From Rossi campaign:
“[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Gold Bar Citizens for Good Government v. Whalen, 99 Wn.2d 724, 730 (1983).
“Where appropriate, [the court’s powers] include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect.” Foulkes v. Hays, 85 Wn.2d 629, 633 (1975).
"The Election Contest Petition sets forth a series of errors, omissions, mistakes, neglect, and other wrongful acts by election officials that make it impossible to determine with certainty who won the 2004 election for Governor of Washington. The specific claims include:
"The Contest Petition seeks an order setting the election aside; declaring that any certification of the results of the election and any certificate of election issued as a result of the election are void; and directing that a new election be conducted as soon as practicable."
Here's a link to this and other resources on the case.
Posted by Brian Crouch at January 08, 2005 02:30 PM | Email ThisThat would be the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, and a commissioner of public lands.
Article III, section 4 of the constitution says: "Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law."
The "law" to which this part of the constitution refers could be laws which set the standards and procedures for the decision by the legislature, but maybe couldn't be a law which delegated the authority to decide the contested election to the judicial branch.
The reference to "law" in this section could also be read to mean that the legislature isn't supposed to decide the contested election as a purely political question. (If there were a tie, then the matter is decided as a purely political question by a vote of both houses in joint session.) The legislature isn't apparently authorized to set aside the apparent outcome of the vote of the people simply because the legislators don't like it -- there has to be some legal basis for setting it aside.
If the certificate of election is issued by the legislature on Tuesday to Gregoire without an examination of the basis for the contested election, can anyone be sure that the courts will decide that the judicial branch has any authority to render that certificate void by setting aside the election later?
Shouldn't the legislators know what the legal effect of issuing that certificate of election will be before they issue it?
If they assume that they or the courts can straighten things out later -- in the event that the evidence, once presented, is overwhelmingly in favor of invalidating the election -- they may take a step that they cannot later take back.
Posted by: Micajah on January 8, 2005 03:50 PMhttp://www.dinorossi.com/news/pressreleases/jan2005/contestrelease.php
The links to the petitions, affidaits and such to the court are at the bottom of the page.. Very interesting reading as they really do spell it out.
Posted by: BS in republicWA on January 8, 2005 03:54 PMSome talented and willing Republicans (with a strong stomach and very thick skin) ought to switch their party affiliation to Democrat and then run for political offices - starting at the local level and moving up to statewide and even national. If enough Republicans do so, then maybe in ten or twenty years, the Democrat party will actually have politicians representing them that are honest and will participate in government according to the rule of law instead of eschewing the laws, making their own "law" and considering themselves above the law.
Posted by: JRR on January 8, 2005 04:04 PMSecond, why is everyone so sure Dino will win a re-vote?
REVOTE! REVOTE! REVOTE!
Posted by: Third Party Voter on January 8, 2005 04:12 PMWhy would anyone (with mental clarity), find it hard to resist feeding these trolls?
Does anyone here stop to think about the purpose of troll post's?
1.To flame
2.To cause 50 knee-jerk responses in one thread
3.To take us hopelessly off track from the hard work that Stefan and Brian and the other sleuths here have presented for us and the public?
Look, There simply is no changing their minds. The announcement of the election contest is going to bring them in here in droves. They are angry, petty, and will behave like bad children. (Some are very articulate bad children..) but children none the less...
If you don't respond to their posts they will simply get buried in the thread....Maybe they will manifest into a childish tantrum and get kicked from the blog...but if you respond to them - you lend them credibility! And that is what keeps them coming back!
I believe the chance of the court siding w/ Dino is good. Based on the data from the counties as filed, the numbers are more than compelling to toss CG out, or get a revote.
Posted by: smegma on January 8, 2005 05:08 PMReally appreciate all that you have done to help - I hope your work is rewarded somehow. I wrote my democratic representative (Bill Grant) and our republican senator (Mike Hewitt) last Friday. Haven't heard back from Bill Grant yet - but Mike Hewitt was definately in favor of a revote - and referred me to Soundpolitics as a place to check out the "latest" - as well as linked me to revotewa.com to sign (which had already been done). Anyhow - thought it was cool that he referenced this site - which I have been checking out since a week or so prior to the "1st" count.
Great work Stefan - and again - hope you are somehow rewarded for all of your effort.
Posted by: Ed Luebben on January 8, 2005 05:36 PM"Gregoire's 'healing tour' hit another bump in the road today when she was mugged by a hitchhiker that she picked up at the Evergreen State College. After subduing and ejecting him from her '76 Gremlin, she suffered only slightly rumpled clothes, a few hairs out of place, and the loss of her favorite "Hello Kitty" coin purse.
'I'm moving on,' she said defiantly, and plans to spend the night at the Humptulips Motel 6."
Posted by: Michele on January 8, 2005 06:08 PMDear Mr. Harris,
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the recent gubernatorial
election and requesting a "re-vote." I know this gubernatorial
election has been very frustrating for all of us living in Washington
state. Quite frankly, we simply aren't accustomed to elections that
are so close that every vote and every action in the process in placed
under a magnifying glass for examination.
It is unfortunate that the media has tended to focus more on the
rhetoric than on the carefully designed process. For the most part,
that process has served us well each step of the way. Certainly, I
agree, more care needs to be taken with the handling of ballots. And I
anticipate there may be legislation to clarify some of the
administrative steps in the process. But when you consider the number
of disputed ballots as compared to the number of ballots submitted
(over 2.7 million statewide), the disputes were minuscule.
Despite the uproar, the process as set forth in state law was followed:
the first recount was triggered by the slim margin in the vote totals -
a second hand recount is authorized by state law when the margin remains
slim and the requesting party is willing to pay for the cost. (I
strongly believe either candidate would have utilized this option if the
roles had been reversed - this was not a ploy by one party).
It is unfortunate that the courts had to be brought into the process but
they have also been careful to remain neutral and follow the principle
of separation of powers. As you know the Legislature sets up the body
of law on how an election is to be conducted. The court's role is to
interpret those laws. And the county auditors and the Secretary of
State execute or administer those laws and procedures.
The first ruling by the courts dealt with whether a recount was only a
retabulation of votes already counted or a new count of previously
rejected ballots Media accounts have often emphasized the ruling that
it is to be a retabulation without citing the full ruling that the
retabulation was subject to state law which permits recanvassing when a
discrepancy (error or mistake) or inconsistency occurs.
That is the essence of the Supreme Court's second ruling which
authorized the canvassing board in King county to correct any errors or
inconsistencies in how ballots were handled. It is also important to
know that the ballots in dispute in King county were not rejected. They
had been set aside for a further check for a valid signature, but that
further check mistakenly did not take place. During the process of
further checking, some ballots were found to have valid signatures,
other were not. Others were rejected for other reasons. But rejecting
all of them before completing the legitimate administrative procedures
would have been wrong. Those voters deserved to have their votes
considered in the hand recount. Important to note, a hand recount
allows for the most accurate result possible in such a close election.
Counters from each major party as well as party observers must agree on
each ballot, in each precinct, in each county.
After each county goes through the administrative procedures as
established by state law, the election results in that county are
certified as complete. All thirty-nine counties, including King
county, have done that and the law does not provide for revisions of
that certification. The Secretary of State, Sam Reed, has certified
the completion of the process statewide. That was the final step in the
election process.
All of these steps have been open to public observation to ensure there
is no fraud. If someone believes there has been fraud, the ability to
contest the election has also been established in state law. I
certainly hope that will not occur. While this has been a frustrating
process, I have not heard anyone present a legitimate citation of fraud.
I recognize there is currently rhetoric about a discrepancy between the
number of voters and the number of votes cast. Every county auditor and
the Secretary of State have made it clear that reconciliation of these
numbers is standard procedure and there should be no assumption of fraud
until the process is completed. If fraud is found, then it will be
dealt with.
If there is no fraud found, we must accept the outcome and move forward.
State law does not provide for a re-vote. A re-vote would plunge our
state into chaos and create many more problems than it would resolve.
We have many grave issues before us and it will take all of us working
together, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Governor,
Legislator, and citizen to create the secure and prosperous future we
all want for our state.
Sincerely,
Debbie Regala
State Senator
27th Legislative District
I pity you for having a State Senator who can't fathom the discrepancy we are dealing with. I hope Dino has a Judge who understands math. How is it that we elect wordsmiths to the legislature instead of people who know how to balance a checkbook?
Posted by: smegma on January 8, 2005 07:04 PM(1) We ARE accustomed to close elections - see, eg. Gorton vs. Cantwell. Anyway, is that any excuse for an election system known to have been broken for at least the last 2 decades? The only explanation I can think of is that certain parties like it that way so they can game the system.
(2) That 99.98% of the ballots were properly and legally cast, and were properly handled through an auditable chain of custody by the county election officials is really irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that the number of mishandled and improperly cast ballots far exceeds the margin of victory. Do our Legislators, Secretary of State and county election officials really expect the public to have faith in an election system where the winner of an election contest is unknowable?
"Even the self-serving Rossi campaign has stopped it's pathetically shrill shouts of "FRAUD!" and changed to the latest excuse du'jour -- more mistakes were made than the margin of Gregoire's victory."
My reply was:
Thank you for making our point.
Sorry, you can go back to sleep...
But there's still hope. With sufficient public pressure and the re-vote campaign gaining needed publicity, even deliberate obtuseness can be overcome. Most of all, thanks to Stefan for putting together the factual basis to effectively protest and engage the legislature as they approach their role in the process.
Posted by: RLG on January 8, 2005 07:19 PMI forgot the quotes. Did not mean to imply you should go to sleep!!!
My reply was:
"Thank you for making our point.
Sorry, you can go back to sleep..."
Posted by: smegma on January 8, 2005 07:21 PMWhat ignorance and blind lemming like qualities you possess. Go watch Easy Rider or something and finish off the Maui Wowie.
Uh, this is for the headless one and what an appropriate name if ever there was one.
Posted by: niceville on January 8, 2005 07:48 PMI appreciate you writing me. I am afraid that we are going to have to diisagree on this issue. The law in Washington is very specific about the election process. We have had one machine recount and one manual recount and the winner has been determined. Proof of fraud is part of WA State law to overturn an election. Irregularities, although unfortunate, are human error and not fraud. Even Dino said this yesterday in his news conference with Slade Gorton. There has been no proof of fraud. Human error is not fraud. The law is still the law. If a judge overturns this election, it will then go to the legislature for a vote. I appreciate your opinion, but I also will take an oath on Monday to uphold the law.
Again thanks for writing.
Sherry
Pretty succinct, but if Slade has it right, Dino doesn't need to prove fraud, just that there are enough errors to sway the election. No info as to whether she supports a revote, but I'm sure I can guess...
Posted by: SheriJo on January 8, 2005 07:48 PMHere's one from my representative: Geoff Simpson *D*...47th Dist.
"Dear Deborah,
Thanks for the message. I intend to vote to certify the election of
Gregoire as our new governor unless credible evidence of organized fraud
or malfeasance that could have resulted in a faulty election is produced
and legitimized by the courts. I ask you to consider what would happen
if the remainder of our democratically-controlled legislature and I
refused to recognize Dino Rossi as the legitimate governor if he had won
the final recount allowed by our laws and these (rather routine)
mistakes were uncovered. Be honest with yourself. Do you think for one
minute that the GOP would accept that ? There would be rioting in the
streets. That's exactly why it is such a dangerous precedent and why I
decline to take such an ill-advised action under any circumstance except
for organized fraud or malfeasance. The issue is in the courts where it
belongs. I will live with whatever decision they make. Will you?
In the meanwhile, I will continue my efforts to reform our election laws
again this session. Maybe it'll be easier to get something done in that
regard now.
It's good to hear from you!
Thanks again.
Geoff "
Hmmm....Come to think of it...His race was fairly close too! I wonder if there were dead people, double voters, and hundreds of phony provisional ballots processed for his race? How convenient that he has chosen to disregard the evidence presented so far.....Could he be hiding something?
Geoff?
To answer your question (will I live with the courts decision?)..I will certainly *live* regardless of what happens - as I am very healthy at this moment in my life - thank you!...However, I do have a problem with your "Rossi supporters rioting in the streets" scenario! It seems like an attempt to paint conservative republicans in some sort of unstable and crazy light! Is that how you truly view the clear minded conservatives in your district? - those of us who have serious concerns about the outcome of this election? You believe we are simply mad and prone to violence? This is disturbing.........
The world witnessed hundreds of thousands of voters in the streets - freezing temperatures and snow for days in the Ukraine! All they wanted was a fair election and a revote! Here in America, we can produce the same results via the internet - with sites dedicated to gathering signatures for a revote! We can stay warm and dry and avoid the costly use of our national guard and police departments! Geoff.....you are so out of touch!
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 47Ballot Name Office Position Party Votes Percentage
Geoff Simpson
State Representative 1 Democratic 26,152 51.78%
Steve Altick
State Representative 1 Republican 23,396 46.32%
Duane Grindstaff
State Representative 1 Libertarian 952 1.88%
*Your* representative does not consider math. He does, however, consider it his duty to ensure CG is installed in the Gov mansion. Don't bother him with the facts...they can be inconvenient!
Posted by: smegma on January 8, 2005 08:43 PMThis snippet is very revealing! Look how partisan he is...."Democratically-controlled legislature"?
Then he put's in..."and I" . Is this some weak attempt to separate himself with those that are *Democratically controlled*? Is D-control something like Mind control? It certainly sounds terrible!
This number is consistent with historic reconciliation rates for King County. In 2000 this number was 1,230. "
Ummmmm, wasn't Dean Logan brought in because what they had been doing was unacceptable? Now they are using year 2000's unacceptable figures to say "Look, this is close to what we had in the past" Amazing and embarrasing.
He was suppose to clean up the mess and restore voter's faith in the process. Sigh...
Revote!
Posted by: Caroline on January 8, 2005 09:10 PM"There has been no proof of fraud. Human error is not fraud. The law is still the law. If a judge overturns this election, it will then go to the legislature for a vote. I appreciate your opinion, but I also will take an oath on Monday to uphold the law."
This is a sad situation. The Democratic members of the legislature seem not to be able to grasp the simplest concepts.
There has not yet been a hearing -- either in the courts or the legislature -- at which any evidence in support of the GOP's contest of the election could have been offered. So, it is literally true that "there has been no proof of fraud." So what?
If the courts determine that they have the authority to set aside the election, despite the apparently plain wording of the state constitution (which gives that authority to the legislature), there is no provision in the law that I've heard of which would support Appleton's belief that "it will then go to the legislature for a vote."
Appleton "will take an oath on Monday to uphold the law." Is it too much to ask that she find out what the law is?
She and other Democrats apparently believe that a successful contest of the election requires evidence of an organized "theft" of the election by Democratic Party operatives.
But, that isn't what the law says.
This is going to be a mess, if Gregoire takes the oath of office on Wednesday, and the courts bail out by granting a motion to dismiss soon thereafter.
There would then have been no hearing or investigation whatsoever.
Perhaps the Democrats in the legislature think that's OK, even though the constitution assigns responsibility to the legislature to decide contested gubernatorial elections.
Doesn't that oath to uphold the law include the constitutional responsibilities assigned to people like Appleton? Or, do they simply not have a clue what their duties are?
"This number is consistent with historic reconciliation rates for King County. In 2000 this number was 1,230. "
Ummmmm, wasn't Dean Logan brought in because what they had been doing was unacceptable? Now they are using year 2000's unacceptable figures to say "Look, this is close to what we had in the past" Amazing and embarrasing.
He was suppose to clean up the mess and restore voter's faith in the process. Sigh..."
Now THAT was a great assessment!
Micajah,
"Appleton "will take an oath on Monday to uphold the law." Is it too much to ask that she find out what the law is?"
Yet another great assessment!!
The Dems arguments just don't pass the sniff test! They are melting like this mornings snow.....
1) There is no proof that 130+ illegal votes
were cast;
2) There were 130+ plus illegal votes cast, but
Gregroire would have won had they been deducted;
3) There were 130+ illegal votes cast, but the
court cannot decide who would have won had the
illegal votes been deducted;
4) There were 130+ illegal votes cast, but the
court will not decide who would have won had the
illegal votes been deducted; or
5) There were 130+ illegal votes cast, and the
Court finds that Dino Rossi would have won had
the illegal votes not been counted.
130+ illegal votes have already been demonstrated,
and it doubtful that a court will do anything
other than stipulate that fact.
2) and 5) are improbable since A) ballots are
confidential; B) polling allows for a double
counting of the illegal vote [illegally vote Gregroire
and "confess" to voting for Rossi];
and C) statistical analysis requires some
"modeling" of the electorate that is difficult
without some polling [B)] of the sample [Felons
probably have a Democratic bias, but whether, or
not, double-voters have a partisan basis is an
educated guess.]
3) and, especially 4), are a judicial punt to the
legislature. But, one of the two rulings is the
likely outcome.
The judicial challenge should be viewed as merely
a step in a process that ends with the legislature
adjudicating the election. But, that is not to
say the judicial challenge is pointless. Its real
purpose is to prevent the Democrats in the
legislature from attempting to claim that the
courts ought to decide the election.
When the court determines that 130+ illegal votes
have been cast, the legislature cannot merely
rubber-stamp the official count. The official
count will have been proven suspect. The
legislature will either have to say, 1) Gregroire
still would have won; 2) Dino would have won;
3) We don't know who would have won, so Gregroire
wins; or 4) We don't know who would have won,
so let's revote.
At that point it will no longer a debate about
the facts. It will be a purely political decision,
and it should be treated like a purely political
decision.
The clear political will of the people of
Washington is for there to be a revote. The
Democratic majority is in the position of either
upholding the will of the people, or acting out
of naked partisan interest. It is purely a
political calculation on their part.
First, it must be repeatedly stressed that under
similiar circumstances in North Carolina
[statistical analysis shows a GOP victory was
a statistical certainty in NC, while in
Washington the statistically likely outcome is
somewhere between genuinely in doubt and an
outright Rossi victory] the Democratic party,
on a party-line vote order a new vote.
Second, it must be repeatedly stressed that felons
tend to be members of the underclass--as are
illegal aliens--who tend to vote heavily
democratic.
Third, it must be repeatedly stressed that
soldiers tend to vote Republican.
And Finally, it must be repeatedly stressed that
ignoring the will of the people of Washington will
have direct consequences: spelled "r-e-c-a-l-l
e-l-e-c-t-i-o-n."
The Democrats are looking for political cover
by which to hide their naked partisanship. The
only question is whether, or not, they can find it.
Question from one who is not a lawer;
What do the words, "certify" anmd "malfeasance" mean in a legal context in Washington. My dictionary definition of the words would imply that Logan is guilty if malfeasance for certifying king County, Reed for the election and any legislator, who votes to certify this mess of illegal voting, counting and processing of ballots would be guilty of the same and subject to recall.
Posted by: TomasM on January 8, 2005 10:14 PMThere is malfeasance and misfeasance. One means doing what should NOT be done, the other not doing what should be.
Without a question, Logan and Reed are both guilty of misfeasance and malfeasance for certifying.
You are absolutely right: ANY legislator, who votes to certify this mess of illegal voting, counting and processing of ballots would be guilty of the same and subject to recall.
IGNORANCE of what it meant will not be a defense. The real problem with this scenario is that people have short memories, and dead voters move on until the next election.
It all adds new meaning to "ABSENTEE" in ballots. :o)
Posted by: martin ringhofer on January 8, 2005 10:25 PM"The judicial challenge should be viewed as merely a step in a process that ends with the legislature adjudicating the election. But, that is not to say the judicial challenge is pointless. Its real purpose is to prevent the Democrats in the legislature from attempting to claim that the courts ought to decide the election."
I don't understand your reasoning. How is going to court a way to prevent the Democrats from saying that's where the matter ought to be? Haven't you taken it where you claim they want to say it should be decided?
Also, how is going to court a step toward having the legislature adjudicate the contested election? Unless the courts toss it back and find some way to require the legislature to do its constitutional duty to decide the contested election, how would the process work? Once the legislature issues the certificate of election on Tuesday and Gregoire takes the oath of office on Wednesday, won't the legislature have made its decision?
If the election had ended in a tie, the choice of governor would be decided under the constitution as a purely political matter -- by a vote of both houses of the legislature in joint session.
It didn't end in a tie, so the legislature isn't supposed to decide it as a purely political matter. The choice made by the voters cannot be overturned by the legislature simply because the legislators don't like the choice made.
Likewise, the choice of the voters isn't supposed to be defeated by illegal votes or other misconduct -- the legislature is supposed to decide the contested election "in such manner as shall be determined by law." [Article III, section 4] The legal standards already in place are supposed to be applied by the legislature to the facts to determine whether to set aside the election rather than issue a certificate of election to Gregoire.
All this requires that the legislature act in accordance with the constitution -- which means, at a minimum, the legislators cannot vote to issue that certificate of election without some sort of hearing at which evidence can be offered and examined.
Of course, with the blindly (ignorantly?) partisan replies people have been saying their legislators are sending them, I suppose there is little hope for a fair hearing. Maybe the best thing would be for the supreme court to order them to do as their oaths require: "uphold the law." If there's enough embarrassment heaped on them by the court, maybe they will at least figure out what their legal responsibilities are. (My fear is that the court will simply say "it's over" once the legislature has issued the certicate on Tuesday.)
Posted by: Micajah on January 8, 2005 10:25 PMSimple. Because the Democrats don't want a re-vote. And that's a sure sign that a re-vote is the right thing to do.
The Democrats know that without felon votes, dead votes, double votes and blind provisional ballots suspiciously found last minute doesn't equal a 129 vote lead for Gregoire. They know she'll lose with a re-vote.
Not only will the same Republicans vote for Rossi, but also some Democrats, who have been turned off by this election's corruption, will cast their next vote for Rossi. Big loss for Gregoire - especially after a false inauguration.
Posted by: TADD on January 8, 2005 10:42 PMYou see, if Democrats say there is no fraud, then there is no fraud. At least until the fraud is revealed.
Posted by: TADD on January 8, 2005 10:49 PMDemocrats out there are trying to rev up the rhetoric because it is very doubtful if there happens to be a revote that Gregoire would win - face it she has shown her self-serving and ugly true colors. The fear of losing power is the dominant message I hear, even though the public predominantly wants a revote. If you don't believe that, then why have over 200,000 citizens signed the revotewa.com petition that has only been out for a week ?
Posted by: KS on January 8, 2005 10:56 PMIs something the matter, do you feel the truth getting to you??
Why, you need some Kool-Aid. I think there is some left over from that Jim Jones cult...
Posted by: Stevenantony on January 9, 2005 12:30 AMRCW 29A.68.020 (5)(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.
(My comment: I think the philosophy here is that problems should be addressed before the election if possible rather than contesting the election. I think this rules out a contest on the basis of the many registration errors. However, this section leaves it unclear exactly what an illegal vote is. In particular, I don't know whether the 348 KC provisional votes processed erroneously as valid votes are illegal. It doesn't appear to me that, just because the numbers of votes and voters on the records differ by 207, another 207 votes are necessarily considered illegal.)
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.
(My comment: This says that Rossi needs to show that it "appears" that Gregoire got enough NET illegal votes to tip the outcome. This is a stiffer test than the test to merely contest the outcome, which requires only that the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin of victory.
So even if erroneously processed provisionals are considered illegal, Rossi would need to convince the court how many of those 348 KC unverified provisionals "appear" to be illegal, and of those, how many "appear" to be for each candidate. Assuming that there appears to be no pattern to which provisionals were erroneously handled -- i.e., lacking evidence of fraud -- it would seem reasonable that these provisionals had the same profile as the other provisionals, which mean that they gained only a handful of illegal net votes for Gregoire.)
By the way, I'm not a lawyer.
Posted by: Bruce on January 9, 2005 12:51 AM“Thank you for contacting our office regarding your concerns with the recent Governor's race and your support for a new election. At this time, I feel that legislative action is not the course to take. To put forward a bill supporting a revote will only insert partisan politics further into this already very contentious issue. This action additionally could create an alarming precedent that the legislature can change the results of future elections if the result is not to their liking.
It is my opinion there if there are legal challenges to be made on the validity of the results of this election, or whether fraud was committed in the recount process, it needs to be decided by the courts not the legislature.
You can expect to see many legislators come forward with suggestions and bills so we are certain that the concerns our state's citizens have about this election do not exist in the future. I am a member of the Government Operations Committee, where these bills will be heard, and am willing to support legislation that may improve the election process in the future.
I appreciate your participation in the process and hope you will feel free to contact me again with any additional concerns. Thank you for contacting our office with your concern.”
Sincerely, Sen. Haugen
I received from Rep. Barbara Bailey-R 10th district a little different reply.
“Thank you for taking the time to contact my office. I appreciate the views that you have expressed with regards to this issue.
There has been an overwhelming response from constituents expressing similar dismay with the handling of the election and its subsequent re-counts. The problems exhibited during this election have substantially eroded public confidence in the process. Therefore, I will be supporting the delay of ratification of the election results in the governor's race.
Under the circumstances, I think a new election is the only way to ensure a credible outcome of this race, restore confidence with citizens and ultimately to allow for the governance of our state without needless misgivings or distractions.
Thanks again for contacting my office.
Regards,
Barbara Bailey
State Representative
This issue with the two above clearly shows the Dems want to deal with this THE NEXT TIME, and the Republicans want to deal with it now. Too bad the Senator just won another term. AHHHHHH!
(also posted on another thread that seems to have died out.)
The Rossi campaign has contested the election in court. Good, as that's where it needs to be. There's been way too much rhetoric, rumor and just plain wrong information floating around for me to entirely believe the stories from either side. A couple of examples:
"52 Felons voting in Pierce County." Here's the investigation from the Tacoma News Tribune (which, incidentally, supported Mr. Rossi): http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/4419176p-4187231c.html
It does appear that there were a very few, but not 52, and most the ones that did may well be honest error, rather than a deliberate attempt to violate the law. There was a form that needed to be filled out and submitted, but was not. (Yes, I agree that their votes should not have been counted, even if it was simply due to a technicality. Those technicalities are there for good reason.)
"disenfranchised military voters" (I'm retired military, so this is near and dear to me.)
What isn't mentioned is that, as this has been a problem (nationwide) for as long as anyone can remember, there is a backup system to allow military members overseas to vote even without an absentee ballot. It's the "Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot" (FWAB SF-186). Voting Assistance Officers with local ballot information are available in every unit. Commanders ACTIVELY encourage military personnel to vote. In essence, any military member that wanted to vote was given the opportunity. I would be interested to know if any SF-186 forms (properly postmarked before the election) were rejected. Anyone here know?
"55,000 enhanced ballots"
As any "enhancement" was presumably done with both Democrat and Republican observers present, I'm having a hard time getting very excited about this. Still, if observers saw improper "enhancements," the appropriate place for this to come out is in court, under oath. Anything else is just rumor and gossip.
"1,565 voterless mystery ballots"
This number seems to change daily, but it is almost certainly the best reason to have a court look at this, along with a team of auditors. Is there an innocent explanation? Beats me, as I don't have a team of auditors handy, and the various news organizations and blogs all have different stories. Still, there's that "appearance of impropriety," even if it's completely innocent, so having a court look at it seems the best answer.
What I don't understand is the call for marches on Olympia. Do we really believe that the court should be swayed by public opinion? If the court finds no reason for a re-vote, I'll be somewhat surprised. But having the legislature impose one after such a decision really would be "changing the rules in the middle of the game."
"Banks, credit unions, credit card companies, etc are able to balance their financial transactions TO THE PENNY every day and they're dealing with billions"
Actually, the margin of error for banks is a loss of $500 per million. This is why banks tell you to check your statements every month. They know that both people and computers screw up occasionally.
That would make them 99.95% accurate. Using the same sandard, with about 3 million votes cast, that would give us about 1500 ballots gone wrong, a number that sounds familiar, but really doesn't have much to do with anything.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 9, 2005 08:32 AMDemocrats have little shame and thus are normally willing to suffer being called incompetent or willing to trot out one of their own to shed some crocodile tears for the camera to disguise illegal activities in another place.
I am of the opinion that it's a good possibility that this useless complaining about a possible misstep in the OHIO vote count which will never amount to anything is being used to keep
the attention away from Washington State where a much needed Governorship THEFT ATTEMPT is being conducted in broad daylight.
"RCW 29A.68.020 (5)(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.
"([Bruce's] comment: I think the philosophy here is that problems should be addressed before the election if possible rather than contesting the election. I think this rules out a contest on the basis of the many registration errors. However, this section leaves it unclear exactly what an illegal vote is. In particular, I don't know whether the 348 KC provisional votes processed erroneously as valid votes are illegal. It doesn't appear to me that, just because the numbers of votes and voters on the records differ by 207, another 207 votes are necessarily considered illegal.)"
I believe that if you read the entire subsection of that law, rather than the part you quoted, you will see that it says an election contest can be based on (among other things):
"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.
(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."
Subsection (5)(a) tells you precisely what two kinds of illegal votes are, and it also tells you that these two types aren't the only possible illegal votes.
The subsection you cited -- (5)(b) -- tells you that, if all you have to complain about is the fact that someone was registered in the wrong precinct, county or state, then forget about it!! You had your chance to challenge voters before election day, if you thought they were improperly registered.
Now, try to find anywhere in this "blog" in the past two weeks where anyone has been concerned about voters who might have been improperly registered. I don't think you'll find it.
Instead, you will find people expressing their concern about voters who voted more than once, and voters who were disqualified under Article VI, section 3, namely convicted felons. (Casting one vote on behalf of yourself and one on behalf of the dead equals voting more than once.)
In the case of the several hundred provisional ballots, those appear to fall into the "but not limited to" category -- namely, illegal votes which may not fall into one of the other categories. It could be that those people were voting more than once, in which case they fall into the specifically-described "include" category of illegal votes.
When you say "...just because the numbers of votes and voters on the records differ by 207, another 207 votes are [not] necessarily considered illegal," you have not indicated how you think those "mystery ballots" got into the containers of counted ballots. When there is no voter credited with having cast those votes, then it "appears" that someone has been voting more than once -- which, of course, is a clearly illegal vote.
You are apparently correct about the need to determine whether it "appears" that the illegal votes benefited Gregoire enough to wipe out her apparent 129-vote margin of victory. That's why it would probably take a lot more illegal votes than 130 to actually set aside the election. No one can know for certain which candidate's name was on each ballot -- it's a secret ballot.
It would be a tragedy if the legislators refuse to do their duty and look into the matters raised. Unfortunately, it seems that only the Republicans want to delay issuing the required certificate of election to Gregoire. It's impossible for me to believe that the ability to recognize the questions that need to be answered before issuing that certificate doesn't exist within the Democratic Party. Something other than a lack of ability to recognize the questions must explain their refusal to entertain the idea of delaying the inauguration until the contested election has been properly and lawfully decided.
"What I don't understand is the call for marches on Olympia. Do we really believe that the court should be swayed by public opinion? If the court finds no reason for a re-vote, I'll be somewhat surprised. But having the legislature impose one after such a decision really would be "changing the rules in the middle of the game.'"
The legislature is scheduled to decide on Tuesday -- the day of the march/rally -- whether to ignore their constitutional responsibility to decide a contested election before issuing a certificate of election to Gregoire.
The purpose of the rally is to persuade them not to ignore their legal duty to decide the contested election before issuing the certificate.
The rally has absolutely nothing to do with the courts. The courts aren't scheduled to do anything in Olympia that day involving the contested election.
Posted by: Micajah on January 9, 2005 08:49 AMhttp://www.dinorossi.com/news/pressreleases/jan2005/Petition.pdf
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 9, 2005 08:50 AM
Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Appellant. No. 43688. Kenny FOULKES, Respondent, v. Gordon HAYS,
July 10, 1975.
... The statute relating to prevention and correction of election frauds and errors recognizes the power of superior courts acting within their general equity jurisdiction to intervene in cases of election fraud or wrongdoing, and such jurisdiction would exist even without such recognition by virtue of the Constitution, and where appropriate, such necessary powers would include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect...
Since the exact number of ballots which had been altered could not be ascertained, the court determined that the proper remedy for this neglect was the holding of a new election. From that determination these appeals were taken...
Appellant's most basic challenge is to the power of courts to inquire into the conduct of elections and order new elections to correct improprieties therein under...
The broad language and murky legislative history of this statute show it to be a statutory recognition of the power of superior courts, acting within their general equity jurisdiction, to intervene in cases of election fraud or wrongdoing. Such jurisdiction would exist even without such recognition by virtue of Constitution articles 4&6, unless it were 'by law vested exclusively in some other court.' We have upheld its exercise in quo warranto proceedings to contest election results brought completely independent of statutory remedies… (original mandamus jurisdiction of the Supreme Court invoked to test validity of election)...
This authority, whether based on a specific statute or the general equity jurisdiction, carries with it 'all the means to carry it into effect.' Where appropriate, these necessary and proper powers would include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect...
END
Sounds like the court has the authority to me, and i don't see any subsequent precedence that rules otherwise.
Why would the legislature have an exclusive right to rule in regard to a revote challenge?
Posted by: JPO on January 9, 2005 09:04 AMLast Friday on KVI 570, I heard a report about an audit by the Secretary of State's office of the King County Elections Board. They reviewed their procedures and commented on their methods for "enhancing balots".
Does anyone know where this info is and if it can be accessed?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Posted by: jaybo on January 9, 2005 09:07 AMThe idea that the investigations in Ohio are being used to divert attention from Washington is absurd for several reasons.
1. There really were some problems in Ohio that need to be addressed, and the winning side on that election has little incentive to address them. Many of those same issues are being brought up here by the Republicans, for which I am very grateful.
2. It isn't working. Frankly, the national media are paying more attention to Washington politics than I have ever witnessed in the past. Let's face it, folks. The rest of the country pretty much ignores us. If the Seahawks were to win the Super Bowl, it would end up reported right underneath the story about the New York Winter Vollyball team.
3. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers. Let's face it. By the evidence of the last couple of elections, my political party isn't organized well enough to pull it off.
Next. In regards to the upcoming re-vote rally, Micajah wrote:
"The purpose of the rally is to persuade them not to ignore their legal duty to decide the contested election before issuing the certificate."
(I always like your posts. Even when I disagree, the thought put into them is appreciated.)
I would, however, disagree with the conclusion, even though I think that it is a very minor point. The certification by the legislature, like that of Mr. Reed is a formality. Even though the result will likely be less advantageous to my party, I think that the fact that the legislature has turned this over to the court is the best possible answer.
The atmosphere in the legislature is simply too politically charged for an impartial decision to be made. Some legislators would honestly vote for Ms. Gregoire. Others would do so out of party loyalty. Some would honestly vote for either Mr. Rossi, or for a re-vote, others would do so out of party loyalty. Everyone would be accused of being crooked by the other side. (Much like the situation here on this board.)
Mr. Rossi has petitioned the court for a re-vote. That's where it needs to be decided, based on the facts. Responsible leaders on both sides need to tone down the rhetoric, or regardless of what gets decided, the next Governor (whoever wins) will face the additional burden of being thought of as illigitimate by a large minority of the population.
If Christine Gregroire takes office, her election
will been seen as illegitimate by a *majority*
of Washington's electorate.
On the other hand, a revote would likely lead to
a clear mandate for the winner.
If you are asking me to 1) concede the election
to Gregroire; and 2) agree to legitimize this
election, then my answer is simply to say, "No!"
If "legitimacy" is your primary concern, I suggest
you support a revote. If seizing and keeping
political power is your main concern, by all means
stay the course!
"If you are asking me to 1) concede the election
to Gregroire; and 2) agree to legitimize this
election, then my answer is simply to say, "No!"
If "legitimacy" is your primary concern, I suggest
you support a revote. If seizing and keeping
political power is your main concern, by all means stay the course!"
Bob, did you READ my post before trying to jump down my neck? Or is the fact that I'm a Democrat enough for you to decide that I must be both evil and wrong?
I support having the court investigate and decide. If the court, with all the evidence and sworn testimony (rather than rumor and rhetoric) decides to invalidate the election, then I'm all for it.
I've read the Rossi campaign's petition to the court. It is both well-written and spells out some important problems that need to be addressed. They seem able to let the courts decide, and I support them in that.
If you really believe that "the Democrats" are trying to "steal" this election, then you must have very little faith in our system of government. Remember that only a few months ago, roughly half of the people in this state voted for the Democrat.
I try to start with the presumption that the "other side" is primarily comprised of intelligent people of good will, who simply have different opinions and priorities than mine. Might I suggest that you try to do the same?
Posted by: John Barelli on January 9, 2005 09:52 AMYou better be a little more specific and add footnotes when you say half the people in this state voted Dem.
Posted by: MB on January 9, 2005 10:10 AMWhy would the legislature have an exclusive right to rule in regard to a revote challenge?
The state constitution assigns the responsibility to decide a contested gubernatorial election to the legislature.
Article III, section 4 of the constitution says: "Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law."
[This quoted portion of the state constitution was Posted by Micajah (yeah, by me) at January 8, 2005 03:50 PM -- the 5th comment on this thread.]
If you don't think the legislature should decide a contested gubernatorial election before issuing a certificate of election, then you need to amend the constitution.
But, no matter what part of government you think ought to decide the contested election, don't you agree that the certificate of election shouldn't be issued by the legislature until the contested election has been decided?
Look again at the case you cited in your comment. The elective office that was being contested in the Foulkes case wasn't one of the offices for which a contested election "shall be decided by the legislature."
Instead, it was a county commissioner election:
http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/085wn2d/085wn2d0629.htm#085wn2d0629
The only case cited in the GOP petition which involved an Article III, section 1, executive branch office which must be decided by the legislature didn't involve a ruling on the constitutionality of the election contest laws. Instead, the petitioner lost (as a result of the court granting a motion to dismiss) simply because the statute she relied on did not apply to the facts of her case. The court in Becker noted that the constitutionality of the statutory process was not raised as an issue and thus was not decided. That is normal appellate court procedure -- don't rule that a statute is unconstitutional unless such a ruling is necessary to resolve the case.
Posted by: Micajah on January 9, 2005 11:19 AM"John, just "calm down"....you're overly sensitive here. I read Bob's reply to you and he didn't jump down anything."
My response was primarily to the comment (apparently directed to me) "If seizing and keeping political power is your main concern, by all means stay the course!" While on this board, that's actually rather low-key, it does show that the poster missed my point entirely.
Considering that my original post was in favor of having the court consider all the evidence and make an informed decision as to whether the election should be redone, yes I think that my response was appropriate.
"You better be a little more specific and add footnotes when you say half the people in this state voted Dem"
As to the fact that roughly half of the state recently voted Democrat, well, gee. Isn't the fact that the vote was so close what highlighted this whole mess? Do I really need to footnote that with figures? Although I will be happy to clarify that roughly half of the VOTERS of this state recently voted Democrat. Folks that don't bother to vote are welcome to complain, but I won't bother to listen.
The point I'm really trying to make (and apparently failing miserably) is this. Demonizing the "other side" is a mistake. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, is trying to "steal" this election.
There is a great deal of rumor, innuendo and rhetoric flying about that does neither side any credit, and may eventually do great harm to whomever finally ends up in the Governor's mansion. The court, with sworn testimony and actual evidence will make the call, and that's fine with me.
Can I live with Mr. Rossi as Governor? Sure. I believe that he is an honest, honorable man, doing what he thinks is best for the state. I may disagree with some of his positions and policies, but that is for an entirely different discussion.
The overall tone of this board, however, is that Ms. Gregoire (and "the Democrats") are dirty, conniving cheats that will do or say anything in order to get into office. If anyone actually believes that, they must also believe that roughly half of the voters of this state are either immensely gullible or morons. I assure you, this is not the case.
If it were, I would mourn for our state, as we would truly be beyond help. The fact is that the vast majority on both sides of this issue (even you Republicans) are intelligent people of good will, trying diligently to do what is best from their perspective. We can disagree, and that's good. Neither side has all the answers, nor a lock on the "truth."
Now, for those that do so (myself included) I think a prayer that the judges be granted wisdom to make the right choice (whatever that is) is in order.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 9, 2005 12:47 PMWell, that would certainly explain Locke's reign, would it not?
But seriously,
The overall tone of this board, however, is that Ms. Gregoire (and "the Democrats") are dirty, conniving cheats that will do or say anything in order to get into office.
I don't think that's been the "tone" here, at all. I think the tone has been one of "our electoral system is grossly broken and needs to be fixed". Maybe you need to read a bit more.
Of course, that's not to say that Gregoire isn't perfectly content if she benefits from it. But that's not the same thing as you allege.
John, thanks for the compliment – now, agree with me, dang it! :-)
About the “formality” of the legislature’s issuing a certificate of election to the apparent governor-elect: It is usually nothing more than a ceremony, because we don’t have contested elections very often. (This may be the first contested gubernatorial election.)
However, when there is a contested election, the formality’s reason for existence becomes apparent – sort of like the old tradition at weddings of saying “speak now or forever hold your peace.” There has to be a point in the procedure leading up to the inauguration of a new governor when a contest of an election must be made or waived. When the election returns are opened by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and declared, that is the time when there had better be someone who announces the existence of a contest of the election. Otherwise, the person who takes the oath of office that day or the next may not be the rightful choice of the voters.
While having the legislature decide the contested election may seem like a bad idea because of the partisan nature of many of the legislators, they are still the elected representatives of the people. If they ignore their constitutional duty to decide the contested election before certifying that the person who apparently got the most votes is the governor-elect, the people may make them pay at the next election. (In an egregious case, perhaps it’s even a reason to recall some of them.)
The constitution authorizes the legislature to enact laws to set the standards and procedure, so if they felt that a more impartial hearing to establish the facts could be done by the courts – and done more efficiently in court – they could enact a law (even now) to send the matter to the courts for a trial of the facts. Then the court could be tasked with sending a report of the findings back to the legislature for a decision.
But, we don’t have anything like that in law now, so far as I can tell.
Until we do, the legislature ought to follow the constitution by postponing the issuance of the certificate of election to Gregoire until they decide how to decide the contested election.
That was a reasoned, sound, and cogent post. Not the typical drivel posted by most leftivists who can't handle the truth.
I join you in such a prayer...
Posted by: smegma on January 9, 2005 01:11 PM"I don't think that's been the "tone" here, at all. I think the tone has been one of "our electoral system is grossly broken and needs to be fixed". Maybe you need to read a bit more."
A sample of quotes from this thread (which actually seems rather civil, compared to others from both sides):
"Democrats have little shame and thus are normally willing to suffer being called incompetent or willing to trot out one of their own to shed some crocodile tears for the camera to disguise illegal activities in another place."
"Is something the matter, do you feel the truth getting to you??"
"Why, you need some Kool-Aid. I think there is some left over from that Jim Jones cult...
"Simple. Because the Democrats don't want a re-vote. And that's a sure sign that a re-vote is the right thing to do."
"The Democrats know that without felon votes, dead votes, double votes and blind provisional ballots suspiciously found last minute doesn't equal a 129 vote lead for Gregoire. They know she'll lose with a re-vote."
"You see, if Democrats say there is no fraud, then there is no fraud. At least until the fraud is revealed."
"And if he is Gov. before then, promise us Headless that you will move to Canada, Mexico or some other corrupt, progressive utopia..."
(I will concede the fact that some of my Democratic collegues have been at least equally obnoxious, and I would most strongly urge that it stop. On this board we are, as it were, the guests of the other side, and need to behave accordingly.)
The fact that the official position of the Democratic party is that Ms. Gregoire is currently the Governor-elect of Washington (and that they're pretty happy with that) is no more disingenuous than the fact that the Republican party's position after the first recount was that Ms. Gregoire should concede.
Party leaders (on both sides) tend to support what is best for their candidate. This is actually as it should be. That way all sides get heard, and we voters get a better idea of the real situation, which tends to be somewhere between the two extremes. I would ask most of the people here to remember that berating the party leaders is a two-edged sword. I don't condemn the Republicans for either asking Ms. Gregoire to concede or for taking the matter to court.
Many Democrats are of the honest opinion that we just won the election, and that having the loser say "no fair, I want a re-do" is just sour grapes. There are others of us that feel that the race really is still "too close to call" and that, especially with the many questions raised, we need to be sure.
No, as a Democrat, I do not fear a re-vote. I actually think it's a pretty good idea, although I also think that it needs to be decided upon by the court, with all the information. If it becomes a political decision, many people will be reluctant to accept it.
I am, however, amused that the main players here only started calling for a re-vote after a recount put them out of the winner's circle. Yes, I know that some Republicans were calling for it before, and I honor their integrity. But the vast majority were calling for no such thing, so long as their candidate was winning. Can you understand now why some Democrats honestly see this as nothing more than a ploy?
"While having the legislature decide the contested election may seem like a bad idea because of the partisan nature of many of the legislators, they are still the elected representatives of the people. If they ignore their constitutional duty to decide the contested election before certifying that the person who apparently got the most votes is the governor-elect, the people may make them pay at the next election. (In an egregious case, perhaps it’s even a reason to recall some of them.)"
Hmmm. Interesting reasoning, although from a practical standpoint, I still think that they should give this one a pass.
Remember that, from the perspective of many Democrats, we just won this thing. While there are many questions that I agree need answers, if forced to to decide the fate of the contested election, most, perhaps even all of the Democratic legislators would have to decide for Ms. Gregoire. Some would do so reluctantly, some happily, but the result would be that she would be Governor. Some Republicans might even (very reluctantly) decide that for the good of the state, they had to vote with the current results.
That might (I'm not a lawyer, and don't even play one on TV) preempt the court from being able to grant Mr. Rossi the relief he has asked for. Once the legislature has voted to decide a contested election, does the court have the authority to overrule them in this matter? My reading of the law would tend to say no.
Now, if they simply certify the election, rather than vote to decide the contest, I believe that the court retains the authority to order new elections. Frankly, I think most of the legislators would prefer to lose a re-vote than to decide for us, and I would applaud that choice.
Of course, the risk of a re-vote is that people will be so fed up with both parties, that the Libertarian candidate ends up winning. Maybe that's one reason they're supporting this.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 9, 2005 02:19 PMIf the legislature votes on Tuesday to issue a certificate of election to Gregoire without doing anything that resembles an examination of the evidence to decide the contested election, the courts may be able to rule that the action of the legislature was unconstitutional – and order them to go back and try again.
The constitution says a contested gubernatorial election “shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law.” [Emphasis added.]
I think the reference to “law” in that part of the constitution means it isn’t just a political issue to be decided by a majority vote – the way a tie in the governor’s race would be decided in a joint session of the legislature.
I believe the existing law that sets the standards for contesting other elections would be what the court looks at to decide whether the legislature’s action on Tuesday is good enough.
Rather than leave it up in the air, I’m hoping that the legislature postpones issuing the certificate of election on Tuesday and decides how to decide the contested election. I doubt they could do much on Tuesday that would resemble an appropriate way to decide the contested election, but waiting to see whether the court later says “good enough” or “go back and do it better” means the end of this contest is delayed.
It’s a shame that past legislatures never seem to have consciously considered how such a contested election would be decided. They enacted statutes that apply to offices other than those listed in Article III, section 1 of the constitution, but no laws which would implement the statement in Article III, section 4: “Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law.”
For those other offices, a contested election could be decided by the courts – there’s nothing in the constitution that would contradict the laws in place now which provide for the courts to decide those contests.
So, we’re all set for contested elections for just about anything other than the most important executive branch officers. Is this a great state, or what? :-)
"It’s a shame that past legislatures never seem to have consciously considered how such a contested election would be decided. They enacted statutes that apply to offices other than those listed in Article III, section 1 of the constitution, but no laws which would implement the statement in Article III, section 4: "Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law."
Earlier, you asked me to agree with you. On this one, your wish is granted.
Still, it isn't a surprise that they haven't. Election reform is always a popular topic for discussion, but rarely a popular topic among politicians for actual action. People in office have little incentive to take a long, hard look at the process that put them there.
Back to the legislature doing anything with this election other than leaving it to the court. If this went to them for decision, some of the alternatives they would have to deal with (remember, please that this is from their perspective) are:
1. Vote to potentially unseat my party's legally elected Governor, annoying the party loyalists that provide a lot of my support, and control the committees that I want to be on in order to serve my constituents better.
2. Vote to endorse the election, which will be seen (regardless of my actual motive) as a purely political move.
3. Join the National Guard and hope to get transferred to Iraq before the vote.
My impression is that most of the legislators would jump on alternative #3 as being by far the safest.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 9, 2005 04:11 PM"disenfranchised military voters" (I'm retired military, so this is near and dear to me.)
What isn't mentioned is that, as this has been a problem (nationwide) for as long as anyone can remember, there is a backup system to allow military members overseas to vote even without an absentee ballot. It's the "Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot" (FWAB SF-186). Voting Assistance Officers with local ballot information are available in every unit. Commanders ACTIVELY encourage military personnel to vote. In essence, any military member that wanted to vote was given the opportunity. I would be interested to know if any SF-186 forms (properly postmarked before the election) were rejected. Anyone here know?"
Clarification for you. The form you refer to does not contain statewide election data, only Federal election races are required per law. Therefore, no Gov, no AG, no SoS. Only President, Senate, and House races are included. With this being the case, ALL military voters who could not record their state vote because of the inherent delay of either receiving or returning their absentee ballots were, indeed, not counted.
I source my step-son on this info, as he is in the Air Force and 'in theater'...
Posted by: smegma on January 9, 2005 04:34 PMClarification for you. The form you refer to does not contain statewide election data, only Federal election races are required per law. Therefore, no Gov, no AG, no SoS
Actually, some states do allow the use of the SF-186 for state and local elections, although I do not know if Washington is one of them. If you're interested in what the SF-186 looks like, here's a link: http://www.fvap.gov/pubs/ofwab.pdf
So, the questions are:
1. Does Washington allow the use of the SF-186 in local elections?
2. If so, were any rejected?
States occasionally get weird when the federal government tries to tell them how to run elections, so they might be limited to the federal races here. It would surprise me if they were, after all the talk of "voter intention," but I really don't know.
If Washington does not allow use of the SF-186 for state and local elections, that would be a very good change to make for upcoming elections. After all, I'm serious when I say that all eligible voters should have their votes counted, and not just the ones that agree with me. This seems a very simple way to deal with the "late ballot" issue.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 9, 2005 08:47 PMI think that means it can be used for state and local elections as well as federal, since the guide referred me to the Washington state section to see if it could be used, and that's all it seemed to say about its use.
Here's the URL:
http://www.fvap.gov/pubs/vag/pdfvag/wa.pdf
I would feel better about it if the dang thing said in plain English that the ballot can be used for both federal and state/local elections. But maybe that's asking for too much clarity from the guvmint.
I haven't looked to see if I can find anything in WA law that would say one way or the other about the use of the federal write-in ballot.
Posted by: Micajah on January 9, 2005 09:21 PMIf a lot more Democrats were like you, I would still be a Democrat.
Haven't you noticed all the crazy people in your party?
Well, anyway, it is good to hear you.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 10:25 AMAs to the form, John, let us remember what a write-in ballot is...you write the names in for the candidate and office. As you were all too familiar with military activities, much as I was in an earlier life, I am sure you can think of a few things which would hamper you from voting a full ballot.
As to my step-son missing the state allowance for voting, you said it very well...
"I would feel better about it if the dang thing said in plain English that the ballot can be used for both federal and state/local elections. But maybe that's asking for too much clarity from the guvmint."
And keep posting, John. You have me in your audience, and I applaud you.
Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 04:22 PM