Today's Seattle Times print article about the election contest hearing walks back the implausible and uncorroborated report in yesterday's online story that "Republicans must show any illegal votes were cast in favor of Gregoire".
A major issue that appeared less than settled yesterday was whether Republicans would have to show that each illegal vote they find was cast for Gregoire and that they can find enough to erase her 129-vote victory margin.The issue of the revote is also more nuanced than as initially reported. Although Judge Bridges apparently said that he doesn't have the authority to order a "revote" (we'll have to wait for a transcript to get his exact words), there are other ways to get to an early election for governor should the contested election be set aside.
The best line in the Times article is from Democrat attorney Jenny Durkan, who, after losing every single one of her motions to dismiss the case, said:
"We got everything we wanted."Can any of our photoshop-savvy readers send us a photo with Jenny Durkan as Baghdad Bob?
UPDATE: That didn't take long.
Hat tip: Robert the Mulatto Advocate, for the photo of Baghdad Jenny!
"After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, the court shall pronounce judgment in the premises, either confirming or annulling and setting aside such election, according to the law and right of the case.
"If in any such case it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes, said court shall declare such person duly elected."
Look at the words "If in any such case," referring to elections which have been annulled and set aside. These words mean that elections can be annulled and set aside without meeting the standard which is about to be stated. Otherwise there would be no need for the qualifier.
Posted by: ScottM on February 5, 2005 09:12 AMOther ways? What ways, pray tell? Having Stefan rather than Judge Bridges order the revote? Witchcraft? Bridges' ruling that he doesn't have the power to order a revote is based solidly on the state *Constitution*. Witchcraft aside, compliance with the Constitution is not optional -- for Judge Bridges, the Supreme Court, even the Legislature.
I must say it's fun watching you all flounder around for ways out of the box you're in. But positive visualization of a revote ain't gonna cut it when the Constitution says no. Still, I suppose I'm happier having you spend your energy on this than, say, trying to find new ways to excuse businesses from environmental regulations etc.
Posted by: Mike on February 5, 2005 09:16 AM"3 Past experience also suggests that, if the court simply sets aside the election results
(without question a remedy available under the statute), the Legislature will pass whatever
laws are necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements and provide for a new election
promptly."
You might just try Article 3, Sec. 10 of the Washington State Consitution...gust google that phrase. Please read through the entire section as it just appears to be a boring recitation of who is in charge if the Governor's office is vacant. At the end, it tells you how you have a "new vote" for governor at the next general election. That would be November of 2005. I've said all alsong this was the likely outcome of a Rossi court victory.
However, all of my Republican friends would do well to google Article 3 Section 2 which states the governor serves a four year term, or until the successor is duly elected and qualified (going from memory here so not quoting it). That leaves the incredible possibility that Rossi wins in court and Gary Locke is still governor and the office is actually not vacant. In that case, I think he might remain governor until some time in August or September when its too late to have a "new vote" in November of 2005, which would allow Brad Owen to act as governor until the election of November 2006. If you remember, the governor of New Jersey pulled this same stunt when he announded he would leave office.
Just some thoughts to send us to the Maalox bottle for the rest of the weekend.
As for the "you have to show they were Gregoire votes" this would simply legitimize illegal voting by provisionals stuffing the ballot machine as occured in King County. There is no way to even know for certain who voted, let alone how they voted. Even if you can show some voted legally (the magical mystery envelopes that King County has now found) you can't figure out which ballots to count and which ones to not count, since we vote in secret (including those from the netherworld).
I'm guessing Judge Bridges will allow the Rossi campaign to do its best to establish all the illegal votes it can, then rule on the law in such a way that he finds against Rossi. That gives Bridges the out (he's not the one to overturn an election) and lands it square in the laps of the aptly named SCOW, or Supreme Court of Washington....which at least had the unanimous courage to toss out the state's estate tax this week. Posted by: john on February 5, 2005 09:56 AM
You guys lost, but nobody really feels sorry for a bunch of sore losers and crybabies.
Posted by: Nelson on February 5, 2005 09:57 AM(Let's review this concept if the judge does award the election to Rossi -- and see just how Dino responds then)...
You are spot on. The judge said he didn't have the authority to order a special election. Unlike Foulkes, which dealt with a county election, the state constitution and statutes have specifics regarding gubernatorial elections. He read those, not to say what the remedy might be, but as the basis to strike one specific remedy asked for by Rossi, a new special election. He did not rule out a new election that might come under the Art. 3, Sec. 10 vacancy provisions. Posted by: north clark county on February 5, 2005 09:59 AM
Did you attend the same spin school as Jenny D" WE GOT EVERYTHING WE WANTED" Durkan- Liberal translation " We got our asses kicked today". This contest is very much alive and gregoire the grinch ought not to get too comfortable in the mansion. She has to have her panties in a knot about now.
Posted by: Angry Voter on February 5, 2005 10:08 AM-Nelson
Nelson forgets that by having elections where we don't really know the true outcome because of hundreds of illegal votes cast WE ALL LOSE!
Posted by: Joe on February 5, 2005 10:10 AMHe also got it wrong when he says "And, to use the specific illegal votes to overturn the election, Bridges said Republicans will have to trace them to the candidates and show the winner would change after subtracting them." Postman's re-write in todays Times phrased it better, quoting the judge: "it may be problematical for petitioners to ultimately prevail on a theory or a cause of illegal votes."
Posted by: north clark county on February 5, 2005 10:11 AMThe Democrats didn't get their a---- kicked any more than they got everything they wanted. The truth is somewhere in between . . . for both parties. Only time will tell who came out the better in this one.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on February 5, 2005 10:14 AMThere's not going to be a special "re-vote" set by the court, the small chance of the election being set aside still exists. Brad Owen would then be the governor from June of 2005 to January 2007. The new election would be in November of 2006.
The problem is that the judge read the statute concerning the fact that Rossi needs to find illegal votes for Gregoire. Also. before denying the democrats motion to dismiss, he read a portion of a case which stated that illegal votes, without something more, are not the fault of either candidate.
Some of the the GOPs causes of action were dismissed, the remaining ones will have a high barrier.
Of course, this is only the trial judge. The Washington state supreme court may have a different opinion. However, I don't see how Rossi gets around the statute language.
Posted by: Erik on February 5, 2005 10:14 AMNathan - thanks for the link to the News Tribune article. The judge's ruling on when a vote has to be challenged would mean the Rossi campaign only loses 44 of the illegal votes discovered so far, and I think that is nearing 1,000. Look at RCW 29a.68. The judge has ruled the "dead" must be challenged at the time they are actually voting...whew, does that turn common sense on its head but the judge accepted the Democrats' argument on that one. Oh, maybe that's why it turns common sense on its head.
Posted by: john on February 5, 2005 10:22 AMWhere did our love go?
Posted by: jim on February 5, 2005 10:24 AMI would agree with that statement in principle. However, it is simply not true in this particular case. There have no provable illegal votes shown yet that would have changed the outcome of the election. Christine Gregoire won the election, fair and square. No rational person (and I stress the word "rational") would dispute there.
Where there possibly a handful of improperly handled votes? Of course. There are in every single election in every single jurisdiction everywhere. But none of those have been shown to rise to the category of "illegal," which is a very high bar to prove. Anyone can use a press release (or a blog) to call anything they want "illegal," but saying it is and proving it in court are not the same thing.
Like I said before, this case is now officially over and you GOPophiles are going to have to cry yourselves to sleep in gubernatorial hibernation until November 2008 because nothing is going to happen again until then.
Posted by: Nelson on February 5, 2005 10:24 AMWhere did our love go?
Up the ladder to the roof
Posted by: north clark county on February 5, 2005 10:30 AM"There have no provable illegal votes shown yet that would have changed the outcome of the election. Christine Gregoire won the election, fair and square. No rational person (and I stress the word "rational") would dispute there."
How do you propose a "rational" person determines who the "illegal vote" was cast for? Can you go through +/- 3 million votes to extract the actual ballots cast by the illegal voters? What about the ballots cast that have no voter attached to them? Can you retrieve those? What about the provisional ballots that were fed in to the machines before being properly verified? Can you retrieve those? the littany goes on and on and on....
There have been no provable illegal votes shown yet because the trial hasn't started. That's when any evidence Rossi has must be produced. Yes, Rossi must prove it in court, but I don't think the bar is quite as high as you imply. There are two causes for contesting an election, illegal votes and election board misconduct. Improperly handled votes is a cause under election board misconduct, if proven. Posted by: north clark county on February 5, 2005 10:35 AM
"Where there possibly a handful of improperly handled votes? Of course. There are in every single election in every single jurisdiction everywhere. But none of those have been shown to rise to the category of "illegal," which is a very high bar to prove. Anyone can use a press release (or a blog) to call anything they want "illegal," but saying it is and proving it in court are not the same thing."
Does this mean you do not believe that dead people voting is illegal? Do you believe that felons, (who have not had their voting rights restored), voting is not illegal? Do you also belive that multiple votes cast by the same person are not illegal? How about ballots cast by people who do not now exist, nor have ever existed,? Are those illegal?
I think allowing the tribes to set their own regulation regime and moving non- c a s i n o business onto tribal land has gutted the environmental laws pretty handily. Next canard?
(Silly spaces because of SPAM.)
Posted by: Al on February 5, 2005 10:37 AMMeanwhile, there is more dirt from under the rug (nailed down by the Democrat machine, that have recently been pulled out) that needs to be swept out, to lead to honest and fair elections for people..and for those who prefer the tainted elections of the past, you can always move.
Posted by: KS on February 5, 2005 10:40 AM"Christine Gregoire won the election, fair and square."
Please remove "fair and square" in any future posts!
You know that the amount of ILLEGAL votes is not a handful as you suggest! They are in the hundreds and far surpass the margin of victory.
They have been confirmed and catagorized as Illegal not just by this blog and the people in it but the mainstream media (ex. Seattle Times) as well as the statutes that deem them illegal.
Posted by: Joe on February 5, 2005 10:43 AM1 Superior Court can order a revote. Rossi wins due to overwhelming public support.
2 Superior Court orders an annulment, position cannot stay vacant, new vote (revote) occurs. Rossi wins due to overwhelming public support.
3 Superior Court decides on Rossi as winner, Rossi declines position, position is vacant, new vote occurs (revote), Rossi wins by overwhelming public support.
4 Superior court decides on Gregoire winner, GOP overwhelmingly wins in 2006, state becomes a conservative state due to overwhelming opposition to D's conduct during 2004 election.
5-8 SCOW steps in and exactly the same thing happens.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on February 5, 2005 11:01 AMIf you were a bipolar person (I have no reason to believe you are), I would suggest you are currently in your euphoric phase. Unfortunately, the depressive phase is just around the corner...
There are many milestones yet to come in this contest, and it still could go either way. I wouldn't be getting too comfortable just yet.
Posted by: Bum on February 5, 2005 11:04 AMYou guys lost. Quit crying and move on. Time heals all wounds, as they say, and no one would blame you for trying to win again in November '08.
The official GOP operation will surely pull the plug on this case, since they probably have no desire to throw good money after bad. Every card player knows that when enough cards are showing to prove that you're bluffing, you simply don't continue to play the hand.
They'll fold the cards for this hand and wait and play again in 4 years. It's the American way.
Posted by: Nelson on February 5, 2005 12:22 PMHowever, I think your talents are quite wasted, and I ask you to use them in a more profitable way. It would be sad for you to merely waste such prognostication on mere political things and inconsequential machinations.
Please be kind enough to share with me stocks that will see better than a 500% increase in this year. That's where the rubber meets the road, and truthfully, you could benefit the lives of so many in a direct way if you redirected your apparently considerable talents.
Thank you in advance, and I shall have a browser window open to execute a buy upon your response. And, I shan't utter a peep at the taxes I will inject in the economy, and after the first couple million, you can spout your talents to your heart's content.
:)
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on February 5, 2005 01:28 PMGet a life! Move to Canada!
You forgot that "fair and square" to a Democrat refers to the outcome, not the process. Your world view prevents you from comprehending that.
Posted by: VaCSProf on February 5, 2005 03:16 PMNow that you are so confident of "victory", you want to come around here and spout off. Where were you when there were discussions about the discovery of the many illegal votes cast that "disenfranchised" the voters of Washington State? Or is that you only care for the "disenfranchised" when those people are likely to vote for your party? It's amazing that you would consider this election "fair and square". Wow! If that's true, then I'll be rushing to register to vote in Precinct 1823 in King County and have the ballots sent to a private mailbox service near my actual residence in another part of the state. Then I'll be sure to vote twice (or maybe even three times in each election, since - as you say - this election was "fair and square".
Since day one, this has ALWAYS been about an ethical and honest election in this state, regardless of what you, the media, the legislators and even Rossi himself have said. When Rossi is declared the winner, I absolutely expect him to vacate the seat when some sort of provision is made for a new vote.
I am amazed that those who traditionally campaign for the people's right to vote are SO stubbornly opposed to this.
Please come back. I look forward to reading what you will to say about Judge Bridge's ruling.
Posted by: JRR on February 5, 2005 03:30 PMAre we to believe that the Dems would be doing anything different if Gregore had won the first 2 counts then lost the last manual recount by 129 votes ? They would be whining and crying more with their conspiracy theories and the newspapers and TV news would be talking about it all of the time ? Face it, you guys did not play by the rules when it came to counting and reconciling votes and you will have to pay the price, whether it be this year or next year and the public now knows it..so grow up and accept responsibility ! (I know that is a new concept)
"This election is a model to the rest of the nation and the world at large"
that once everything is laid out, even the goofiest of Lefty's will be scratchin' himself.
Folks seen to have totally forgotten about the box of 400+ provisional ballot affadavits Comrade Paul Berendt brought in way, way back...
Remember, Berendt cried and blubbered and attested personally to the validity of each and every affadavit he personally turned in. Remember that???
Now, what do you suppose was actually in that box??? Let's just say there are some bogus affadavits the Chair of the State Democratic Party personally turned in and vouched personally for their validity.
Wouldn't that just be the darnedest thing!!!
I don't know if you are in Washington, but TVW has covered both earlier SCOWS hearings, and I'm sure they would again. Also, C-SPAN did cover the second hearing as well.
Posted by: north clark county on February 5, 2005 05:05 PM
All lawyers are required to pass a special "keeping a straight face" class taught by Kevin Nealon before graduating from law school.
Posted by: Michele on February 5, 2005 05:50 PMUsually...the arrival of new Gregoire trolls to this site is irritating.....However, it is expected! Everytime the Dems suffer a crushing blow in this contest - they send their people here to post disinformation!
For some reason - when the Dems are stressin' - they feel a need to come here and exhibit the most incredible statements of denial! I see they do that in some newspapers as well...
oh well...just don't feed them, they'll go away....they always do!
Posted by: Deborah on February 5, 2005 07:21 PMFOR IMMEDIATE RELASE Contact: Mary Lane
Feb. 5, 2005
Reality check on election contest rulings
Gregoire & Dems lose most motions;
New election still possible
Bellevue, WA – Yesterday in Chelan County Superior Court, the Dino Rossi campaign won an overwhelming victory in Rossi’s election contest case.
The judge rejected the Democratic Party’s efforts to throw the case out, allowing a trial to move forward, and although he specifically denied the Rossi campaign’s request for a revote, he left the path clear for nullifying the 2004 gubernatorial election. If the election is nullified, there will be a vacancy in the governor’s office and a new election must be held.
Despite Christine Gregoire and the Democrats’ efforts to put a positive spin on their defeat, a review of the judge’s decisions so far reveals the extent of the Rossi campaign’s victory:
Feb. 4, 2005 hearing in Chelan County Superior Court
Judge’s rulings:
Democrats’ motion to strike Rossi campaign’s request for a revote “as soon as practicable”: GRANTED, but judge leaves in place the Rossi campaigns other requested relief, including declaring the election null and void and setting it aside.
If the election is nullified and set aside, the governor’s office will be vacant, and there will have to be a new election. Reports that there will definitely be no new election, as well as Democrats’ claims that the only option is for the judge to install Rossi as governor, are incorrect.
Democrats’ motion to dismiss case because no court can hear an election contest for governor, only the Legislature can: DENIED.
Democrats’ motion to dismiss case or require it to be transferred from Chelan County to the state Supreme Court or to another county: DENIED.
Democrats’ motion to dismiss all claims by the Rossi campaign: DENIED on most claims, GRANTED only on claims for equal protection violations.
Jan. 20, 2005 hearing in Chelan County Superior Court
Judge’s ruling:
Democrats’ motion to stop fact-finding (“discovery”) until other motions are decided: DENIED.
“What Christine Gregoire was desperately trying to stop – an election contest trial – is now going to happen,” said Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane. “This is a huge victory for us. In trial we will be able to bring to light all the problems with this election – the illegal and improperly cast votes, and the thousands of votes that can’t be matched to voters.
“In the end, we believe the people of Washington will get the opportunity to have a new election and a legitimately elected governor once and for all.”
###
Are you sure you aren't Jeanne Garofalo (?) who is the most misinformed talk host I have heard - her head is lodged firmly where the sun don't shine. No offense, but your posts are getting shrill and stale.
Posted by: KS on February 5, 2005 09:20 PMAre you sure you aren't Jeanne Garofalo (?) who is the most misinformed talk host I have heard - her head is lodged firmly where the sun don't shine. No offense, but your posts are getting shrill and stale.
"GOP lawsuit heads to trial"
"Judge: No revote in governor dispute"
If you are just returning from a sunny vacation destination, betcha you can guess which headline belongs to which paper. I will continue to subscribe to the paper that has POSTMAN on the payroll--the one that chose to INFORM on Saturday morning.
Posted by: James Hawk on February 6, 2005 11:49 AM