As noted, the incoming Democrat-controlled legislature is poised to certify Governor-pretend Fraudoire's "victory" tomorrow. Democratic legislators are circling the wagons to defend their impending vote. The Democrats who live in swing districts that voted for Dino Rossi find themselves in a very difficult position. Their arms are being twisted by caucus leadership to toe the party line, even though it means betraying their constituents.
The reality is these folks understand very well that a great majority of their constituents want a revote and don't think that Fraudoire's victory should be certified. They're responding by reading off the same script of sleaze, dishonesty and disinformation. They're saying, in essence, "we can't have a revote, because there's no proof of [pick one] (a) an organized conspiracy to steal the election for a revote, (b) election fraud, etc." In fact, this is all a red herring. Setting aside an election does not require proof of fraud or conspiracy, only that there are enough illegal votes and/or other irregularities that the "actual result of the voting cannot be ascertained' [Foulkes v Hayes].
Two things to do here, especially if you live in a Dino District and you're represented in Olympia by one or more Democrats [if you're not sure if this applies to you, check this list]
1. Contact your legislators and tell them that you have seen enough indications of irregularities that you do not believe Gregoire was legitimately elected. You do not believe her election should be certified and you demand a revote.
2. If your legislator came/comes back to you with the "no evidence of fraud" excuse, call them on it. Tell them that you know better and are disappointed with the way they're changing the subject and spinning a tainted election into a victory.
FLOOD THE ZONE. But in any case, be positive and exceedingly courteous. But you should also leave a subtext that betraying one's constituents on this important issue should have devastating consequences.
In the extended entry, I've posted some example quotes from the disingenuous emails that these Democratic legislators have been sending to their constituents. It would neither surprise nor disappoint me if some of these people had their political careers aborted on account of the transparently ridiculous statements they've been making.
Rep. Geoff Simpson 47th:
If there is evidence of fraud, the GOP should ask for the appropriate law enforcement to take place. That's why we have a criminal and civil justice system, to correct wrongdoing and to bring justice to the injured party. In most instances, election fraud is a felony. If such fraud exists and it can be shown that Gregoire's election would not have happened if the fraud had not occurred, then I agree that a revote should occur. If anybody is guilty of election fraud, I will call for them to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Absent any credible allegations of fraud, the laws of Washington have been followed and the people of Washington have elected their new governor and I intend to vote to certify the election.Rep. Judy Clibborn, 41st:
Thank you for sharing your opinion on the Governor's race. I appreciate your concerns, but I will not support a revote. Unless there is legal evidence of election fraud or government wrong-doing, this election must stand. We can't justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars to hold an unnecessary election because some people are unhappy with the outcome.Rep. Sam Hunt:
We Finished the Most Accurate Vote Count in State History....There have been no verified charges of fraud or violations of law substantiated by anybody to date. All 39 counties certified their elections and none of the people involved in counting ballots have presented any verified challenges. No court cases have been filed. No county elections officer has questioned the election process in his/her county.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 10, 2005 02:21 PM | Email This
it's an internet poll. It's as accurate a reflection of the real world as, say, King County election results.
Posted by: SnoCo voter on January 10, 2005 02:46 PMPerhaps people should point out to their legislators that the questions should neither be swept under the rug nor tried in the media.
Before voting to issue a certificate of election declaring that Gregoire is the governor-elect, the legislators need to decide the contested election consistent with the law -- not their own political preferences.
Posted by: Micajah on January 10, 2005 02:50 PMStefan, your cite of Foulke v Hayes is unlinked, and contains only the barest part of a sentence. Moreover, it is contradicted by the statutes as written in the RCW. Could you expand on your impression that uncertainty is simple enough to allow a revote? Even Rossi's petition includes a line from that case, that indicates remedy of the problems is a prerequisite to setting the election aside--something a new election cannot do based purely on procedural errors that appear in all elections.
Your post is beginning to take on a tone of desperation, taking personal shots at Gregoire, and using a word to describe the election that Rossi has specifically discounted.
Are these standards just to tough a line for you and your party to tow?
I have contacted Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen from the 10th district. I told her beause of the inconsistencies of this election, that I and many others in her district no longer have faith in the election process and that we will remember this in 2006 and in 2008. She responded as you said, "No proof, No evidence of fraud..."
Has political power blinded them so much they can't see what everyone else can?
When's the last time such an effort worked? Can't think of any...what a collosal waste of time and energy (not to mention the demand to spend tons of government's (I mean OUR) money on this)....
Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 03:00 PMAnd if I recall correctly, the governor who stepped down was (R) and the real governor was a (D).
The vote margin was about the same, if I recall -- around a hundred or so.
Will Gregoire have the courtesy to do the same? Or will Dino have to repair the scratch marks on the governor's desk left by her desperate attempts to retain office?
Posted by: steve miller on January 10, 2005 03:08 PMVery enlightened...
I find it hard to believe it's such a difficult concept to grasp that if the election was indeed as close as any of the counts or recounts indicated that a new vote would offer any credence to the process at all...
It appears to many that this is a case of very selective sour grapes...
That's all...
And it's my money too that is being *wasted* verifying that we have a very split electorate which we all knew to begin with...
Brad, I care very deeply about my state and country...I detest the partisanship I see everywhere concerning the election process...
Do we know that the *irregularities* you listed didn't occur elsewhere in the state? Has anyone bothered to examine the other counties with the magnifying glass the most populous county got?
Can anyone verify who voted for whom in Snohomish County?
An honest conversation on how to really solve all these problems rather than slinging names and mud around would indeed be refreshing...
Hoped to find that here...
Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 03:15 PMYou have been arguing that one must prove the distribution of illegal votes. That one cannot use math to assign a reasonable count to each candidate. I have read the RCW about illegal votes and it says no such thing. Also the courts use statistics all the time to come to reasonable conclusions.
To a Democrat, a "broad perspective" is just a code-word for muddying the waters, or fuzzy thinking.
Hey! The Democrats stuffed the ballot box and they got caught! Well, duh.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 10, 2005 03:21 PMHow convenient...we have a post about the spin machine, and they deliver...
Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 03:21 PM"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."
specifically the phrases "am amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested," and "after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person."
Probability theory is math only in the most technical sense. There are no known values to make an algebraic construct. In other words, if we had the total votes and the total Rossi votes, we could get the total Gregoire votes. Rossi + G = total. In this case, however, you have R + G = total votes. That's not math, that's hopeful guesswork. It's suitable as a contest provision, but not to set aside.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 03:22 PMI still believe some high ranking military officer should threaten Washington State that if the state keeps doing what they are doing to the military ballots (example: not sending them out in time, etc.)the military will leave the bases in Washington State.
Posted by: Lookout-Wife on January 10, 2005 03:23 PMThis seems to be the Dems' standard lie.
"Another problem in King County: Nearly 350 provisional ballots were fed directly into vote-counting machines before election staffers could verify whether they were valid, [King County Elections Director Dean] Logan said."
Of course, counting provisional ballots without verifying them is a violation of law, as Rep. Hunt (like certain slimy trolls around here) knows very well.
Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 03:24 PMI guess this would mean that the $4,000,000 cost of a re-vote complaint by some people (unless the are from KC) has no merit.
Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 03:27 PMNo fraud!
So...waste of money (that tired old Republican phrase furthered by those who support administrations that increase spending MUCH more than Democrats) is totally applicable.
But your funniest part is about disenfranchised voters...after all, when the Ds suggested this after the vote was originally counted, the Rs were fervent in their "you lost, get over it", "if voters can't follow rules, forget 'em", "voter responsibility" comments. Now, they fight for the exact voters they dismissed before -- since counting all the votes actually showed Rossi lost!
Also, maybe Rossi would figure out a way to follow the US Senate Rs and relax ethics rules...his total disregard for the law (which he voted for) is an ethical disgrace on its face.
Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 03:29 PMI think it means, "I'm smarter than you."
Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 03:29 PMQuestion for you.... did you worked in the state of Washington Govs office somewhere around the early 90s? If the answer is yes then I think I know who you are.
S.
Posted by: SB on January 10, 2005 03:34 PMThe phrase “maybe shown” can easily mean using simple math. Like taking the difference between DR and CG in KC of 18% times the number of illegal votes in KC. I will us a number of 1500 (I would guess this low) – 1500*.18 = 270. This is far more than the 129-vote difference. I would expect a better way would be to do this by precinct. We will see how this works when the court gets to this.
The better argument for Rossi is the equal protection argument and misconduct by election officials. This effected many more ballots and the court are very likely to rule voters rights were infringed so much so as to make the election void.
It is common in suits that awards are divided up by a % relating to how much a given party contributed to the damage. Also, those counties that have few of no errors could sue KC for their part of the court costs.
Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 03:39 PMYour recitation of probability theory is EXACTLY what I indicated would be insufficient. On what grounds can you conclude that the 348 provisionals, or any unknown group of ballots for that matter, followed the pattern of votes overall in King County? You can't. You call it simple math, but it's only guesswork.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 03:44 PM"specifically the phrases "am amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested," and "after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.""
Convieniently, you left out the three words before that:
"No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that..."
All Rossi has to prove is that there could be enough illegal votes to change the outcome, not precisely how many (which can never be known).
When he has many times the 129-vote "victory" margin in probable illegal votes, I don't think any analysis is necessary. Besides, as you conveniently keep ignoring/forgetting, the fact that hundreds of provisional ballots were counted without being verified and the number of ballots counted exceeds the number of voters are sufficient reasons alone to throw out the election.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 10, 2005 03:47 PMI guess you will have to wait until the court rules to see that they will use some calculation like the one that I have shown. It is quite reasonable to use the %'s by precinct.
You seem to have ignored the equal protection and misconduct arguments. Again these are much stornger than the illegal votes.
Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 03:48 PMThey certainly seem that way. If they were confident that Rossi had no case, they'd be busy making sure the DNC was prepared.
Instead, they're here, repeating themselves endlessly and consuming Stefan's bandwidth.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 03:51 PMYes there are awards. The winning side will be awarded their court costs. RCW 29A.68.060
You are incorrect that hundreds of procedurally illegal votes, exceeding the margin of victory, is enough to set aside the election. It is only enough to CONTEST it, not to prevail. I have cited the part of the RCW where it shows what is necessary to set aside the election: illegal votes cast for the person the appellant claims did not win, in an amount sufficient to overturn the result.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 03:53 PM
Thanks *****, for contacting me regarding your concerns with the
recent Governor's race.
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.
Legal challenges on the validity of the results or voter fraud need to
be decided by the courts, not the legislature.
You can expect to see many legislators come forward this session with
their efforts to correct this problem and reassure our citizens about
the process. I am willing to support legislation that may improve the
election process in the future.
I appreciate your participation in the election. Feel free to contact me
again with any additional concerns.
Ken
***** = Insert name here :)
Posted by: N Seattle Mike on January 10, 2005 03:54 PMIt is really nauseating to watch, but I had to in order to put names and faces together. Now I know who not to vote for in the future.
Also, my mom received a message on her answering machine yesterday stating something to the affect of those OPPOSED to a revote meeting at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. Looks like we'll have more competition for parking.
This is one of those times where it seems that it will never end, but have faith, it will and it will be CG who has to "move on".
See you all tomorrow!
Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 10, 2005 03:54 PMAs others have pointed out, it's not that a conspiracy or fraud is alleged - if you read the filing, I believe it points to specific acts that should lead to the vote being thrown out and a new vote ordered.
If an operative goes up to a homeless person and pays him to vote for Dino or for Chris, then that's likely fraud, but that isn't alleged. (Nor are other specific acts of like fraud alleged.) What is alleged is that the vote is compromised by incompetence and malfeasance. The incompetence and malfeasance may not be a result of bias or conspiracy - but the vote is compromised so that we cannot know who's really governor.
I changed my mind from a "move on" to a "throw out the vote" because I didn't see fraud. But I do see dead people voting. And non-citizens voting. And people voting fraudulently (not as a result of conspiracy, mind you), such as that lazy judge who registered to vote outside her district - and refuses to answer whether she voted for candidates and issues that she doesn't have the civil right to do so.
The vote as a whole is screwed up. If it were thousands of votes for the margin, perhaps the error rate wouldn't affect it. But we have enough incidents to suspect that through incompetence and malfeasance that the vote was compromised.
I heard that a few hundred military voters have claimed they received their ballots too late to post them due to the incompetence of the people mailing out the ballots. We're OK with that, apparently, because it's just too bad.
Because the margin of 129 votes is so small, and there are so many people who are not eligible to be voters in Washington State, the vote is compromised. That's my issue. If dead people are allowed to vote, doesn't that alarm anyone? If ballots appear and disappear - even if they are held in a glass safety box in Rainier Square - doesn't that seem very, very troublesome?
If the election is simply a coronation of the selected candidate, and the candidate is assured of victory through the incompentence and malfeasance of the ones counting and assembling the ballots, then we voters are disenfranchised - our votes literally do not count.
Doesn't it seem troublesome at all that King County is so reliably "Democrat" and is so reliable a source of extra votes for the "D" column? As if ballots and votes are assured to be found?
Posted by: steve miller on January 10, 2005 03:58 PMWhy do you suppose it's reasonable to use percentages to ajudicate the election? The statute neither references any such procedure, and in fact states otherwise--that the votes must be particularly identified. It makes no rational sense to do so, because there's no basis for assuming that a certain set of ballots will mimic the entire set. Some KC precincts went 70 or 80% for Gregoire IIRC, while others were assuredly less. Since we don't know where the ballots came from, we have no way of setting a standard for their theoretical allocation.
Please let me know what intentional misconduct or equal protection arguments you see. Rossi has ruled out the former, and the latter will be a dangerous tack to take if it makes it to the Supreme Court, where just a month ago Rossi argued NOT to accept the votes of some counties while accepting them from others.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 04:03 PMRCW 29A.68.011Prevention and correction of election frauds and errors.
Any justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, or judge of the superior court in the proper county shall, by order, require any person charged with error, wrongful act, or neglect to forthwith correct the error, desist from the wrongful act, or perform the duty and to do as the court orders or to show cause forthwith why the error should not be corrected, the wrongful act desisted from, or the duty or order not performed, whenever it is made to appear to such justice or judge by affidavit of an elector that:
(1) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in printing the name of any candidate on official ballots; or
(2) An error other than as provided in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been committed or is about to be committed in printing the ballots; or
(3) The name of any person has been or is about to be wrongfully placed upon the ballots; or
(4) A wrongful act other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been performed or is about to be performed by any election officer; or
(5) Any neglect of duty on the part of an election officer other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has occurred or is about to occur; or
(6) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in the issuance of a certificate of election.
An affidavit of an elector under subsections (1) and (3) above when relating to a primary election must be filed with the appropriate court no later than the second Friday following the closing of the filing period for nominations for such office and shall be heard and finally disposed of by the court not later than five days after the filing thereof. An affidavit of an elector under subsections (1) and (3) of this section when relating to a general election must be filed with the appropriate court no later than three days following the official certification of the primary election returns and shall be heard and finally disposed of by the court not later than five days after the filing thereof. An affidavit of an elector under subsection (6) of this section shall be filed with the appropriate court no later than ten days following the issuance of a certificate of election.
(Emphasis added.)
Seems to me this gives the courts rather wide latitude in ordering errors by election officials corrected.
As I've said before, if someone can come up with another way to correct the wrongful acts of conty officials (including 348 illrgally-counted provisional ballots and an unknown number of ballots illegally enhanced to obscure voter intent), I'm willing to listen.
If you can't come up with another remedy, then you should stop opposing the only remedy thus far proposed.
Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:04 PMCan someone give me the run down on what happened?
Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 04:11 PMReally? I found it right away. It's on page 4 of the petition:
"Respondents and their agents have failed to perform their obligations under the
constitutions of the State of Washington and the United States and election laws, they have
made errors and been negligent, and they have committed other wrongful acts that render
the true results of the election impossible to determine."
(Emphasis added.)
Perhaps you should read more slowly and sound each word out.
Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:20 PMThere are four possible assumptions to make about those ballots.
1. They all went to the Democrat
2. They all went to the Republican
3. They broke down roughly along the percentage of the rest of the King County voters with no spoiled ballots
4. They were a mixture of votes for all three candidates with a 2% vote spoilage rate (which mirrors the overall King County no vote for governor rate)
Given that those votes were found across the county it is unlikely that they all went for one candidate and it is also unlikely that a court can assume that all ballots had a vote for governor. Therefore we use option four.
Take the 350 provissional ballots that were fed in error factor in the 2% spoilage rate and divide the remainder by the percentage of voters Dino and Christine got from King County this and then subtract that from the vote totals Christine (58%) loses 197 votes while Dino losses 136 (40%) votes, and the rest go to other candidates. Then the gap shrinks to 68 votes, down from 129.
So Dino then needs to find 68 illeagal votes from other sources--the dead, felons, double votes, etc. . .
Anyone have any tallies for those?
warning--I'm not a lawyer and have no idea what courts would actually do. And I'm not sure if the 2% rate is correct as that does not seem to account for write in candidates.
Regards from Juneau
Oh, and off topic here--Fire Holmgren!
Posted by: Grey on January 10, 2005 04:23 PMFurthermore, how would the court direct Logan and others to correct their mistake?
If you're going to be snarky, at least make a useful point. You cited an inapplicable part of the statute, as it refers to the standard for setting aside an election.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 04:25 PMFirst, many of the illegal votes can be identified by precinct. The court has wide latitude to use the %’s for precincts to assign the illegal votes the each candidate. The code does not specify and when leg. do not specify they leave it open to the courts interpation. This is what will happen here. The court will assign the votes using a calculation like the one I have suggested. Feel free to suggest how you think the court would assign these votes. Just stating that they will not because they cannot know is not enough. If one can contest an election because of illegal votes than the court can assume the votes changed the election and rule how to assign those votes.
Second, you added the word intentional. That is not in the code. By adding intentional you are trying to make the standard fraud (intentional misconduct is fraud). Misconduct defined simply is not doing what one knows should be done (like maintaining a up to date registration file, mailing military ballots in a timely fashion, etc. – see Contest Complaint) or doing what one knows should not be done (enhancing ballots improperly, vetting ballots with different standards, etc).
The Rossi complaint and admissions by KC make it clear that many thousands of ballots were handled in such a way that misconduct is easily established.
Both sides have used the equal protection argument. Many of the items in the complaint clearly show where equal protection can be applied to many items. Your statement that because Rossi argued NOT to accept the votes of some counties while accepting them from others really is just an effort to avoid the issue. Either some ballots (voters) were treated with preference or they were not. I believe it is obvious that many were.
Anyhow, just thought I would share that. I hadn't heard it before.. but it was sure good for a laugh.
Oh... after 3 emails to my Senetor (Rasmussen-D 2nd Leg Dist) I finally got a response telling me that she would come out with a response sometime today (I got this AFTER the vote to deley and had asked specificaly to hear BEFORE...) Hmmm.. think she will loose her position next term. 58% of this dist voted for Rossi.
Posted by: Cascadekid on January 10, 2005 04:30 PMI'm not saying that's what happened--I think it was relatively random--but it cannot be discounted. Surely if fraud can be alleged about these ballots being deposited illegally for Gregoire (as I've seen speculated on here), it can be alleged equally so as Rossi ballots. Since we don't know, we cannot say.
And the spoilage rate would be 0%, wouldn't it?--since they all made it through the machine?
Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 04:32 PMI received the form email response from Clibborn that you excerpted. I also received this one from Fred Jarrett R - 41st district:
Max,
Thank you for your note regarding the re-vote and petition efforts.
I have been closely watching the process the counties and Secretary of
State have been going through to determine who, in fact, won the
election. While it has been a difficult and messy process, it has
followed the law as passed by prior legislatures, and it seems
appropriate for it to follow that process to the end.
I anticipate the Rossi campaign may ask the legislature to overturn the
Secretary of State's certification and declare a second election in
February. If so, the request is an appropriate one, however, the burden
of the case for the re-vote rests with the Rossi campaign. And the
responsibility for judging their case will rest with those of us in the
legislature.
I am prepared to make that judgment, but only after the evidence has
been laid out by the campaign. That has not been done yet. Until then,
I view the legislature's role in making a judgment as being
"quasi-judicial", or simply stated, similar to that of the courts and
one where appearance of a fair process is lost once an opinion on the
outcome is given.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write and share your views and
concerns. Please stay in touch as we work through the next phase of
this process. The history of this election certainly suggests it will
have more surprises!
Sincerely,
Fred Jarrett
State Representative
41st Legislative District
---------------------------
I don't get it, Fred.
Posted by: max on January 10, 2005 04:32 PM"Furthermore, even if there were, the cite you have given gives the court latitude to order the OFFICIAL to correct the error. No electoral officials can correct any errors at this point."
Sure they can. They can run a new election. That's who runs elections, you know. Officials.
"Again, please refer to .70 and .80 to see what the standard is for setting aside by virtue of electoral malconduct."
Well, .80 specifically relate to county elections. That's why it starts out "When any election for an office exercised in and for a county is contested..."
As for .70, the whole point is that we don't know. It's perfectly possible--eve probable--that the misconduct was enough to swing the election to Gregoire.
And .110, which I believe you also mentioned, relates specifically to allegations of illegal votes.
The whole point of this contest is that we can't possibly know how many illegal votes were cast. If we could, we'd want the courts to overturn the election and install Rossi as governor. Instead, we merely ask them to order the correction of official error in the only way possible (as I say, I'm willing to discuss other possible remedies, except you people won't ever propose any).
Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:34 PMYour are right. Just wanted to make my point. I guess he will find out in a few weeks what the court is going to do.
Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 04:35 PMWell, it's not a bad thing to get exercise, and occasionally it's just too too tempting....
Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 04:38 PMThat is, of course, ridiculous, but I understand why it would appeal to a Democrat. It would make coverups much, much easier.
Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:39 PMIf the government of a state permits its citizens to be disenfranchised, then how is that to be corrected? Didn't some of the 60s voting cases go to federal court?
Anyway, it's clear that the Democratic politicians in this state have no regard for Republican voters.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 04:44 PM"unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested"
Absent identified votes, that amount is presumed to be zero. There is no frame of reference that may be used to estimate the ballots, because the ballots cannot be produced. There is no reason at all why they could not be all Rossi votes, or 60% Rossi votes, or 90% Gregoire votes, or all Gregoire votes. Similarly, there is no way to show which possibility is correct or most likely, since they are all plausible. You said:
"If one can contest an election because of illegal votes than the court can assume the votes changed the election and rule how to assign those votes."
On what basis can they assume it? Please cite either current code or state legal precedent to support that argument. I'd argue you are putting the cart WAY before the horse--you can't assume they changed the election until you assign the votes.
I added the word intentional because it's a clear part of the standard for setting aside based on misconduct. Again, refer to .70 and .80:
"No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of any election board or any member of the board amounts to such malconduct as to annul or set aside any election 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 although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes." (that's .070)
...unless the improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office to be declared duly elected. To procure is to actively bring about. What the code says is that you can't annul based on mere misconduct--it must be shown that the misconduct occured in order to elevate the loser to be the winner. Procurement is intentional, it cannot be by accident or serendipity. That is an acquired result, not a procured one.
Which voters were treated with preference in this election? I don't mean who, I mean which groups of voters?
Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 04:44 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002146612_opened10.html
I am confident that under Rob McKenna, we will see government becoming much more transparent. Perhaps we should petition his Administration for an investigation into King County Elections, but more specifically the Public Disclosure compliance.
Furthermore, I think this whole fiasco has reached the level of political ripeness for a favorable decision by the State Supreme Court. But besides the court challenge, we need to work on the local levels across Washington to keep public opinion positive towards Rossi.
The kindling grows drier everyday, and a fire should be fairly easy to start, given all of the irregularities exposed by SP and others. In closing, write you local editors, councilman, etc. and let them know Fraudoire is not, and never will be your governor.
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 10, 2005 04:48 PMThere is clear documented misfeasance if not malfeasance on the part of King County election officials. Although it is vaguely conceivable that Democratic election officials might want to help the Republicans, it seems rather unlikely.
Perhaps Gregoire won legitimately, perhaps not. Because of the improper acts of Democrat officials, however, anomolies exist which are indistinguishable from fraud. In general, when a party acts illegally to destroy evidence, the presumption is that the evidence that was destroyed would have been detrimental to the destroying party.
Actually, in asking for a re-vote, Dino Rossi is in a way being generous. Given that King County improperly "enhanced" ballots during the handcount, thus destroying any evidence of its legitimacy, it would be perfectly reasonable for King County's hand-count to be thrown out entirely, allowing to stand the previous machine tally. Although Dino Rossi's reasons for not seeking such a remedy are not purely altruistic (he wants to avoid any charges of being 'selected not elected') the fact remains that his willingness to accept a rematch is generous compared with what he could demand.
Posted by: supercat on January 10, 2005 04:50 PMSecondly, I think you're misinterpreting the law.
Clearly, if the only error we knew about was that, say, 15 provisional ballots had been unlawfully counted at poll sites, then RCW 29A.68.070 would require that the election stand. The misconduct would not have swung the election to Gregoire.
Your interpretation, on the other hand, is an engraved invitation to election fraud, delivered by an elegant butler on a silver salver.
A poll worker could stand at the poll site machine feeding in dozens of illegal provisional ballots, and the election results would still have to stand because the illegal ballots couldn't be sorted out from the rest? That's what you're claiming, but I seriously doubt that such was the intent of the legislature.
Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 04:56 PMLet torridjoe burn himself out. I don't doubt the court will grant relief from his obvious misunderstanding (or ignorance) of the law.
Perhaps one day he will pass the Bar, but until he stops frequenting the bar, ain't gonna happen...
Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 05:03 PM.080 may be a predominantly county-based citation, but the contest naturally affects county elections, since entire ballots are being alleged as invalid.
Your comment on .070 is curious. Funnily enough, my point is also that we don't know. Which means that Rossi cannot gain relief on this point--if we don't know, too bad. According to statute, it can only be set aside if we know.
.110 indeed refers to allegations of illegal votes, and how they may be treated in contest. Specifically, if you can't show that a certain number were given to a candidate who did not deserve them, sufficient to change the result, you're out of luck.
How does a revote correct the error? By law, it cannot--the same procedures will be used, by largely the same people. You've touched on exactly the point Rossi should grasp: THERE IS NO REMEDY. There is no step that can be undertaken, that would show us who won on November 2nd. That day has passed.
As for your interpretation of the "elections officials correcting errors" section, I don't agree with your conception. I said that you can't have someone fix an error that you are unaware they have committed. And I'm not a Democrat, thank you for presuming.
Doug and Bostonian--if you feel I am wrong, cite the statutes and refute my points. There's a reason few give the petition much chance if any of passage; the grounds do not currently exist. I am simply pointing out exactly where that argument comes from. Saying "nuh-uh" is not sufficient as a counter to that.
See: http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_011005POKcapitalopens.9751a9d7.html (registration req)
KING 5 is also onto the protest, and I think it's safe to say that there will be good coverage of the "protest"! Make BIG signs, bring bullhorns, streamers, American flags, noisemakers, etc. BUT ABOVE ALL, BE THERE OR BE SQUARE!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 10, 2005 05:04 PMHere is a snippet from KOMO:
"Washington Legislature Convenes 2005 Session
January 10, 2005
By KOMO Staff & News Services
Tools
Email This Story
Printer-friendly Version
OLYMPIA - Washington's new legislative session opened on a sharply partisan note Monday as the Democrats rallied around their embattled governor-elect, Christine Gregoire, refusing to let Republicans block certification of her narrow election.
By the narrowest possible margin, Democrats in the Senate rebuffed efforts by minority Republicans to force a two-week delay in issuing Gregoire a certificate of election. She needs the certificate to be inaugurated on Wednesday.
The vote was 25-24 to reject the Republicans' motion. Maverick conservative Tim Sheldon was the only Democrat to vote with the solid bloc of Republicans. Sheldon supported the Republican candidate, Dino Rossi, the former Senate budget chairman.
Republicans said the election was riddled with errors serious enough to undermine voter confidence and to throw the outcome in doubt. Democrats said Rossi and the Republicans are correctly taking their challenge to the courts, and not getting the Legislature involved.
House Republicans planned a similar effort Tuesday in the Legislature."
I watched most of it on TV..I was truly amazed at the blatant disregard of the Democrat Senators for the common sense arguments made by the Republicans to delay the governor's certification for 2 weeks! They just told the people of this state that they don't give a damn! They want their *D* girl to be Governor and legal votes be damned!
Let's see how the House does tomorrow.......
Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 05:04 PMRegardless of outcome, Dino recognizes this election is flawed. Some will say that contesting the election is sour grapes. But, it must be done. If not Dino, it would of been Christine contesting the election. Some will accept and promote the courts ruling as the final say, but others won't.
That is the irony. Without a re-vote nearly half (if not more) will feel the result was illegitimate. No healing tour, hand holding or "let's move on" mantra will fix that result. Dino is being generous and respecting what needs to happen to start any measure of "healing".
The first stop in the "healing tour" should be the courts decision. There's nothing wrong with just waiting till then. Next stop, some spring cleaning in King County.
Posted by: Mike J on January 10, 2005 05:05 PM"ScottM--they can RUN a new election, but they cannot ORDER one."
Well, duh. That's why Rossi has asked the court, and many of us have asked the legislature, to order one. I'm not even sure what point you think you're making here.
Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 05:07 PMOh, please don't pull that string in his chest anymore...I can't take it! AAARRRGG!!!
Cheers,
Shaun
Well, at least he's trying to construct arguments ad build a case for himself. He's even citing law. That's better than most of his ilk do.
I've given up, for example, trying to talk to "jim" and "Magnum Serpentine."
Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 05:12 PMStefan,
I received the form email response from Clibborn that you excerpted. I also received this one from Fred Jarrett R - 41st district:
Max,
Thank you for your note regarding the re-vote and petition efforts.
I have been closely watching the process the counties and Secretary of State have been going through....
I anticipate the Rossi campaign may ask the legislature to overturn the Secretary of State's certification and declare a second election in
February. If so, the request is an appropriate one, however, the burden of the case for the re-vote rests with the Rossi campaign. And the
responsibility for judging their case will rest with those of us in the legislature.
I am prepared to make that judgment, but only after the evidence has been laid out by the campaign. That has not been done yet. Until then, I view the legislature's role in making a judgment as being "quasi-judicial", or simply stated, similar to that of the courts and
one where appearance of a fair process is lost once an opinion on the outcome is given.
Again, thank you....
Sincerely,
Fred Jarrett
State Representative
41st Legislative District
---------------------------
I don't get it, Fred.
Posted by max at January 10, 2005 04:32 PM
Max --
Your representative just gave you the best answer you could possibly hope to receive.
He said the evidence has to be examined by the legislature before the legislature makes a decision.
I was surprised to see that -- but then I looked back at the beginning and saw the "R".
Happily, Rep. Jarrett seems to understand the law which he has sworn to uphold. He knows that the evidence must be heard, and the contest must be decided by the legislature. He also knows that he shouldn't be expressing an opinion about how the contest should be decided until he has actually heard the evidence.
Give him a big hug! You are fortunate to be represented by someone like that.
torridjoe: To amplify ScottM's point, suppose that 100 people voted in an election and the final tally were 1,001 votes for Candidate #1 and 99 votes for Candidate #2. Should one rule candidate #1 the winner because the "extra" ballots presumably appear in the same ratio as legitimate ones (i.e. Candidate #1 got 91 legitimate votes and 910 "extra" votes, while Candidate #2 got 9 legitimate votes and 90 "extra" votes)?
In the above example, even though it's clear that something is fishy, the only things that can be proven are (1) that Candidate #1 probably got at least one real vote (though if a voter abstained, even that might not be provable); (2) Candidate #1 got at least 901 dubious votes (the margin of victory, though, is 902). Since it can't be proven that 902 or more of the dubious votes were cast for Candidate #1, is there any reason the election shouldn't stand?
Even in extreme examples like the above, there won't be proof that a particular person was elected by fraud (even though a casual observer seeing the above numbers would probably guess that Candidate #2 got 99% of the "real" votes). How, then, could one ever expect proof to exist that bogus votes did, in fact, tip an election?
Posted by: supercat on January 10, 2005 05:14 PMTrue, true. But the updated Geneva Convention has statutes covering this kind of blogging activity, and clearly it has exceeded the refined definition of "torture"...something about virtual organ failure, I think....
Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 05:14 PMThey have voted to unhold the law!
We should rejoice...we don't live in anarchy after all (don't like the law....try to avoid it).
Everyone here should celebrate....this is a great sign for our state government. We don't let election losers change the law, after the fact, to benefit themselves.
Phew! All this blogging had me nervous...but sanity rules! Democracy rules!
Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 05:19 PMAnd then you claim you don't know what my point is. My point was that the statute you brought up was totally irrelevant to the question of annulment. It refers to the court being able to order named officials to correct errors they have committed. Since you seem to stipulate that ordering a new election is not part of an election official's powers, why do you believe the cite is relevant at all? There are two very specific points in 29A 68 that indicate what is necessary for annulment: malconduct that PROCURES a different result; and illegal votes IDENTIFIED such that their total exceeds the margin of victory when taken away from the putative winner. If they can't be identified as Gregoire votes, she can't have them taken away. And it is unknown in the vast majority of cases, which were votes for Gregoire. Could be all, could be none, could be anywhere in between.
Failing one of those two circumstances, there is no provision in the RCW to set aside.
Enjoy it while it lasts. See you in court!
Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 05:21 PMYou said,
"Hooray for our leglislature!
They have voted to unhold the law!" UNHOLD the law, how appropriate.
Sit back and watch the court case(s) as all of this unfolds. Then you will really have the opportunity to witness the law being UPHELD.
Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 10, 2005 05:23 PM"They have voted to unhold the law!"
No kidding...
Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 05:23 PMUnhold the law! I love it! :)
Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 05:25 PMCan you restate it if I've missed the point?
Thanks
And here's the relevant dictionary definition of "procure": "2. To bring about; effect."
One des not "acquire" someone else's election, one brings it about (I knew you were going to cite the wrong definition as soon as I looked it up). And one can certainly bring something about unintentionally.
Posted by: ScottM on January 10, 2005 05:31 PMStill Orange (maybe now more than ever),
Robyn
Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 10, 2005 05:34 PMCheck out the particulars of North Carolina's recent revote. Like it or not, it will become relevant. If Rossi's case is tossed out because of the [fradulent] issues you have raised about the RCW, it will end up in the Supreme Court with that case as precedence.
Posted by: Kristan on January 10, 2005 05:35 PMKing County's actual figures are rather less extreme, but they report at least 1,217 more ballots cast than people voting. In other words, there are known to have been at least 1,217 illegal ballots counted. In my example, the number of real voters was much smaller than in King County, but my point was that once illegal ballots have been added to the ballot pool, it will be impossible to definitively prove that they in fact tipped the election even when it would appear obvious that they almost certainly did so.
BTW, I misstated the margin of victory in the above example; it was 1002, not 902.
Posted by: supercat on January 10, 2005 05:35 PMThe saying "One who does not want to seek the truth will never find it" applys to you.
Once the contest is settled I hope you will come back to this site and admit your narrow mind ness.
Until then you should quit trying to act like you know the law better than anybody else. My limited experience with the law has shown me that courts will listen to the arguments and then in cases like this will rule in favor of protecting the people’s right to equal protection (check the complaint for the equal protection actions).
Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2005 05:38 PMSee you in court is right! Given that the Rs claimed "fraud, cheating, stealing" for 2 months and couldn't even come up with one example to put in their case....the court battle will be easy!
Time to call it a day...save your money...run a better candidate in 2008.....does Arnold have a younger sibling? Perhaps he could move here and resurrect the republicans....this experience (constant flip flopping by Rossi/Vance such as "concede TO no i won't concede" or "bah humbug to disenfranchised voters" TO "hey what about all our disenfranchised voters!" or "don't change the rules" TO "change the biggest rule, the election law!") has left the republicans with not only no branch of state government, but also the biggest hole they've had in a long long time here.
Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 05:47 PMIf they think the voters will forget this, they're mistaken.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 05:54 PMGregoire could have conceded after losing two counts. But then after finding votes on 9 occassions - granted, the numbers changed...(thanks in large part, I believe, to illegal votes)...why on earth would he concede after realizing that the election was fixed?
or "bah humbug to disenfranchised voters"
Are you referring to our response when the provisional voter list was handed to the dem operatives so they could try to gather signatures of people who hadn't followed the rules? Or are you referring to the efforts made later to include other disqualified ballots?
TO "hey what about all our disenfranchised voters!"
Good point! Why should you get to hold on to your disenfranchised, while we can't have ours?
or "don't change the rules"
For instance,keeping them straight across the board? Statewide? You have a problem with that standard?
TO "change the biggest rule, the election law!")
You can't possibly be referring to the "whoever finds the most ballots in the third count wins" law?
If it weren't for double standards, you'd have none at all.
Posted by: Julie on January 10, 2005 05:59 PMRemember, no matter what happens here in the state of Washington...you'll have to look nationally and contemplate - FOUR MORE YEARS!!!
Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 06:08 PMYour arguments above that 1) unless an individual can be identified who commmitted fraud or mismangement then there can be no remedy and that 2) since the ballots in question cannot be identified as to the voted candidate there can be no remedy leaves me wondering if you have the capacity to reason.
With such 'logic' one might say if a business is robbed an insurance company would make no bond payment if the criminal and money were not found.
You seem to have no sense of justice Joe. Wrongs have been committed which in their degree very well could have resulted in a different election outcome. That is all that is needed to be shown under the contest case.
The actions of KC appear on their face to be misfesance allowing for distributed fraud, but I do not rule out the possibility of out right top down fraud from Sims office. There is definately a cover-up going on to cover at the least incompetence, ie the changing of the by mail ballot date late last night on the KC website - likely to avoid federal heat. (Didn't Martha go to jail for trying to deceive the feds? Maybe we could sew together our orange outfits after the rally to fit out Sims, Logan and a few other KC big dogs in orange jumpers.)
Well Joe, j-u-s-t-i-c-e find out what it means to me, else the republic is lost. :-)!
Posted by: Jericho on January 10, 2005 06:25 PMSo, please don't confuse any of my first posts with the troll.
Thank you for your consideration. :-)
Let us not quibble over some arcane and abstruse legal codes.
Polls...trolls...schmolls Votes...goats...boats.
What does it matter?
Plan to see me on my Great Washington State Healing Tour. Starting soon.
Just gaze into my eyes and you will feel better about everything.
Don't forget to bring your wallets, as I will be asking for donations for the next four years!
Repeat after me, "I feel better now, I feel better now, I feel better now."
CG the great healer
"(constant flip flopping by Rossi/Vance such as "concede TO no i won't concede"
Gregoire could have conceded after losing two counts. But then after finding votes on 9 occassions - granted, the numbers changed...(thanks in large part, I believe, to illegal votes)...why on earth would he concede after realizing that the election was fixed?
*** ROSSI was fine and dandy with every part of the election as long as it stopped before all the votes were counted. He didn't want the process to finish...even though HE HIMSELF voted for just that process!! Fixed...The Rs could come up with ZERO examples to put in their own lawsuit! Yet Us e incomplete, selective statements enough and expect people will believe they are true (like Rs believe in fiscal responsibility -- our deficit says otherwise; like Rs believe in smaller government; government grows much bigger than uder Ds...etc. etc. etc.) which is a strategy O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Medved, Savage, Coulter, etc. have perfected.
or "bah humbug to disenfranchised voters"
Are you referring to our response when the provisional voter list was handed to the dem operatives so they could try to gather signatures of people who hadn't followed the rules? Or are you referring to the efforts made later to include other disqualified ballots?
*** I am referring to the line from Rs that demonized the Ds for wanting all votes to be counted -- including those that followed all the rules but didn't have their votes count. At the time the Rs said tough....their votes didn't count because they didn't follow the rules (as you point out). Even though they DID follow the rules! PS...both sides tried to get signatures...I had a friend contacted by an R operative who asked who she had voted for (her vote was one of those posted on the web as not having been counted), she said "Gregoire" and he hit the road.
TO "hey what about all our disenfranchised voters!"
Good point! Why should you get to hold on to your disenfranchised, while we can't have ours?
*** When Rossi was ahead, the line was from the Rs that there are NO disenfranchised voters (just stupid voters who can't follow rules). Now that he's behind...lo and behold, there they are! How can you have it both ways?
or "don't change the rules"
For instance,keeping them straight across the board? Statewide? You have a problem with that standard?
*** I have a problem for inserting new rules instead of following the existing ones! If that was the law...great. But it's not. And again, Rossi had NO problem until he fell behind. He wanted Gregoire to concede. You may not like the law. But it is the law and it was the law during the election (and Rossi voted for that law!). Going to the courts is an attempt to go around the law. Yes, I have a HUGE problem with that. As did Rossi until all the votes were counted and he was behind. Change the law in the future....but you can't change the law after the fact because you don't like the result. Rossi has said "gregoire wants to keep counting until she wins" when she wnated all votes counted. Now that they've been counted, Rossi wants to count nearly 3,000,000 more! Because he lost...of course. Hence, all the Rossi flip-flops...
TO "change the biggest rule, the election law!")
You can't possibly be referring to the "whoever finds the most ballots in the third count wins" law?
*** Yes, I am. It's the law. Hand recount included. Rossi voted for it . Let's respect the law, please. It what makes our state great. You know if Rossi were ahead 100 votes, you'd be fine and dandy with following the law and chiding the Ds if they brought the exact same lawsuit the Rs brought.
I'm not too naive to think you care about any of these items. You want Rossi elected so badly (even though he received fewer votes) that you want to do a revote. I understand that. But it's just not the law. We'd be in anarchy if our wants superceded the law whenever we chose. Don't you agree?
If it weren't for double standards, you'd have none at all.
*** And thanks for not calling me names...it's refreshing. Excpet for that attack on my standards...
Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 06:43 PMCan't people who believe in what they say not resort to name calling?
It gets tiresome...
Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 06:45 PMEngage where you will, but it's usually a waste of time.
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 10, 2005 06:50 PMYour logic is circular and convoluted.
Since you like laws so much, I noticed one you have not mentioned - it is against state law to enhance a ballot while permantently obscuring the original vote/ballot.
King County did this repeatedly during the recounts, and this alone could get the whole thing thrown out.
Why do you keep saying there are zero examples? I don't believe that the Republicans have to show evidence yet - they're not in a court of law. Do you have to provide evidence that you were hit by an uninsured driver in order to sue them? Nope - that's what the court case is for.
The Rossi campaign and the Republicans have more than enough evidence to present at the RIGHT time. At the moment they are letting all interested parties, including Ron Sims, Dean Logan, and even Sam Reed, twist in the wind, giving them just enough rope to hang themselves.
I refer back to one of my earlier posts - the woman in the homeless shelter in the 36th district who voted 8 times. How? Moveon.org obtained ballots for her, filled them out for her, signed them for her, and mailed them in! The lawyers have interviewed this woman. This is called 'electioneering' and it is evidence of illegal ballots - but have you heard about it? Nope! So much for zero evidence. Time will tell, and it will be telling you a LOT.
Posted by: Larry on January 10, 2005 06:56 PMSorry, got drawn in again. How does one ignore an idiot? Well, my Dachsund ignores me...dang! Just proved a point, didn't I :-)
Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 07:10 PM"circular arguments".
yep, that's exactly what's going on. tiring, eh?
Posted by: kristen on January 10, 2005 07:11 PMDoes it matter in the scheme of things regarding a revote if Commisar Gregoirovich gets sworn in on Wednesday ? According to what happened in MN in 1962, yes or not really ? These are questions to ponder..
Posted by: KS on January 10, 2005 07:23 PMPeople like you are the reason I am no longer a Democrat.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 07:36 PMThank you for a meaningful post with substance. So much nicer than the attacks calling me a troll, an idiot, a fool, etc. because I disagree with them. This doesn't help the case...it just makes the folks arguing those points look like they have less subatance. Kudos to you for rising above that. Calling my logic convoluted is fine -- calling me an idiot does little to advance what is supposed to be a well reasoned case.
You have valid points.
The evidence you mention, if shown to be true in a court of law, will be used to determine the outcome. Given that the proof hasn't been brought forward yet (as you point out), it's hard to judge it. Good thing we have courts.
The alleged illegal behavior evidence will be used...let's let this legal process run (just as we should let the election legal process run). If ballots were illegally manipulated, the republicans will prove it and the courts will act.
Until then, it's clear the Republicans have been flipping and flopping regularly as have the Democrats. Both parties took the opposite side on arguments as soon as the hand vote count finished.
Posted by: jim on January 10, 2005 07:40 PMMy sister, Jennifer, is a democratic gov. in Michigan. I have not polled her on the question of a revote, but what if you asked her and/or other democratic gov's to also call for a revote? Would that help sway some of the on-the-fence dem's? Of course, it is to late for this to be done by the certifaction tomorrow...
Posted by: bob granholm on January 10, 2005 07:43 PMQuestion for you.... did you worked in the state of Washington Govs office somewhere around the early 90s? If the answer is yes then I think I know who you are.
S.
Posted by SB at January 10, 2005 03:34 PM """
Sorry...I've been self employed for over 30 years...don't trust politicians, would never work for a politician...
And to whomever made comment on my reference to mudslinging, I was referring to the use of labels in this forum...folks come in that don't follow the party line and they're called every make of name...that's sad and very unfortunate...and what I meant by mudslinging...
Back to topic...impressive batch of reading...fairly predictable, but good reading nonetheless...
I am encouraged that the legislature saw fit to not cave to the vocal pressure...it isn't appropriate to postpone CG's ratification with what they have at hand...
Perhaps some good will come of this one way or another and that's a national conversation on how screwed up the way this country votes is...
If that gets accomplished and the party in the majority does something to correct the situation, I will be happy...
If not, and this turns into just more selective culling of races that don't suit the majority, I will be a most unhappy camper...
If that's trolling, I'm sorry...
Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 07:51 PMTomorrow the House and Senate meet - And the argument will be taken up again!
I will be watching it!!
It is a very appropriate day to rally!
Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 08:13 PMThere is no way they will ever take the high road. Only a court order and/or arrests will do.
Posted by: B Knotts on January 10, 2005 08:15 PMFlip a coin and we'd have better confidence. Just don't use a Dean Logan minted coin with Ron Sims face on two sides. Let's face it, we are here because KC couldn't deliver a close election for "We the People". KC screwed up and their painted by the numbers election isn't pretty.
Christine Gregoire recognized, before the hand count, it was a "statistical tie". After the hand count Dino had to accept her "statistical tie" mantra because the quality of KC elections was so flawed and suspect. Of course, Matriarch Gregoire flip-flopped on it being a "statistical tie".
A revote is simply the only recovery course to start any "healing" for our state. Although, I just shiver at the thought of more write-ins for Ron Sims.
Posted by: Mike J on January 10, 2005 08:24 PMThe court in Chelan County has scheduled a hearing for this Friday. I believe this will be to set the procedure for the actual "trial."
Posted by: TomP on January 10, 2005 08:44 PMYou won't give any credit to the Republicans - who are attempting to do it now and who would do more to correct this problem than the D's would ever consider doing - it will never be perfect, but alot less flawed. Face it, you progressives are out of touch with the people this time and its more about hanging on to power with the D's than it is with the R's. Why would the Dems have any incentive to change the system that has worked well for them much of the time over the last 20 years ? They are sorry in King County, sorry that they were caught ! (they want to be just like President #42 - and they are showing it). REVOTE !
Posted by: KS on January 10, 2005 09:22 PMJust being blunt, not cruel. He is here under false pretenses. He doesn't want to know the truth, or cares what true conservatives think. If you doubt this, read his ALL of his posts, and then click on his name, and read some more.
If I am wrong, I will retract.
Dykes on trikes are so out of style!
It is a certainty that she voted for CG, the only uncertainty is why she persists in posting here...other than the fact that hardly anyone reads/posts on her blog :( Poor silly troll, posting insults here won't make you popular.
Posted by: Head Securely Fastened on January 10, 2005 09:46 PMToo many of you are moving from conclusion (the election was fixed and/or totally out of control) to justification, instead of the other way around. You appear to be basing arguments on what the litigants have to say about it, which is ridiculous no matter who you support. If I want to decide what kind of a case Rossi has, I'm not going to ask Chris Vance--I'm going to look up the code and case law. If you think my argument is "circular," it may be because I continue to repeat it for the benefit of others who make the same argument as people before. It's all we have to return to: what the conditions are for contest and annulment. So when people say, "Why can't they do that?" or "surely they wouldn't ignore..." I can only return to the statutes as they are laid out. You can contest based purely on sufficient numbers of questionable ballots or practices to change the result, but you cannot WIN without a specific amount of ballots that you can PROVE should be taken away from a particular candidate. Relatedly, an election official can committ all kinds of incompetence and neglect, but once those errors cannot be corrected during the election process, the only thing that sets them aside is if the misconduct is an attempt to elevate one candidate over another. Not an effect, an attempt. (btw, on procurement: it was said triumphantly above that it means bring about, not acquire. Which is exactly what I had said--it must be brought about, not allowed to happen, for it to be procurement).
It's so very easy to simply dismiss someone who doesn't agree with you, and as a nation we yielded to this temptation in endemic proportions in 2004.
You can disagree with me all you like. Tell me why--I'd prefer that, actually. If you're treating me like you think I believe I'm the final word, that's your misread of the situation, not mine. KING-TV, the P-I and Powerline are not going to give me useful information on a subject. I'm simply hoping someone (and there have been one or two, for whom I'm grateful) is interested enough in being serious about the subject, to the point that I can debate the issues and learn from the perspective of others. If I wanted mindless feedback in support of the points I'm raising, I'd go spread the word at DailyKos or something. Sometimes I do. But I'm not going to learn as much about what's out there, as I am here.
You are not a troll just because you ask hard questions. The people who pretend they're not real--they're the ones living under the bridge.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 10, 2005 10:02 PMWe are the voters. WE have the authority, not them. It is time to give the Democrats a little "two-by-four counseling".
My only hope is that at the end of the matter, the back of the Washington State Democratic Party as we know it will have been irreparably broken. I will be the first to dance on its grave.
Posted by: AjalonVox on January 10, 2005 10:07 PMI think of trolls as wanting to play fetch...only they're throwing the stick and they want you to chase it and fetch. Just as it's a lot more work to fetch than to throw, systematically disproving nonsense is a lot more work than throwing out nonsense.
I read an article that stuck with me...it said that the left has become so powerful because we've allowed them to become the arbiter of morality and reason. I will prove a troll wrong if I think someone reading needs to see it...otherwise I give them the respect they've earned. I don't need to take them seriously if they don't want to be serious. I smell lefty lawyers when I sense a moot debate going on. They can't believe all the cr@p they spout.
Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 10:09 PMSorry, I didn't mean to hit a nerve.
I'll list a couple thoughts for you to consider:
1. You use 50 words, when 5-10 would work.
2. You repeat.
3. You repeat-already said that one.
4. You don't seem to listen to other people.
5. You don't appear to want to listen to others.
6. Your tone is condescending.
7. You are a leftist in denial.
8. You MONOPOLIZE the discussion.
9. You have to be correct about everything.
It is difficult to listen and TALK at the same time.
But like I said I could be wrong about all of it.
I certainly do not control who says what here, and I am not trying to attack you personally, but maybe I have. If so, I apologize.
Most of us can dicern the difference between facts and opinions. I am expressing an opinion.
One goes from forum to forum of different political bents and one hears the same things over and over again...the names are switched around for whichever forum you're in at the moment but the content remains the same...
Sad...
Doesn't anyone anywhere wish to engage in a serious conversation about real election reform? Not the typical *my side got robbed* nonsense that both sides spew, but serious conversation about how to fix it?
Y'all here claim to have the smoking gun of disparate votes in King County...what of the disparity in 1005 overvote in Clark County, distinctly Red in persuasion if I'm not mistaken?
Or the 1700 overvote the Republicans claimed in Snohomish county, another red one I'd bet?
Or the 1640 claimed in Pierce county, certainly not a liberal bastian...
So who here is working to find out those facts?
Or what of the military ballets that didn't get sent out in Island county until after the Fed deadline? Anyone looking into those?
Or the failed military mail delivery system? Or the lack of educating the military personell that they could vote via email or fax and not wait for their ballots? Is that the state of Washington's responsibility and/or the taxpayers of this state's responsibility to add to our already short budget to recreate another virtual tie?
What makes any of you think a revote would be any less close than the original election? What do you do then? How far do you take this?
The simple answer is to use this once in a million election to push REAL election reform through so we can all be comfortable with the outcome...
The Reps came up short this time...don't let it happen again...get real reform pushed through that is transparent, verifiable and accessible...nationwide....
Posted by: G Davis on January 11, 2005 12:46 AM"Never wrestle with a pig... You both just get dirty, and the pig loves it."
Posted by: Clint on January 11, 2005 03:19 AMWill wonders never cease?
Posted by: South County on January 11, 2005 05:31 AMThe draft proposal that went to Congress came from two DEMOCRATS, one of whom even voted against it. It was completely voted down, by R & D alike.
Also, before you get onto this, the moon is NOT made of cheese.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 05:40 AM