Governor-elect Dino Rossi, standing before a sign reading "Every vote should have a voter," just announced that his campaign will be contesting the election results.
He said that this state must have a re-vote, under any circumstances, even if the illegitimate ballots are thrown out by the courts, and overturn the election results. He would not want to accept office with a "cloud over his head." Thus, a re-vote is the only way to be sure of a legitimate victory--the only "remedy."
This will be filed under the RCW 29.8.68 statute that allows the Courts to set aside an election when the number of votes in question exceeds the margin of victory.
As I write this, Harry Korrell, attorney for the Rossi campaign, is speaking on the specific categories of the ballots in question: felons voting, dead people voting, people voting more than once, and unregistered voters. (I am in the Campaign press room).
UPDATE: Slade Gorton is speaking now. He says this is an invalid election: a court might negate the ballots in question, and award Rossi the win. However this will not remove the mess. A revote is not without precedent: it happened in Adams County in WA, and happened this year in North Carolina.
I'm going to listen to the reporters groan and ask questions: stand by.
UPDATE 2: Got back to the room in time to hear Martha Modine from the New Tribune ask, "Dino, some of these felons and dead votes have been in fact votes for you. Are votes for you not part of this problem?" He replied that he was concerned about every vote, and whether some of these were for him was not relevant to whether the process was flawed. Her follo-up: "Will you be showing up at the governor's ball after the inauguration?"
UPDATE 3: I think Rossi hit all the right points in this conference. "We've found that some people have remained politically active even after they died."
He's not contesting a true "victory," he's contesting an erroneous certification of Gregoire.
UPDATE 4: Perusing the news sites, I see a consistent error. Rossi et al are not alleging any systemic fraud, or any concerted deliberate plan to steal the election by King County, they are citing evidence of illegitimate and unaccountable votes, errors, and individual fraudulent activity. The media, in general are saying, "they allege no fraud," which is something quite different.
Posted by Brian Crouch at January 07, 2005 03:35 PM | Email ThisKnock me over with a feather.
Who woulda thunk it.
Posted by: frank on January 7, 2005 03:40 PMhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/common/maps/12dist.htm
If not, what is the significance of Chelan other than it is rural which typically would be less liberal than King County.
Posted by: Roleigh Martin on January 7, 2005 03:47 PMHe said exactly what I would have wanted him to say.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 03:50 PMChelan...beautiful!
Posted by: megs on January 7, 2005 03:53 PMRossi is woring within the election law. He is contesting. Asking for the re-vote is what he is asking the court, well within the law.
I agree and believe to return to sanity we need to address the underlying voting/balloting issues. What the threat of a contest and revote will accomplish is to clean up the balloting process. Unless the public decides they like this crap.
A revote and we get cleaner elections. A concession or a court decision on the winner and we get no incentive to clean things up.
Revote!
Posted by: David B on January 7, 2005 04:03 PMhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=irv+voting+animation
Rossi would have won by a landslide with IRV as the second place votes for the libertarian would have predominantly gone to Rossi.
I'm still curious about Chelan county though. Anyone know the answer to my question?
Posted by: Roleigh Martin on January 7, 2005 04:06 PMBallots are already complex enough. Voters can not even fill out the ballots we do have correctly. IRV will just complicate things.
Posted by: Bryan on January 7, 2005 04:09 PMThe revote is needed because the election officials did not follow the law.
If you expect this to happen every year, that's really depressing.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 04:10 PMMeanwhile, Christine Gregoire is still on her "Healing Tour" and remains stuck at a gas station somewhere near Twisp.....
Posted by: Michele on January 7, 2005 04:12 PMThat would be interesting. Not too much chance the reporters will cover that honestly.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 04:13 PMYou make me proud!
Posted by: Deborah on January 7, 2005 04:13 PMhttp://www.fairvotevermont.org/ballot.pdf
Even the governor and the league of womman voters in Vermont are pushing this:
http://www.fairvotevermont.org/vermont.html
http://www.fairvotevermont.org/LWV.doc
Ken
Posted by: Ken Hupp on January 7, 2005 04:16 PMConsistent and enforced election laws is what it takes. If elections are close again, then it would be tougher to contest in the future. One positive out of all of this is that there is a fire lit now for election reform - all of this motor voter crap also needs examining. Revote !
From a purely procedural point of view, the proper thing to do would be to declare Rossi the winner. Some people counting the ballots in King County manipulated them during the third count in ways that render it impossible to tell for whom (if anyone) voters cast them. Such actions render the third count invalid, but not the earlier ones, so by procedure the second count should stand.
On the other hand, if Rossi were declared the winner by any means other than by holding a re-vote, there would be many people who would quite reasonably regard him as having been "selected not elected". Even if it were proven that fraud occurred in an amount greater than Ms. Gregoire's margin of victory, it would almost certainly be impossible to prove that the benefit to her exceeded that margin.
If the polls of public sentiment are at all accurate, and if the Republicans step up efforts to supervise this election, I would expect that Rossi would win by a significant margin. If that occurs, that would be far better than if he is awarded a "win" in an ambiguous election.
Posted by: supercat on January 7, 2005 04:17 PMIIRC, there separate studies and they all concluded Bush won, within the error bars. The race was nowhere near as tight as this one.
If I'm wrong, tell me.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 04:21 PMThe other beauty of IRV is that a re-vote takes place automatically whenever a majority winner is not natural, and in this election, neither candidate got a majority in any of the 3 recounts, the Libertarian vote prevented that. Had Rossi won via IRV by a 10,000 margin (via the above imagined IRV calc scenario I gave above), would not that have prevented the manual recount then?
Posted by: Roleigh Martin on January 7, 2005 04:21 PMwhich make clear that simply finding mistakes doesn't cut it. You have to prove either that the actions by officials were done with the intent to make Gregoire the winner, or that illegal ballots can be ascribed to a candidate such that removing them gives that candidate fewer votes than necessary to win.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 7, 2005 04:23 PMChelan is significant to me for two reasons
1) it may have more favorable courts to Rossi than most courts west of Snoqualmie, and
2) It is one of places Christine messed up a horrendous situation with the a witch hunt against a minister and family that was happening during her tenure as AG
Lovin it,
Pat in Oly
I think you are mistaken in this election. Ruth Bennett, the Libertarian candidate, ran on a platform much more like the Democrats. She was pro-same-sex-marriage, for instance.
My uncle worked as a counter in the hand recount, and he said many, if not most, Libertarian ballots were Democratic across the board, except for Governor. They were cast by people who would usually voted Democrat, but still couldn't stomach Christine Gregoire.
Take a look at the Libertarian candidate and platform. It's much easier to imagine the pairing of a Kerry/Bennett vote than a Bush/Bennett vote.
Oh, and regarding Florida 00, I believe Gore won at least one vote review. It was one that included overvotes.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 7, 2005 04:31 PMStill, in my lifetime I'd like to see IRV adopted as it would give strict constitutionalists like me the benefit to tell politicians who my first choice is (always the Constitution Party under an IRV setup, but I hate throwing the vote way under the existing setup). As it is now, Bush thinks most of his supports favor his liberal GOP ways while in practice there might be 40 percent of his voters who'd vote for the GOP as their second choice in a IRV setup -- it's good for the winners to know what their backers really prefer rather than getting the misleading message that their voters prefer their platform to all others. Without IRV one has to vote for the lesser of all evils, with IRV one gets to vote their conscience first, their pragmatism second, and their conscience vote is never wasted.
Posted by: Roleigh Martin on January 7, 2005 04:35 PMSo that leaves us with the situations where the Democrat loses narrowly. In such cases, I do expect that the Democrats will demand a recount and/or a revote--most likely a manual recount, their apparent favorite method.
But they're going to do that anyway. Witness the Boxer meltdown. We cannot prevent those shenanigans by not doing a revote for this election.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 04:38 PMDear Supporter:
After three counts, we have finished the most accurate election in Washington's history. It was a close race, but in the end Chris Gregoire won.
Meanwhile, Dino Rossi wants to "re-do" the election because he doesn't like the result. Rossi and his Republican operatives have been working non-stop to pressure legislators into changing the election results.
We need volunteer help this weekend to phone bank in support of Governor-Elect Gregoire. If you can dedicate some time from 10am-5pm on Saturday or 11am-9pm on Sunday, please email chrish@wa-democrats.org or call (206) 328-2969.
Now is the time for us to fight back against Republican scare tactics. Please help us this weekend if you are able. It's time for Washington to move forward.
Chris Hayler
Washington State Democrats
Also, in my last post the word "county" should be "candidate." Typing too quickly!
Correct. The time was the same, but Gregoire had nothing to do with the Wenatchee cases. That was the City of Wenatchee PD, the Chelan Co. Sheriff's office and the Douglas Co. Sheriff's office.
There was a letter sent by the three area legislators at the time, Sen. Sellar, Speaker Ballard and Majority Leader Foreman to US Attorney General Janet Reno requesting a possible outside investigation into the Wenatchee cases. Not Gregoire.
The Chelan County filing has nothing to do with the Sex Ring cases of 1994 - 96. At all.
Posted by: jimg on January 7, 2005 04:41 PMWords lose meaning.
Orwell warned us about this.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 04:42 PMI think this does put the pressure on Queen Gregoire. For Dino to stand up there and say that even if the court system declares him the winner... he wouldn't want it to be that way, and he wouldn't accept that... shows he has class and confidence in the people. The Dems are cowards for not wanting a revote. A REVOTE is the only viable solution!
Posted by: TomP on January 7, 2005 04:43 PMLOTS of oversight.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 04:43 PMIf I'm wrong, tell me.
Posted by: StephenR on January 7, 2005 04:45 PMThe questionable votes in KC look like prov ballots that were vetted properly. By definition this makes them ILLEGAL VOTES.
Posted by: Doug on January 7, 2005 04:46 PMIf I'm wrong, tell me.----
I commented on a study of the Florida 2000 vote by a newspaper consortium. The comment is in topic
Jan. 11: A critical day for democracy
Here is an indirect link:
Marinucci, San Francisco Chronical, Nov. 12, 2001
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/11/12/MN10000.DTL
The study by the media consortium showed that if Al Gore had been successful in pushing for the partial recounts he wanted, George W. Bush would still have been the winner of the 2000 election. The partial recounts would have given Bush a razor-thin margin of victory, according to the study by the Associated Press, New York Times and other media groups.
But with a full recount of all undervotes and overvotes, Gore would have had a tiny margin of victory, as few as 42 votes. "
-----
A revote would not have been practical because of constitutional time restrictions and that the entire election would effectivly be reduced to one state.
1200-3500 illegal votes are far more that enough to set aside an election as close as 129 votes. By any calculation thess illegal votes would weigh in the favor of CG by far more than 129 votes. Your reading of the law makes the law of no use. Since ballots are private there could be 1,000,000 illegal votes and no way to set aside the election. Sorry, the law makers did not wirte the law inorder to have it have no effect.
Posted by: Doug on January 7, 2005 04:53 PMBut... did anyone else ever look over their numbers & methodology? Or is all we have this summary in the SFGate that "Gore would have had a tiny margin of victory, as few as 42 votes."? And what error bars did this study place on their methodology?
Torridjoe, why don't you go offer your legal advice to the CG bunch? Why exactly are you here, telling us repeatedly that it won't work?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 7, 2005 04:58 PMElections throughout history will be in question -- from now on the votes will keep happening until you get your way. Gregoire did it. Now Rossi is doing it.
Don't like the result? Recount if allowed by law. If you still lose? Sue.
Very scary future in all this. Hopefully the courts will have the wisdom to recognize the trembling of our democracy in this scenario and dismiss the claims quickly.
In the meantime, the law needs to be changed to prevent stuff like this happening again....a run off of the top two immediately following a close result instead of any recount. If only that was the law today..but it isn't...so Rossi goes desperate for the benefit of himself but not of the democratic process.
And if only he would have heeded his own advice: get over it and concede. But his ego would never allow it. The worst outcome: a revote and Rossi wins. Can you imagine this flip-flopper as governor? Says one thing..does another. I'm surprised Republicans don't call him "Kerry" Rossi for his changes as often as the vote counts changed.
Posted by: Scared for USA on January 7, 2005 05:09 PMAmazing...if the Democrats had done this, the Republicanss would have accused them of being the least classy people in the world. Smell the roses!
Posted by: Scared for USA on January 7, 2005 05:11 PMSo your solution is to ignore all the illegal ballots cast? How is that good for democarcy! It would perpetuate and allow this sort of negligence to continue.
Your switcheroo would also entail that the Republicans would have stolen the election, so that the Democrats could prove enough fraudulent ballots to contest.
When has this been true? Really? It wasn't true in Florida in 2000 nor Ohio in 2004 - it's always the Democrats benefiting from dead felon multiple voters.
Flipping the coin on Ds and Rs does not work! We're not the same!
Posted by: Larry on January 7, 2005 05:21 PMI think that 350+ provisional ballots run through without and checking for valid voters is a PROBLEM
I think that Vote enhancement in the way that it was done not according to the guidelines of the state, and after a warning in 2000 that continued enhancement in this manner would lead to a court action in a close race is a PROBLEM
I think that 8500+ votes with no voter is a PROBLEM
I think that Changing the rules only in King County is a PROBLEM
I think that Dead people not being removed from the voter data base, and actually voting is a PROBLEM
I think that Double voting is a PROBLEM
I think that Felons voting is a PROBLEM
Just to name a few of the issues with a PROBLEM
PS I also think that the courts will see a PROBLEM
GET IT!
Posted by: GS on January 7, 2005 05:24 PMGregoire can do what she’s allowed to do “within the law” (have 2 recounts) and “without the law” (changing the rules during recounts after the other counties certified their by-the-rules results).
But Rossi can’t do what’s “within the law” (contest the election) because it doesn’t benefit the Democrats!
Posted by: TADD on January 7, 2005 05:25 PMOf course you can't. And if it's close and Rossi's ahead...he'll declare it's over. And Gregoire will use Rossi's exact arguments (finding the ballots to "prove it" to repeat the process). And if Rossi is still behind, he'll make sure to find the ballots to sue once again.
It's a slope that nobody can possibly want...regardless of what side your on.
Of course Rossi is doing all this because he lost. Much better would be for him to work hard on making sure close elections never go through this stuff again. But the self-serving nature of his comments are so transparent...and scary for us.
If he prevails in court and in a revote, we'll have a more divided Washginton State than we do have in Washington DC which is REALLY divided. How can that be good for our country? When the 51% or whatever feel they rule over the 49% lock stock and barrel?
Be a man, chalk up the loss and move on. Nope...ego too big to allow that.
Posted by: Scared for USA on January 7, 2005 05:30 PMShe is a Democrat, and it is very clear that she is towing the party line. From the form letters I received from Senator Regala and my Reps, it is clear that there's been a concerted effort by Gregoire and the Dems to circle the wagons and stand behind the law. That was Senator Regala's mantra in our conversation, that the law provides no process other than the contest of the election and therefore, even though she did not like it, she would have to vote for Gregoire. She also talked a lot about healing, which appears to be a Gregoire mantra as well.
I don't believe her when she says that she has equal passion for the injustice that is being commited here. I repeated all of the examples that Stefan has turned up, and she really seemed to believe that none of these were grounds for concern. When I asked her about the many registered at storage facilities, she said that would be fraud, but that she had heard of no proof. That seems to fly in the face of everything that Shark is digging up.
I assured her that I will aspire to a new level of activism if indeed this carried through the legislature and the courts in a strictly partisan way. I also assured her that the vast majority of the electorate is simply offended, and she said that there is public opinion, and then there is the law. I cited an analogy that there are times when laws are broken, and rightfully so, and her answer to that was not very good.
It's a shame that public opinion is not something that has a deeper effect on these Senators. They are basically working within the power structure, and they are afraid to buck the system. There are notable exceptions, but certainly not in my district where I am sure there is a majority of Democrats.
Let's head to Olympia and then the courts with Petition for ReVoteWA in hand.
Our lawmakers need to get back in touch with public opinion.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 7, 2005 05:31 PMWake up, Dino, that's what you want! You want to be Governor, right?
If the court throws out the hand-count, then Rossi wins the election and he is Governor. What will Dino do then? Sue again to stop being Governor in order to get a re-vote?
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 7, 2005 05:33 PMhttp://plucrs.blogspot.com/
[b]Greogire: Not My Governor[/b]
The Rossi campaign has long maintained that this was a flawed election. They have also said they don't want to go to court... but the Dems are forcing them because they won't consider a REVOTE. What other choice does Rossi have? He's certainly NOT going to concede with all the trouble we've seen and the closeness of the election.
Posted by: TomP on January 7, 2005 05:35 PMScaredForUSA, look at how simple the ballot would be under IRV (this URL shows how it would be in Vermont 2000 under any of the 3 major voting machines):
http://www.fairvotevermont.org/ballot.pdf
In the interim, I'd have liked the runoff to be only among the top two winners. In Louisiania it is a state law requiring runoff elections when a majority winner is not obtained. Remember the recent runoff election in 2002 for the US Senator in Louisiana (see last paragraph at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/la/ )
Posted by: Roleigh Martin on January 7, 2005 05:36 PMThe loss will be chalked up when we ascertain the loss. Your tune has changed since the first certification.
Posted by: Mike H. on January 7, 2005 05:38 PMNope, if the court throws out the hand count, Dino will ask Gregoire once again to have a re-vote. She'll have to say no.
If she said yes, she'd be exposed as a complete hypocrite, since 'this isn't golf and there are no do-overs'. She'd lose by 5-10 points, well outside any margin of error.
Plus, no moveon.org paid mercenaries for her, and no rounding up of the typical undesirables to cast fraudulent ballots.
Posted by: Larry on January 7, 2005 05:40 PM10:30am
Jan. 11th
Olympia
Need to make sure our legislators know that the majority of the population does not support the certification of Chris/Christine Gregoire.
Also if you haven't already PLEASE go to revotewa.com and fill out the petition!
Posted by: Joe on January 7, 2005 05:42 PMIRV is something to be considered, but rules would need to be enforced: San Diego has a runoff for Mayor for the top 2 vote getters, but this last time they allowed a write-in candidate. If you haven't heard/read what a mess that is, just go to your favorite news page or search engine.
Posted by: smegma on January 7, 2005 05:46 PMWhat is sad, regarding secure voting, is that Mexico beats any of the 50 US states in that regard. Read what the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and NPR state about this. Also a link to the need for paper based audting of electronic voting machines.
Read the paragraph about Mexico's method in particular...
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp
"Ironically, Mexico and many other countries have election systems that are far more secure than ours. To obtain voter credentials, the citizen must present a photo, write a signature and give a thumbprint. The voter card includes a picture with a hologram covering it, a magnetic strip and a serial number to guard against tampering. To cast a ballot, voters must present the card and be certified by a thumbprint scanner. This system was instrumental in allowing the 2000 election of Vicente Fox, the first opposition party candidate to be elected president in seventy years."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1075661
Mexico City Tightens Voter Security
Morning Edition, June 20, 2000 · NPR's Gerry Hadden reports from Mexico City on changes in the way that country will elect its next president. Mexico's independent Federal Election Institute has installed privacy curtains in more than a hundred thousand voting booths, and has registered 90 percent of eligible voters. To prevent people voting twice, the election institute has given each individual voter an identity card with his or her photo and fingerprint on it. Despite attempts to end voter fraud, pressure and manipulative tactics from the country's ruling party, the PRI, may still influence the vote of some Mexicans.
September 13, 2004, 6:33 a.m.
Democracy Imperiled
America’s election problems.
By John Fund
...
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp
...
WHAT IS A FRAUD AUDIT?
BlackBoxVoting.Org
November 13, 2004
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
Posted by: Roleigh Martin on January 7, 2005 06:00 PMAlready did. Does no good. He's a hack for dems.
Posted by: smegma on January 7, 2005 06:06 PMLucceeeee, we're hoooommmmeeeeee..
We found your head and would like to put it back on your shoulders for you with a hammer and spikes.;0). Not that it would matter of course. Now go back to your partisan little hole and whimper about Ohio.
RE-VOTE, RE-VOTE, RE-VOTE!!!
From your Florida supporter.
Posted by: niceville on January 7, 2005 06:28 PMYou're not making sense. You said (above):
Nope, if the court throws out the hand count, Dino will ask Gregoire once again to have a re-vote. She'll have to say no. If she said yes, she'd be exposed as a complete hypocrite, since 'this isn't golf and there are no do-overs'. She'd lose by 5-10 points, well outside any margin of error.
Sorry, you are wrong. If the court throws out the hand count, Dino is Governor! Duh! (The same principle applied in the 2000 Supreme Court decision about Florida. They went back to the previous count.)
Also, you said if Gregoire says no to a revote she'd be exposed as a hypocrite. But Gregoire won't care, because she'll still be Governor!
If the Court Says Rossi is the Governor, then he's the Governor. They can have a re-vote in 2008. Or, if the Court specifies a re-vote, then Rossi won't have to "ask" Gregoire to do a damn thing--she'll be forced to do it by the Court.
The only problem being, of course, the chabce that you would end up with everyone's second choice.
The only problem being, of course, the chance that you would end up with everyone's second choice.
Not meaning to bring the idiot French into the debate, but that was how the current Prime Minister of France was chosen. From a field of many, a runoff between the top two gave the French our current "ally"...
Posted by: smegma on January 7, 2005 06:46 PMHmm... an inaugural bawl COULD be appropriate though!
Seriously, I don't think ANY inaugural celebrations should proceed until this has been definitively settled... especially if the taxpayers are footing the bill!
Doug--the problem with your analysis is that you cannot "calculate" anything with regard to the votes. You must know for which candidate the votes were registered. While we can make assumptions and place our faith in probabilities, there is no process in the Code that allows for that. Rossi will have to be able to show that any illegal votes he can specifically point to, must also be identified as votes for a particular candidate. Your point that it makes the law useless is not true; what it does is prevent human error post certification from being grounds for successful contest. The ballots are not "private" in the sense that we cannot know who the vote is recorded for--how else do you think they did a manual count? The problem is that which votes are the illegal ones, is unknown.
Bostonian: I'm not sure why CG would need the advice; they're not the ones supporting an effort to contest that so far appears doomed to failure. I see a lot of rhetoric, but very little examination of the important information: what Rossi has, and whether it meets the legal standards for contest. To support it without that information is to waste a lot of people's time and money. It would be nice to avert that situation.
Bill said:
"This will be filed under the RCW 29.8.68 statute [actually, RCW 29A.68.20] that allows the Courts to set aside an election when the number of [illegal] votes in question exceeds the margin of victory."
...which really just isn't true. Let's take a look at it:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.68.020&fuseaction=section
Certainly nothing about the "illegal vote" threshhold exists there. In addition, let me direct your attention to 5(b):
(b) Illegal votes do not include votes cast by improperly registered voters who were not properly challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 and 29A.08.820.
This seems to clearly state that if the vote is cast without challenge, which none of the provisionals in question apparently were, then none of them count as illegal votes. So Rossi has even less to start with that I thought, because without the provisionals he's got almost nothing to work with.
Anyone who'd like to discuss Rossi's options and prospects in terms of Washington code, feel free to hammer away. I'm keen to hear it.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 7, 2005 06:59 PMThe FSCI board of directors just fired the Pres and CEO of FSCI today. Could loss of audience have anything to do with this, or is this just p!$$-poor management? Whichever, look for changes at good ol' KOMO soon!
Posted by: Mac on January 7, 2005 07:30 PM"Certainly nothing about the "illegal vote" threshhold exists there. In addition, let me direct your attention to 5(b):
(b) Illegal votes do not include votes cast by improperly registered voters who were not properly challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 and 29A.08.820.
This seems to clearly state that if the vote is cast without challenge, which none of the provisionals in question apparently were, then none of them count as illegal votes. So Rossi has even less to start with that I thought, because without the provisionals he's got almost nothing to work with."
I guess you never took a logic course. The provisional ballot is cast under a presumption of challenge. That is why it is "provisional", the polling staff are not able to verify the legitimicy of the voter's registration.
Posted by: Ranger on January 7, 2005 07:30 PMOne thing is clear - When Rossi becomes Governor, revamping our State's election process will be at the top of his agenda! From his actions - we can be more assured that the outcome of future elections will be accurate!
If Rossi does not succeed in his contest - the people of Washington State can NEVER trust their election outcomes again! As long as the same players are in power....
King County has had a history of error, negligence and lax training/standards in it's election departments for decades - and it has become worse! Even after *heads* were supposedly *rolled* and key employees were fired over the years!
These problems began soon after the Democrats took over the state.....
This leads me to believe that either:
1. The Democrats are incompetent and untrainable. and do not have the required aptitude to run these election departments..
...OR...
2. The Democrats are brilliant in their ability to devise and perpetrate fraud..under the guise of incompetence!
Xlint point(s) on both #1 and #2
Posted by: smegma on January 7, 2005 07:49 PMRossi is Right to Contest!
I hope you'll be reconsidering your statements: "Now I pragmatically choose to ignore the hysteria being whipped up by Chris Vance/Rants and crew because, in the end, it will accomplish nothing -- unless you consider poisoning people on the political process an accomplishment."
If you really aspire to be fair...I hope you'll look into this more
carefully. No matter who wins, we have serious problems with our elections here in Washington State...and I'm glad it might finally be cleaned up! I hope you'll support this. There are 5,000 more ballots then voters..but, some voters in other counties have disappeared. Hundreds of provisional ballots were illegally mixed in with other ballots, so they can't be traced. And, 55,000 ballots were "enhanced" illegally! Then, there are forged signatures, too. Not pretty! There is ample reason to question this election!! And, ample reason to want new leadership in our State!
Thanks, J
Posted by: J.C. on January 7, 2005 07:52 PMdogfish: what took you so long to come to the conclusion the times and pi are full of liberal screeds and democratic political pornograghy. I proud of your conclusion
dinno rossi look very good at the press conference. a good leader.
For an Attorney General to be so unfamilliar or unconcerned with the rules of evidence as to waive these issues aside, and allow this to be dragged into court shows that either she believes no court will hold her election to those standards, or that she has no other hope of retaining her governor-alledged status.
For a Secretary of State to belittle impropriaties of this election as, "warts that only show up under such close scrutiny", is to me like a dermatologist describing the Elephant Man as someone with a bad case of hives.
Revote Now !!!
Posted by: FreeMan on January 7, 2005 08:14 PMThe FL election was totally different from yours as (1) no chads (2)very limited absentee ballots that have to be requested personally, in writing, for each election and are counted at a central location. (3) no provisional ballots
The difference in your election is very very liberal registration and accounting rules. I have never heard of any county in FL that would certify an election without the number of voters matching the number of ballots counted. Had this occurred in FL don't you think you would have heard about it!
In many parts of the country this practice of non reconcilation of votes is a common practice (i.e. Philadelphia). It needs to be stopped now. To those of you who are not active, become active.
"DO NOT WASTE THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR REFORM"
Posted by: Richard on January 7, 2005 08:17 PMRanger--I think that's a good argument, if a little snidely delivered. If I were Rossi's lawyers I'd probably want to make that point. But then you know Gregoire's lawyers will say, "OK, show me the affadavits of challenge on the specific votes that are to be considered illegal, and what vote was recorded for them. How was a provisional ballot handled in WA? Is the pollbook signed by the voter and the precinct judge together? My point being--they are likely to only be regarded as presumptively challenged if they can be presumptively produced to the court. Habeas ballotus, so to speak. Another piece of Rossi's problem there is that they must be identified as invalid ballots--that is, improperly registered--for them to be regarded as illegal. Right now about 90% is the validity rate IIRC, which means if there's 1000 then only a tenth of that will be eligible to be ruled illegal. (I'm not using the probability to decide any points of law here; I'm just making the point that the pool of votes that Rossi is likely to be able to have treated as illegal, is probably going to run only one for every 10 votes mistakenly tabulated).
I wish Joe would be more specific about the process by which he was able to conclusively identify votes as having been passed. I'm not necessarily doubting him, but when asked about what in the pollbook makes him think so, I never got an answer. If he's explained it fully elsewhere, someone link me to it. Thanks.
Math - the tabulation of numerals, which begins with one, and ends with the correct number tabulated. This process is not possible in King County
Posted by: smegma on January 7, 2005 08:48 PMYou will never get it. PB that were not vetted are all illegal. None of them will be ruled legal. Look up the definition of a legal vote. They do not qualify. Get a clue.
You also have it wrong about felons and dead people. No question they are illegal. The law you are trying to refer to is for incomplete registrations. These need to be challenged before the election.
Posted by: Doug on January 7, 2005 08:55 PMOr...can I introduce you to the notion of "strategic incompetence."
Posted by: South County on January 7, 2005 09:02 PMThe overwhelming precedent for elections is to take votes away only due to fraud. Votes later determined valid can have the presumption of acceptance, but so do those erroneously accepted and certified. ESPECIALLY if you can't identify them, as you cannot with provisionals.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 7, 2005 09:04 PMMath = truth. WOW! I got an A+! Oh, yeah, the numbers which count must be legal. Guess you forgot such a thing (or ignored it). A Provisional ballot must be reconciled to the voter who cast it, much like the Absentee. The voters who show up at the precinct and vote must sign their name on the line. The math is wrong buddy...
Posted by: smegma on January 7, 2005 09:04 PMThere are 1200 unreconcilable votes in King County. Your presumptive Gov. won by 129. Math, man...
Posted by: smegma on January 7, 2005 09:15 PMYes! Sort of like what torridjoe is attempting in the quote below........
"smegma--I wish I understood half of what you were saying. I'm not sure what specific legal argument you're trying to make."
Posted by: Deborah on January 7, 2005 09:17 PMDean Logan (King County's Director of Records, Elections, and Licensing) assumes that the voters who put their ballots directly into the machines had no intention of fraud.
From today's Seattle Times article:
"He [Dean Logan] said that up to 90 percent of provisional ballots countywide were found to be valid in this year's election, so only a small percentage of the 350 are likely illegitimate votes."
In other words, Dean Logan (who is effectively the auditor for King County) assumes that since 10 percent of the provisional ballots that were properly placed in envelopes were determined to be invalid, a similarly small percentage of the provisional ballots that were improperly placed directly into the machines are invalid.
But let us think about this for a moment. Why would a voter put his or her ballot directly in the AccuVote machine, rather than inside the envelope? Theoretically, the elections workers are supposed to inform the voters that their provisional ballots must be placed inside the envelopes, rather than be fed through the machines.
There must be a reason as to why these 350 voters chose to break the rules.
Only if we accept the premise that all 350 voters made an innocent mistake can we assume that only 10 percent of the 350 would have been illegitimate votes that were counted.
However, this is the assumption that Dean Logan appears to be making.
Posted by: Tim B. on January 7, 2005 09:22 PMHow is it you are always rescuing me from fools? I give up...
Well, for now at least...
Posted by: smegma on January 7, 2005 09:24 PMYou deserve a *true* debate!......
Not this rhetorical nonsense that trolls like torridjoe and other Gregoire groupies throw at you!
I enjoy reading your posts!
Posted by: Deborah on January 7, 2005 11:24 PMYou asked for some particular cites re: illegality...
RCW 29A.08.210
Application -- Information required -- Warning.
The following warning shall appear in a conspicuous place on the voter registration form:
"If you knowingly provide false information on this voter registration form or knowingly make a false declaration about your qualifications for voter registration you will have committed a class C felony that is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, or by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars, or both imprisonment and fine."
RCW 29A.08.230
Oath of applicant.
For all voter registrations, the registrant shall sign the following oath:
"I declare that the facts on this voter registration form are true. I am a citizen of the United States, I am not presently denied my civil rights as a result of being convicted of a felony, I will have lived in Washington at this address for thirty days immediately before the next election at which I vote, and I will be at least eighteen years old when I vote."
Those several hundred who supposedly registered at the KC Admin Bldg presumably signed an oath attesting to the fact that that address was their legal residence. Seems I heard that most of those folks were homeless. Homeless implies no legal residence...
The felons that voted - presumably they were registered and as such would have signed the same oath. Both are instances of knowingly providing false information on the voter registration form or knowingly make a false declaration about their qualifications.
RCW 29A.84.110
Officials' violations.
If any county auditor or registration assistant:
(1) Willfully neglects or refuses to perform any duty required by law in connection with the registration of voters; or
(2) Willfully neglects or refuses to perform such duty in the manner required by voter registration law; or
(3) Enters or causes or permits to be entered on the voter registration records the name of any person in any other manner or at any other time than as prescribed by voter registration law or enters or causes or permits to be entered on such records the name of any person not entitled to be thereon; or
(4) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, changes, or alters any registration record in connection therewith except as authorized by voter registration law,
he or she is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable to the same extent as a gross misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021
The county officials who allowed those people to be registered are also guilty of a gross misdemeanor...
RCW 29A.84.650
Repeaters.
Any person who votes or attempts to vote more than once at any primary or general or special election is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, punishable to the same extent as a gross misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
RCW 29A.84.660
Unqualified persons voting.
Any person who knows that he or she does not possess the legal qualifications of a voter and who votes at any primary or special or general election authorized by law to be held in this state for any office whatever is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
RCW 29A.44.231
Record of participation.
As each voter casts his or her vote, the precinct election officers shall insert in the poll books or precinct list of registered voters opposite that voter's name, a notation to credit the voter with having participated in that primary or election. No record may be made of a voter's party affiliation in a partisan primary. The precinct election officers shall record the voter's name so that a separate record is kept.
Had this little portion of the law been followed, you wouldn't have 1200+ unaccounted for ballots in KC...
RCW 29A.68.020
Commencement by registered voter -- Causes for.
Any registered voter may contest the right of any person declared elected to an office to be issued a certificate of election for any of the following causes:
(1) For misconduct on the part of any member of any precinct election board involved therein;
(5) On account of illegal votes.
(a) Illegal votes include but are not limited to the following:
(i) More than one vote cast by a single voter;
(ii) A vote cast by a person disqualified under Article VI, section 3 of the state Constitution.
RCW 29A.68.080
Misconduct of board -- Number of votes affected -- Enough to change result.
When any election for an office exercised in and for a county is contested on account of any malconduct on the part of any election board, or any member thereof, the election shall not be annulled and set aside upon any proof thereof, unless the rejection of the vote of such precinct or precincts will change the result as to such office in the remaining vote of the county.
RCW 29A.68.090
Illegal votes -- Allegation of.
When the reception of illegal votes is alleged as a cause of contest, it is sufficient to state generally that illegal votes were cast, that, if given to the person whose election is contested in the specified precinct or precincts, will, if taken from that person, reduce the number of the person's legal votes below the number of legal votes given to some other person for the same office.
RCW 29A.68.110
Illegal votes -- Number of votes affected -- Enough to change result.
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
Seems pretty clear to me...
Posted by: FedUp on January 8, 2005 01:52 AM.110 similarly makes reference to illegal actions by poll workers, not to the votes that they produce. If Rossi has evidence of individual malfeasance that can be attributed to specific persons, I'd like to hear it. It would appear from yesterday's presser he doesn't.
.650 and .660, see above regarding .210 and .230--they apply to individual voters, not treatment of the votes.
.231 clearly was not followed universally, in any county--as is true in every election, sadly. However, violations are not by themselves sufficient grounds to contest, much less set aside, an election. Malfeasance must be involved.
.020 lists requirements to contest, not to set aside. You also cut off half of this section of code, it seems.
.080 refers to malconduct, which Rossi has conceded did not occur.
.090 essentially restates the standard of contest, which I've stipulated. You can use illegal votes to contest, but to set aside you must prove sufficient votes FOR A CANDIDATE to change the result. Not presumption or estimation of, but proof of. This is made clear, as you say, in .110.
That's what they mean by this:
"
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"
E-mail him folks at his website @ KOMO4
Tell him what you think
Posted by Mr. Cynical at January 7, 2005 06:01 PM
Ken Schram is a moron, which is why he tends to support lefty positions most of the time. I'm not convinced it's partisan.
Posted by: South County on January 8, 2005 11:17 AMI guess you never took a logic course. The provisional ballot is cast under a presumption of challenge. That is why it is "provisional", the polling staff are not able to verify the legitimicy of the voter's registration.
Posted by Ranger at January 7, 2005 07:30 PM
I think I smell a lefty lawyer.
Posted by: South County on January 8, 2005 11:20 AMEven so, a positive ruling by the lower courts and an over-ruling by the Supreme Court will probably swing 10% of the vote to the Republican side in the next election.
In fact, this whole episode might ultimately be responsible for swinging our state red.
Posted by: Von Aras on January 8, 2005 01:15 PMFirst, you brought up RCW 29A.68.020 (5)b
(b) Illegal votes do not include votes cast by improperly registered voters who were not properly challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 and 29A.08.820.
This is not at issue in this case. This says that you can only challenge the registration of a voter due to the registration being improper before election day. This is not the same as proving illegal votes, examples of which are cited in (5)a.
This (5)b challenge is also not the same as the challenges issued under RCW 29A.44.201. Under this provision, a poll worker can challenge a voter when they arrive at the poll to vote.
RCW 29A.44.201
Issuing ballot to voter--Challenge.
A voter desiring to vote shall give his or her name to the precinct election officer who has the precinct list of registered voters. This officer shall announce the name to the precinct election officer who has the copy of the inspector's poll book for that precinct. If the right of this voter to participate in the primary or election is not challenged, the voter must be issued a ballot or permitted to enter a voting booth or to operate a voting device. For a partisan primary in a jurisdiction using the physically separate ballot format, the voter must be issued a nonpartisan ballot and each party ballot. The number of the ballot or the voter must be recorded by the precinct election officers. If the right of the voter to participate is challenged, RCW 29A.08.810 and 29A.08.820 apply to that voter.
Further, neither of these are the same as issuing provision ballots. Provisional ballots can’t be the subject of the poll challenge because they are issued to people who aren’t in the precinct list or inspector’s poll book. They are given a provisional ballot because the poll workers cannot verify if they are registered at all. That is for the county elections to determine.
RCW 29A.04.008
Ballot and related terms.
As used in this title:
(5) "Provisional ballot" means a ballot issued to a voter at the polling place on election day by the precinct election board, for one of the following reasons:
(a) The voter's name does not appear in the poll book;
(b) There is an indication in the poll book that the voter has requested an absentee ballot, but the voter wishes to vote at the polling place;
(c) There is a question on the part of the voter concerning the issues or candidates on which the voter is qualified to vote;
Therefore, RCW 29A.68.020 (5)b isn’t the issue in this contest. Part of the contest involves RCW 29A.68.020 (5)a. Here, I believe you are mistaken in your reading of .090 and .110 regarding the inclusion of illegal votes. You do not have to show who the illegal votes were cast for. That is an impossibility. You only have to show that there are enough illegal votes, that if taken from the winner, would reduce the number of votes below the number of legal votes for some other person. Substituting the specifics of this election, the law is read as:
When the reception of illegal votes is alleged as a cause of contest, it is sufficient to state generally that illegal votes were cast, that, if given to Gregoire, will, if taken from Gregoire, reduce the number of Gregoire's legal votes below the number of legal votes given to Rossi.
I also believe you are mistaken when you stated “Oh, I neglected to mention that beyond the provisionals, if the votes from dead people and felons weren't challenged, those would appear to be useless. If cast, according to the code they count once it's certified.” You don’t have to challenge an illegal voter at the time it is cast or counted, or otherwise it’s too late. There’s nothing in the law that says this. Otherwise, this would render the provision in the law to challenge an election on the basis of illegal votes to be ineffective.
In order for a contest to be upheld, the law presumes that all the illegal votes went to the winner. Therefore, if Rossi can prove more than 129 illegal votes, the courts would have to uphold the contest and set aside the election. The issue the court has to decide is whether there is sufficient proof of a sufficient number of illegal votes.
Next issue; you stated, in reference to .070 and .080
“which make clear that simply finding mistakes doesn't cut it. You have to prove either that the actions by officials were done with the intent to make Gregoire the winner, ...”
There is nothing in .070 or .080 that says that “intent” has to be proven. .070 says that an irregularity (which can be an “honest mistake”) is large enough for one candidate “to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes.” Simply put, somebody made a mistake that was greater than the margin of victory.
Let me hypothesize a different outcome of this election. Suppose that Larry Phillips hadn’t found his name on the list of disallowed voters until after the second recount. Further, suppose that Rossi had won the second recount by 100. Now comes Larry Phillips discovery, and Dean Logan says that a mistake was discovered (an irregularity, or taking him at face value: an honest clerical mistake). I would say that this would be a basis for the dems to contest the election because the mistake was greater than the margin of victory. (This was actually the repubs argument in the second case before the Supreme Court; that the proper time to consider the validity of these ballots was in an election contest, not the recount. That way the court could receive sworn testimony and engage in fact-finding, rather than engage in hypotheticals.)
Now in this hypothetical, it would involve votes not counted rather than votes already counted. It would be easier for the court to rule that this could be corrected by counting the mistakenly excluded ballots. In the Rossi contest, it involves ballots already counted. Since they’ve been counted, you can’t un-stir the pot, so if the court agrees, their recourse is to set aside the election.
Here is where the issue of the provisional ballots mixed with the regular ballots comes in. If the court finds that there were enough provisional ballots improperly included in with regular ballots before it was determined if they were valid, then the court can set aside the election. It doesn’t matter what the overall acceptance rate of provisional ballots was, the court cannot assume that the overall percentage would hold true with the unverified provisional ballots. Further, you don’t (because you can’t) have to determine who the unverified provisional ballots voted for. They only have to number more than the margin of victory to bring the results into question.
This is analogous to the current situation in North Carolina where the race for Agriculture Director was about 3,000 votes. There was one county that had about 4,000 votes disappear due to a memory overflow in electronic voting machines. It was sufficient to show that the number of lost votes exceeded the margin of victory. The court didn’t speculate that the 4,000 would have voted about the same way everyone else did. They held that since the irregularity exceeded the margin of victory, the election is set aside. BTW, the whole state has to re-vote, not just the county that lost the votes. This is why others who bring up why a re-vote in Florida in 2000 should have been done are wrong. You can’t just re-vote one jurisdiction, the whole country would have to re-vote. Which is also why we can’t just have King County re-vote if their problems cause this election to be set aside.
Your first point was one that Ranger touched on--they exist under presumptive challenge. Which is fine, but to be considered they must be presented to opposing counsel (and the court) three days in advance of trial, individually and with affadavit. Will Rossi have anything such as that secured? But then you seem to contradict yourself thereafter, suggesting that provisionals are unchallengeable because there's no way to tell their registration status. Which means under 5b that they can't be used as illegal votes.
Then you move to .110, saying that the need to show who was voted for can't apply--but use as the reason that here it's impossible. Which is not a reason for the law not to apply, but for the votes not to be valid for presentation as illegal. Then you say it only must be shown that sufficient exist to, if taken away from the "winner", cause that person to be the loser. So on what basis would you be able to take them away, without knowing which ones for her? By law, you must account for the possibility, however remote, that each and every one of those invalid provisionals (likely less than 50 total votes based on the 348 number) is a Rossi vote. Without knowing they're hers, you can't take them away from her. Which is why you need the ballot itself to present it as illegal.
You move on to remark on my statement that felon and dead votes are not countable because they weren't challenged. When you say "there's nothing in the law that says this," I beg to differ. .020 5(b) says exactly that--you can't count it as an illegal vote if it was not challenged for improper registration. Dead people and felons are improperly registered, by definition.
You move on to .070, and say nothing suggests intent is necessary. Again, I beg to differ. Here's the relevant section: "unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested to be declared duly elected..." To procure means to obtain by special effort, to bring about. What that means in context is that the irregularity must be undertaken IN ORDER TO MAKE THE LOSER THE WINNER. Rossi will have to prove that invalid votes were tabulated by someone, with the express intent of elevating Gregoire. That's why people are saying that without fraud, Rossi's pretty well sunk. Mistakes don't overturn elections. Your hypothetical assumes that, given a large enough set of irregularities to suggest that votes could be found for either candidate after certification, the court would find a re-vote inherently superior to the original election. I can find no basis for that to be true, since the new election would take place under EXACTLY the same rules as the previous one, by almost EXACTLY the same people. I agree that you can't use an estimate of the valid rate to say in court it's not enough. But by the very same token, you can't say the number of votes involved would automatically cause Gregoire to lose. And that's the standard that will be applied.
Thank you again for a serious attempt to discuss the legal issues at hand. Just because I disagree, doesn't mean I don't appreciate your honest attempt to explain your rationales. Have a good afternoon.
Referring to NC law doesn't help at all; their state laws are different. Let's stick with RWC.
The issue here is that whether the mingling of provisional ballots with regular ballots caused enough invalid votes to be included in the final certified vote count to render the result in question. This will be a finding of fact that the judge will have to rule on. But I believe the standard a judge must use is margin of victory, not based on an estimate of how they voted.
As to what needs to be presented to the parties in the suit, .100 states "No testimony may be received as to any illegal votes unless the party contesting the election delivers to the opposite party, at least three days before trial, a written list of the number of illegal votes and by whom given, that the contesting party intends to prove at the trial. No testimony may be received as to any illegal votes, except as to such as are specified in the list." It is not the ballots that are presented to the court but the list of number of votes and who the voter was. I don't read this as even saying that the contesting party has to prove who the vote was for.
BTW, I read in the Tacoma paper that one felon stated he voted for Rossi. According to the way I read the law, that is of no consequence. He voted illegally. His vote gets subtracted from the winner's total to see if the contest threshhold has been met. Doesn't sound fair, but that's the way the law is written.
The point of .110 is that is that court does not presume who the votes were for. They only have to find that the total number of illegal votes cast exceeds the margin of victory. Your presumption that the illegal ballot must be presented so as to determine who it was for doesn't make any sense. We vote by secret ballot. There is no way to determine which ballot is associated with a particular voter. This is so highly enforced that if the voter signs the ballot, the ballot is voided and not counted. Therefore, the actual ballot that was cast by an illegal voter is not recognizable from any other ballot. This is why the law is written the way it is. You subtract the total number of +proven+ illegal votes from the winner. If the result is less than the other candidate, the election is set aside. The court must presume that every illegal ballot was cast for the winner.
On your point on .020 5(b), votes by dead people or felons are not challenged solely on the basis of improper registration. It is the validity of their vote that is in question, not their registration.
On .070, I still don't see that you have to prove intent. I would mostly agree with your restatement of "procure", except that I would say that the irregularity must have the result of making the loser the winner. The law says "such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes." It doesn't say "in order to make", it says only that the irregularity results in the wrong person being elected.
The people I see saying that without fraud, Rossi is sunk are Berendt and his crowd. Former state Attorney General Slade Gorton certainly isn't. And I certainly don't know of any of the ultimate arbiters -- judges -- saying this.
Mistakes do overturn elections. There was a 1974 election in Adams county that was set aside by the courts because of a mistake in the security of the ballots. They ordered a new election. See today's Seattle Times article.
My hypothetical did not exactly match the circumstances we face, but was presented to say that I believe that the threshhold for success of an election contest is to prove in court that enough illegal or invalid votes were counted that place the result in doubt. The hypothetical presented a case where the court's resolution would not have to be a new election, rather the counting of the excluded ballots. In our current circumstance, we have already counted the ballots in question, and therefore they cannot be removed from the ballot pool. Therefore, if the challenge proves to the court that there are more than 129 ballots in question, then the court would decide what the resolution is. If the court has proof of how they voted, then it could remove those votes from the result. If the court cannot determine for whom the votes were cast, then they would set aside the election. At that point, they could order a new election or let the legislature decide what to do.
If you want to continue this discourse, I'm game. After all, we won't be deciding these things, we have to leave the ultimate decision to the judges. However, I do enjoy trying to figure out how the law is applied. I will say that, while I'm not a lawyer, I've correctly called both of the cases already presented to the Supremes. That doesn't mean I'll be right the third time though. Also, I do have a case pending before the Supremes on a tax issue. I'm much more interested in them getting that case right than I am in the election cases. But then, that one hits me a lot deeper in my wallet than who the governor is.
Posted by: north clark county on January 8, 2005 05:56 PMThen at the END of the paragraph:
"You subtract the total number of +proven+ illegal votes from the winner. If the result is less than the other candidate, the election is set aside. The court must presume that every illegal ballot was cast for the winner."
You were right the first time. They do not presume; they must be shown. Why on earth would they presume it? They would not presume something that they could be almost 100% certain was not actually true. That, in a nutshell, is our disagreement. You cannot reverse the election without 130 Rossi votes, and those votes must be indentified as such. There is also no point setting aside an election to have another one just like it, unless it has been intentionally manipulated to create a false outcome. And intent is demonstrated by the use of the word procure, which is very important. You use the word effect (well, result), which is not correct. It is affect. Procurement is an affect, meaning that you are creating that influence. Absent intentional manipulation, what you have is an effect, not an affect--because there is by definition no purpose to a mistake. This premise appears both in the definition of malconduct, and in the ajudication of illegal votes. I think Rossi hurts himself in his filing by noting that many provisionals and discrepancies occurred in most counties, the large majority of which are Rossi counties. It lends credence to the natural margin of error principle that cannot be avoided with a revote, and also creates a philosophical balance between KC mistakes and those of Rossi-favoring counties.
regarding improper registration: all votes are either qualified by proper registration. Without it, you are not qualified due to improper registration. It is improper for them to be duly registered, because they are ineligible.
I picked the two SC cases as well. They were easy, as the verdicts indicated. Counties are at liberty to judge votes at their discretion, but may not be forced to. That's true all the way until final certification (as long as a count is underway). They said almost exactly the same thing the 2nd time around, and now Rossi is, before the Supreme Court anyway, liable to be hoisted on his own petard--because he argued a month ago that KC did right to exercise discretion in reviewing votes, and also that the other counties shouldn't have to revisit them, no matter their status. And now he's back to wondering about their status again, and complaining that they couldn't look at them.
I might also add that Secy Reed has been on the right side twice as well. What his own party is doing to him is pathetic. He's not a traitor; he's trying to do his best by the state, not the GOP.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 8, 2005 09:40 PMAbout the word procure. The dictionary.com definition actually uses the word "effect" in def. #2 "To bring about; effect: procure a solution to a knotty problem." Your use seems to conform more to def. #1 " To get by special effort; obtain or acquire: managed to procure a pass." While the state certainly has a knotty problem, I can't say which definition is more relevant. Maybe it's def. #3?
I agree that relying on the discrepencies between ballots and voter recorded as voting probably isn't a sufficient cause to uphold a contest. It's too easy to explain that it's clerical error. The court will presume th