It was predictable. Even Democrat Legislators admit the election contest belongs in a court and not in the Legislature.
But that didn't stop the Democrat party from trying to dismiss the election contest. They claimed that the Legislature is the proper venue.
Not only was this motion based on questionable legal arguments, but now there will be a "perception" that momentum has shifted to Dino Rossi. The newspapers will report on the Democrats' loss, and the story will gain fresh interest. Keeping the story alive in the media is necessary to fight voter apathy, and the Democrats are helping the Republicans with questionable lawyering based only on the transparent desire to throw the election contest to a partisan tribunal in the Legislature. While the Democrats motion to dismiss doesn't sink to the frivolous, public opinion will continue to favor Rossi because of bad lawyering by the Democrats.
Given all the media about felons voting, expect Gregoire's favorablility rating to plunge even farther. In a recent survey the public gave Gregoire a 57% unfavorable rating. Ouch!
If Paul Berendt and the Democrat cititzens of Washington are willing to pay, what lawyer would not charge for legal services to exhaust all legal options? It seems that while the election contest is hurting Gregoire, it is helping to pad the pockets of the Litigarchy.
Cross blogged at Litigarchy
Posted by Tim Ford at February 04, 2005 11:22 AM | Email ThisBTW, would you consider putting newspaper links on your site (or CAN you?). I check the Times every day, but I don't know other papers in the state. Thanks for all you've done.
Posted by: JeanneB on February 4, 2005 11:33 AM...not just the parts that agree with your preconceived notions.
Posted by: ewaggin on February 4, 2005 11:59 AMTom can read?
Posted by: TimF on February 4, 2005 12:04 PMMan, you dems are so desperate, it's comical.
The state constitution says contested elections for governor "shall be decided by the Legislature in such a manner as shall be determined by law."
And the Legislature determined by law that the courts decide it.
Seems pretty clear cut. But no, you know you would lose the revote, and you know you can armtwist your legislators, so you don't want it.
Kinda like Florida, let's skip the rules we don't like.
Posted by: Cliff on February 4, 2005 12:04 PMWhy is this so hard to understand? It doesn't make an ounce of difference. Maybe they all voted for Ruth Bennett, for all we know.
All I want is justice.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 4, 2005 12:13 PMWOW! Good for you, you have your party line down to the "tee". Good for you...problem is that one: the republicans don't have to prove who the felons voted for. And two: that is laughable to say that felons wouldn't vote for "the top law enforcement official". Even though we don't have to prove who the felons voted for, I would suspect that felons vote for the party that lets them off the hook for their crimes (dems, who blame society for the acts of criminals instead of criminals themselves) before they would vote for Republicans who want criminals to face up to their own actions. But glad to see you know the party line so well. Good sheep..good sheep.
Posted by: Miriam on February 4, 2005 12:17 PMRem, we know that 79% of the felons who voted in Florida 2000 were registred democrats. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Posted by: Michele S on February 4, 2005 12:21 PMA little Fraudian slip there?
Posted by: thecomputerguy on February 4, 2005 12:23 PMI understand that you guys want allegations alone to carry the day - but fortunately the rule of law requires proof that your felons and others actually changed the outcome of the election.
It is prove it or shut up time. I am anxious to see what you've got.
Odd, you rant at yourself - to wit: Miriam and SnoCone Voter etc etc.
Secondly odd. Most people choke on vile and venom, not joke on it.
Sooo, what controlled substance do you relax with before you try to type logically?
Posted by: mikef on February 4, 2005 12:29 PMLet's see. The difference was, what, 129 votes.
We have over 2,000 voterless ballots in King County alone...not including the unexplained ballots in Snohomish County (that's SnoCo, NOT SnoCone...ez mistake for someone who's likely a product of the Washington state education system to make, so I will let that slide) and other counties.
that doesn't include disenfranchised felons (you understand that voting is a FRANCHISE, not a right...I hope), dead voters, double voters, et cetera.
As for reading "objective" news sources, I would daresay that I read more objective news sources before 5 a.m. than you do all day -- and that's giving you credit for looking at the pictures on the front of the Enquirer or Globe down at the 7-11. As an award-winning journalist (twice a finalist for a Pulitzer, back when you had to be legit to be considered instead of the convoluted crap of the NY Times -- which I would hope is not on your list of "objective" news sources) who couldn't stomach the low standards of mainstream media any more, I would daresay that I am as objective as anyone else who has ever posted on this blog.
Just because what I say doesn't agree with the reasoning that comes from your brontosaurus-sized frontal lobe doesn't make me un-objective.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 4, 2005 12:38 PMClinton was saved by a Senate that refused to convict despite the evidence. We'll get to see how the legislature, dominated by the Democrat Party, chooses to play its role following the court proceedings. Will they again choose the partisan route, being consistent, or find some way to drop this by rediscovering some lost adherence to principles and the rule of law?
Posted by: RLG on February 4, 2005 12:39 PMYour opinion is quite typical of the liberal viewpoint - one that has a deep misunderstanding of the law in this contest.
Nobody has to prove HOW the illegal voters cast their ballots, because nobody can. This state has very thorough voter privacy laws. It must only be shown that the number of illegal ballots cast were greater than the margin of victory. At this point Rossi's team has over 700 illegal ballots with corresponding affadavits that can be introduced as evidence in a court of law. So you're welcome to choke on that like a python swallowing a pig.
Furthermore, no fraud need be proven, only neglect. And Dean Logan has already publicly admitted neglect by poll workers who allowed 348 provisional ballots to be put directly into the voting machines.
But it is completely understandable that you do not want to comprehend the truth, as it will only lead to a re-vote.
Posted by: Larry on February 4, 2005 12:58 PMWith all due respect, the Democrats have controlled this state for some time, and this is why the elections process is so badly broken. Ron Sims appointed Dean Logan to a position that is elected in the other 38 counties.
The Republicans want to fix the process, and our best chance is to get Dino Rossi in the Governor's Mansion. Democrats want Gregoire to stay in because they know any changes to the process will be only window-dressing.
Posted by: Larry on February 4, 2005 01:19 PMThe 17-3 sports analogy was referring to TODAY only - else, how could it be halftime already?
I think we all understand that this contest will be a season of games, with the re-vote being the Super Bowl, if we can make it that far.
Interesting you used a sports analogy ('off base') to criticize a sports analogy, very pithy. At least, I assume it's from baseball and not the military.
Posted by: Larry on February 4, 2005 01:28 PMLet me fix that for you..."Repubs faced a devastating setback today when their handpicked judge refused to issue a summary judgment in their favor."
You aren't from around here, are you?
Posted by: South County on February 4, 2005 03:07 PMWhen the seditious and corrupt agenda of liberals is confronted with truth and reason, liberals are invariably reduced to sniping, condescension, and pedantic insults; this tactic reflects the inane, futile and rootless thought process characteristic of the liberal mind.
Snipe to your heart's content, little crow. Whie you busy yourself at thte side of the road, feeding from the carcass of the dead donkey, those of us with purpose and direction will drive on by.
I don't mind sports analogies. I just don't think we are at halftime of anything, in any sense. Not even halftime not counting the Super Bowl (trial). But, I note that you have always understood fully that the trial, if there is one, is for all the marbles (subject to appeal). On appeal the legal questions will be examined anew, but any factual questions resolved by the trial will be entitled to significantly more deference by the appellate court, on the grounds that the trial court is in a much better position to evaluate the evidence such as witness credibility, demeanor, and so forth.
Today is a victory for Republicans, so long as you count dodging a bullet as a victory. THings are now the same as the day the revote petition was filed, except the counties are gone and probably not needed. In light of that, it would be a bit over the top to complain if tomorrow's papers don't trumpet a big R victory. Since you agree, Larry, that you need to get to the Super Bowl to win and you may not get that far, demanding a victory party from the media right now misunderstands the legal posture of the case.
It's like answering correctly the Jeopardy question "procedural trivia for $100" and then yelling at Alex Trebeck and the audience for not congratulating and applauding for you more effusively.
But I know that's not Larry. But it might be some of the commenters above.
Posted by: Paul R. Lehto on February 4, 2005 04:46 PM"Keeping the story alive in the media is necessary to fight voter apathy" (so let's blow this victory up as big as we can).
And sure, the Democrats would do the same.
Posted by: Paul R. Lehto on February 4, 2005 04:53 PM