January 01, 2005
Incontrovertible Evidence

That's what Tom Bevans of that invaluable site, Real Clear Politics, thinks Republicans in Washington state need before challenging the election of Christine Gregoire.

Republicans need to tread lightly here.  They should only go to court if and when they have incontrovertible evidence of fraud, manipulation or error that is certain to change the outcome of the election back in Rossi's favor or of generating a revote.  Otherwise, if Republicans do challenge the election without producing the goods, they run the risk of looking like sore losers with no respect for the process.

I would go just a little farther than Bevans.  I think that Republicans not only need incontrovertible evidence, but they need incontrovertible evidence that will convince the public.  There is little doubt in my mind that Gregoire's margin comes from invalid and illegal votes, as I have explained in my posts on distributed vote fraud.   And I believe that with some additional evidence from a poll, I could persuade pollsters and statisticians that I was correct, but I am not sure that I could persuade a majority of the public with that kind of statistical argument.

Some of the evidence that Stefan Sharkansky has done so much to uncover would meet that test.  Most voters can understand that the numbers of ballots and voters should match, or that letting voters register at places other than their residences is an invitation to fraud.

Posted by Jim Miller at January 01, 2005 08:43 AM | Email This
1. If and thats a big if..they can prove fraud...there should also be someone who is covering up this whole fiasco..and those persons involved in said coverup..should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.I would like to see some higher ups heads roll over this once its all said and done....can you hear me RON SIMS?

Posted by: PR on January 1, 2005 09:32 AM
2. I agree with Jim that political considerations are important. In fact, I'd say the political damage inflicted upon the RAT machine is as important as winning a challenge. If we can't deliver the election, we need to deliver electoral fraud reform.

Posted by: South County on January 1, 2005 09:33 AM
3. I think the public is already fairly convinced of Gregoire's illegitimacy...see this poll:


(I found this on orbusmax.com)

Posted by: Eric on January 1, 2005 09:40 AM
4. We agree 100%. We know we have to find absolute rock solid evidence. There is an impressive team of people working on to do that right now.

Posted by: Chris Vance on January 1, 2005 09:50 AM
5. Republicans don't have to convince the public that Rossi won. All they have to do is convince some Federal judges. Besides, Republicans couldn't go to Federal court and plead that "public opinion" was with Rossi, could they? Of course not!

Once again, you're worrying about what the newspapers will think, because they can sway public opinion by a little bit. But that's not relevant.

Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 1, 2005 09:56 AM
6. Mr. Vance,
I have the feeling you and WSRP know more than it would be wise to reveal at this point. I think Rossi offering the revote is similar to a gracious chessmaster offering a draw before the opponent can see the checkmate. Of course, the press is seeing it in the opposite terms, as offering a draw before a loss-- but then, who cares.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 1, 2005 10:12 AM
7. At the end of the day, I would go much farther in the standards we need, and the outcomes.

A revote isn't worth the time or effort, short of indictments in political leadership. Given 90+ days to prepare, knowing the number of Kerry voters that didn't vote for Gregoire suddenly added to the mix, and the possibility that malfeasance would be enhanced, I don't think we would end with any other result.

I would like:

A Justice department investigation of counties where questions and irregularities have arisen, on at least a civil rights basis, if not criminal.

The legislature to enact laws that ensure standards across the counties for voting, registration, voter roll checks, identification, and use of electronic voting machines.

Gregoire to acknowledge that there were irregularities of a serious nature, and that there's a substantial portion of the electorate that is understandably upset with the shenanigans that have occured.

The PI and Jameison to shut up!

This is the signal opportunity to see if there was any criminal act committed. By virtue of the perceived 'lock' that Gregoire had until the counts began, the desperation and 'found votes' that appeared at the right times, and the 'process clarifications' that happened as the recounts went on, it can be assumed that people may have been sloppy if they were changing things. Lack of time, 'winging it,' and pressure to achieve a specified result can lead to poor decisions, detectable in the aftermath.

I can accept Gregoire in the position. I have no choice, and a revote won't change it. Doesn't change the fact that I want changes, heads rolling, and an admission that we didn't do this one well.

Cantwell, stand by for a challenge!


Posted by: Steve on January 1, 2005 10:13 AM
8. And even with "introvertible evidence" which Stefan probably has, who will lead the Republicans -- Chris Vance, Sam Reed, Clyde Ballard, Ralph Monroe, Dan Evans? -- I don't trust a one of them.

Posted by: Lew on January 1, 2005 10:23 AM
9. Dear Mr Vance,
It was great to see Dino Rossi on Fox News. They gave him alot of air time and let him speak without interuption.
Oh I think you have them all shaking in their boots a little. Why else does the Times/PI need to print a suck up article to Gregoire & slam Rossi? It's laughable they are so obvious. In another local blog (K5) we are called ignorant for supporting Rossi which is also laughable because it shows the desparation of a PROGRESSIVE you know, the more intelligent, educated Democrat. HA! I guess WE all know that it's code word for immature thinking.
Press on.

Posted by: CJensen on January 1, 2005 10:53 AM
10. Every comment here is so perfectly correct it is hard to believe that the public isn't marching on Olympis with torches and pitch forks in hand.

But, the sad truth is that much of the public knowledge and conviction is directed and controlled by the incumbent politicians and party leaders. If election reform were in their interest, it would have been done long ago - IT IS NOT! ( I use the example of Washington insider couple James Carville and Mary Matalin to show there is really one political cabal that runs the game under the pretense of being on two opposing sides).

I looked at Sam Reed's smoke and mirrors Election Reform Plan 2003 nad the patronising "SERVE" initiative he laid out. The, at how it worked hand in hand with Ron Sims' appointment of Dean Logan to "clean things up". The stage was set for this year's fiasco.

No reform, no fair elections practice will ever come to pass if left to politicians and party leaders. It falls to the citizens to take a stand and do the right thing.

STEVE - Did you have "Searching for Bobby Fischer" in mind with your comment on offering a draw? "Trick or Treat!"

Posted by: Baynative on January 1, 2005 11:01 AM
11. Steve-
My mistake the "Trick or Treat" comment was for Bleeding heart conservative...

Posted by: Baynative on January 1, 2005 11:04 AM
12. Chris vance

If that is really you.this is amazing you already
know there is proof of fraud. So please dont
insult the intelligence of these people by
saying otherwise.after all we both know your in
hot water already.Because I am trying to be
respectful to everyone here I will not go in
to what I'M talking about at this time.

Posted by: phil spackman on January 1, 2005 11:22 AM
13. Fedup, you just said public perception in an election process is irrelevant. If Gregoire manages to pull this theft off, you'll see how important public perception is.

Posted by: South County on January 1, 2005 12:04 PM
14. The people are with Dino. They are ready to accept a contest of this election. I am encouraged.

Posted by: Michele on January 1, 2005 12:08 PM
15. There is a lot of pent up frustration in the elctorate regarding this election. It is is not released with incontrovertible evidence or a recontest, then it will be released politically in the next cycle.

Rossi said it best though, the worst case here is that we get to focus a spotlight on our defective elections process and begin cleanup.

It's very obvious that Sam Reed is only trying to cover his butt because he is the one that appointed Dean Logan, etc. Sam Reed is at the bottom of the hill when the sh_t starts flowing. He deserves whatever fate awaits him.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 1, 2005 12:16 PM
16. With all due respect to Jim Miller, election challenges must be supported with real facts, and cannot rely just upon statistical analyses. It is statistically probable that they are lots of non-citizens and convicted felons (without voting rights restored) on the voter rolls. But unless specific people are identified who fall in those categories, you simply cannot maintain an election contest.

But there are areas where we have real numbers. In King County, we have precincts that have a combined total of 5,051 more ballots counted than people who actually voted. We have other precincts with a combined total of 1,512 more actual voters than ballots counted.

This is a total of 6,563 serious irregularities -- either a legitimate ballot being thrown in the garbage, or a fraudulent ballot being added into the mix. This is far more than Fraudoire's apparent 129 vote victory margin.

So any election challenge program -- be it in the legislature, the state courts, the federal courts, or the court of public opinion -- should start off with the tsunami of fraudulent and missing ballots from King County, and go on from there.

The percentage of people who believe that King County did not conduct a legitimate election process should increase from 53% to more like 83%. It will never reach 100%, since there are a lot of die-hard Democrats who will never let themselves be convinced of the truth.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 1, 2005 12:51 PM
17. A legitimate democracy is one that is representative of the people. One where the people’s will is represented in government, not where the government’s will is enforced on the people. The latter is with this election is what happened in this state. The only legitimate course in order to restore American Democracy in the state of Washington is a re-vote!

Posted by: Koenig on January 1, 2005 02:03 PM
18. Hold the phone! Are we in favor of a legitimate election, or only in favor of our preferred candidate winning? Hopefully, the former. So while there is a big need to get all the ducks lined up and to be clear, concise, and complete when going before the courts, it should not be only about putting evidence forward to flip the result.

That being said, from what I've read the current results would appear to be completely unusable for their stated purposes.

Posted by: Paul on January 1, 2005 02:37 PM
19. While I am absolutlely positive, that King County has done everything (both legal and illegal) to swing this election to Gregiore. You will never get the Mainstream Media to dig in to the fraud that was committed. The reason is clear, Democrats good, Republicans bad. But according to Peter Jennings, "there is no liberal bias in the news media." yea, right.

Posted by: Mike Preston on January 1, 2005 03:04 PM
20. While a re-vote would be desirable to produce an clear mandate to govern, it's both costly and time consuming. Now, thanks to the stubborn insistence of the Democrats in KC, there is opportunity to expose the corruption that has plagued this state's elections and save time to boot. That is, assuming that when the manual recount is thrown out there will be a re-certifiying of the the machine recount result.

From the "discrepancies" found thus far, we can safely assume that they had only been unsuccessful in stealing the election in the initial vote tabulation. Having been unsuccessful there, they set about with a will, engaging in even more blatant and less concealable actions of manipulation. This sets the stage for genuine reform once the process leads to a successfully prosecuted contesting of the election in the courts.

Ironically, if they had been willing to give up they would have lost the governorship but moved ahead in the PR department (recall John Kerry's "gracious" concession speech?) while avoiding the exposure of their corrupt regime. Now that they've made contesting the election the only route available to the Rossi campaign, they will lose the governorship and also be forced to take responsibility for the mess they have made of this election. One question: if the manual recount is thrown out, will the cost if it revert back to the Democrats?

Posted by: RLG on January 1, 2005 03:08 PM
21. Yes...i believe it would. Wouldnt that be poetic justice...lose the election and have to pay for the recount as well...love it when a plan comes together...i wonder if they will keep saying get over it...move on:)

Posted by: PR on January 1, 2005 03:13 PM
22. PR, are you sure the Democrats would still win if voter ID was required? The point of having a revote would be to make sure that legal process was followed: one voter, one vote.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 1, 2005 06:20 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?