie. Yet every year they say they need more. For what? This is the same group that thinks a state income tax is a "good thing" for their pay raises.
Look at what the State Legislators did this last session. And I didn’t even get a thank you for the screw job.
And who is to blame for this? You and me, we didn’t keep an eye on them the way they keep and eye on us. The bottom line, there is corruption everywhere and ‘we the people” pay the penalty, not the government.
So, get off of your duff, quit spouting off on the blogs, and get those petitions signed, sealed and delivered in time to be put on the ballot. It’s you who can make positive changes because we know the government and the judicial system don’t and won’t.
It seems to me that there has been a tremendous amount of discussion regarding "evidence" but what has been referred to as "common sense" on this blog is really about the bigger picture. The philosophy of the form of government we have and how we maintain that form of government. I'm no legal expert - just an average workin' stiff - but it seems to me that the result of the law that was applied to the facts (conduct of KC elections officials as testified to in court)completely contradict the spirit of the constitution. From the perspective of someone WAY outside the legal industry, arguing the philosophy of the law in this case would be relatively easy.
Am I missing something?
Posted by: washington voter on June 11, 2005 03:25 PMGenerally, you're stuck with the laws enacted by the legislature, where the "big picture" and "common sense" are supposed to play a major role in making the rules.
For example, more than a hundred years ago the legislature made it virtually impossible to prevail in an election contest based on "illegal votes." Their philosophy, I suppose, was that it is better to rely on enforcing the laws against illegal voting than it is to allow disqualified voters to nullify the apparent results by merely casting a ballot. (I also suppose they didn't take into account the fact that someone like Logan would come along and claim to have no ability or authority at all to enforce the laws. That was a more civilized time, when people like him were tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail; so I guess they never thought it would be a significant problem.)
Since the petitioners sought to set aside the election based on illegal votes, they had to show how those votes affected the outcome. It's obvious that such a showing is not practicable in an election involving so many voters.
They also argued that election officials' errors occurred, but the same sort of rule has been in place -- requiring that you show that the errors affected the outcome.
I don't believe philosophizing at the appellate level would turn around the result of their flawed strategy.
I, of course, don't know if it would have made a difference to focus on the error made in declaring anyone to be duly elected. I do think it ought to make a difference in our law, when the legislature arbitrarily issues a certificate of election.
Posted by: Micajah on June 11, 2005 04:32 PMhope springs eternal....
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 11, 2005 04:42 PMMickh - if this was a boxing match, GREGOIRE was knocked out in both the first two rounds (counts) and then paid the ref off to ensure she won the match!
Posted by: washington voter on June 11, 2005 05:29 PMPosted by Cliff at June 10, 2005 06:15 PM
Well....I guess we'll see if anything happens by June 15th or 16th....?
Where is your outrage about getting it right (for all sides) and reforming our voting systems? YOU can live with the Sims "...any bank would envy.." standard--not me. Oh--and when you are 'going about the business' of ruining (sorry--running) the state, keep the Tent Cities in YOUR back yards, o.k.?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 12, 2005 01:05 AMDemocrats couldn't run a self-winding watch. They could RUIN it, though. Incompetent boobs...the whole lot of them. The problem isn't their incompetence. It's their cravenness. They are set to function as crooks, and do so very well.
Posted by: Danny on June 12, 2005 11:09 AMHow 'bout you give it a rest and try broading out your sources of information by turning off Limbaugh, Hannity and Carlson, and reading a book or something?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 12, 2005 11:28 AMoooooh looook! the sky is falling......
Evade and obfuscate from the Howard Dean school of politics...
Posted by: Cliff on June 12, 2005 11:36 AMWhy do you trolls persist in being so ignorant and acting like a bunch of selfish whiny 5-year olds ? Because Bush and Republicans are in power at the national level. Meanwhile you tee off on Republicans in this state instead of offering compromises and reasonable debate. Instead you offer baseless red herring arguments about Iraq - which we don't have control over. As long as you keep acting selfish and ignorant by choice, we will get the kind of crap from Olympia that you deserve and most of us over here don't want. I, for one choose to get off of my duff and promote change and the petitions appear to be the only way to prevent the garbage legislation coming at us. If you choose to contribute new ideas or constructive points of view - have at it. So far, I have not seen a shred of constructive problem solving to your threads and in that event, moveon.org is the website for you..
Posted by: KS on June 12, 2005 01:23 PMI agree with you about reading books. You might try it yourself some day.
Unless you are referring to the raft of ludicrous left leaning crap that is so profuse today (Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot), you will find from reading serious literature written by sane humans establishes that liberal democrats believe in things that don't exist, and celebrate ideas that are proven throughout time immemorial to utterly fail. Not to worry though, democrats don’t need facts, just allegations, and there are plenty of liberal books available (try Earth in the Balance by Al Gore-- a real scholarly stemwinder) that recount one unsupported falsehood after another. Like Headless Lucy, I imagine you think Noam Chomsky is an economist.
Carbunkl, you may not be a putz that you know of. Keep on studying your amusing zingers about those pesky Republicans. You, Teddy the Swimmer, and Harry Reed have got em' on the run now. You know you’re right and that’s good enough for you.
Works for me too.
Thanks for the example.