I rarely make predictions, but I feel comfortable predicting today that Judge Bridges will set aside the election. Why do I think this?
Because Bridges acknowledged that the existing statute and case law are insufficiently clear on how to handle the situation he's faced with. He acknowledged that this is public issue of great importance that transcends the present contestants and that he is called to write the case law for future election contests.
Put yourself in Bridges' shoes. Bear in mind that you are not only setting the precedent for future election contests. You are setting the standards of performance for election officials so that they can both avoid election contests and uphold the integrity in the elections process that the public expects. Ask yourself what precedent for election standards you wish to leave for posterity -- that the kinds of neglect, errors, concealment and deceit as exhibited by King County are acceptable and may be tolerated? or that election officials need to follow the laws for ballot accounting, that they cannot selectively disclose and correct some errors but not others, and that there are serious consequences for failure?
Review what you have seen in your courtroom. Bill Huennekens, King County's Superintendent of Elections, admitted for the first time, nearly seven months after the election, that he has never known and will never know how many people voted in his county, a piece of information which the Secretary of State testified is critical to the integrity of an election. One of Huennekens subordinates, Nicole Way, testified that she knew that the new computer system wouldn't allow her to perform a valid reconciliation as she had in the past, so she knowingly created an invalid report and passed it up the management chain. This false report, which concealed errors sufficient to change the outcome of the election, was knowingly passed to the canvsassing board. King County then selectively disclosed and corrected some errors which caused the outcome of the manual recount to declare a different winner than in the first two counts. Other errors, such as those which were concealed by the falsified report and which would have been sufficient to change the decision of the manual recount, were neither disclosed nor corrected.
It's hard to imagine that any thoughtful jurist wouldn't want their legacy to favor election integrity as opposed to wanton sloppiness and worse. If my prediction is wrong, I might look a tiny bit silly. But that would be the least of our problems.
To see where Bridges is coming from, read David Postman's fine article in today's Seattle Times and also listen to Bridges own remarks when he denied the Democrats' motion to dismiss.
First, Postman: "Judge rules with eye to present and future"
The veteran Chelan County Superior Court judge is guided by the recognition that whatever he does will likely set a critical legal precedent. The few state Supreme Court cases on the subject stemmed from local races and, Bridges has said, can be contradictory on some points. A ruling on a statewide election could reshape this state's election law.Now listen to what Bridges said when he denied the Democrats' motion to dismiss. (Go to the audio here and fast forward to 3:21:18);
...
Said Bridges: "You need to understand that my focus here is based on the recognition that this is going to happen again — an election like this — because I think a court's ruling needs to be consistent not only with the present but the future."
[this case is not only important to Mr. Rossi and Ms. Gregoire and their constituents, but also about] what the citizens or residents of the state of Washington expect when there is an election contest filed and what they deserve when an election contest is filed under our election contest statute, which is 29A.68. I have not read the legislative history of our election contest statute. However, I cannot imagine that our ladies and gentlemen of the state legislature ever contemplated a situation that we find ourselves involved with today -- where the parties and their attorneys have spent not less than six months trying to figure out what happened here and trying to collect evidence to support the various theories. But my sense is after hearing counsel argue the various motions that we've had since January that actually there was concern as far back as November of 2004 about this particular election and what might happen and what was happening and ultimately, of course, what did happen.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 29, 2005 05:40 PM | Email This
Having grown up in Seattle but lived in Eastern WA for the last 30 years I have concluded that sensibility and personal responsibility still rule in the hearts and minds of people over here.
Judge Bridges will not shrink from this incredible responsibility he now faces. He will recognize the need for clarity, honesty and justice.
We will be better for it!
Posted by: Don in Yakima on May 29, 2005 05:48 PMWas the election screwed up? yes. Was it very likely that there was fraud? yes.
Did the reps prove that Rossi would have won without that fraud? Sorry, but I didn't see that proven with the evidence given.
I hope I am wrong. (Sure won't be he first time!). If I am, I think that Bridges will need to do more than overthrow the election. He will need to order that the election department of KC be changed in some way.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 29, 2005 06:04 PMI hate the fact that it has to be proven who the winner would have been without all the wrong-doing, because there are more victims in this than the losing candidate. We the voters and citizens of this state are victims as well.
We spend our vote, of which we only have one. Most of us spend a considerable amount of time researching candidates etc. Others of us spend even more time volunteering and donating to our candidates. I wish all that were weighed in the balance....but then, we the public are seldom considered are we?
Posted by: Hanna on May 29, 2005 06:15 PMDo you think there is any room for the possibility that the certification itself could be declared void due to the fact that it was based on faslified data? I agree that fraud seems insufficiently proven, though the opportunity for fraud was clearly evident, and the circumstantial evidence that fraud occured is evident as well. I still put all my focus back on the fact that partisan officials knowingly withheld key information that may have prevented certification form occuring and thus their violation of election law led to a certification that should not have occured. That would allow Bridges to declare the certification to be invalid and thus force some sort of recertification. However, since the trial also clearly shows that the acutal number of legal votes could not be clearly identified, the only remedy would be to re-vote.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: Eyago on May 29, 2005 08:01 PMThe Democrats had no problem with the way the Democrat-run King County Canvassing board *discerned* the voter intent of some 55,000 ballots - using an un-scientific *pattern* analysis! Many times during their canvassing board meetings - no clear pattern could be established - so they made them up as they went along! They got frustrated and silly before they were half way through with those ballots!....I'm sure they had good reason to be frustrated - but in their frustration, they got sloppy. We are talking about thousands of ballots here! (I wonder if they used that fatal ecological standard?).....Yet - the Democrat Lawyers argue that the proportional analysis as produced by the Republicans is *guess work*? Hah!
Why shouldn't the Judge consider a true scientific analysis as produced by Katz and Benson?
I can't wait to see the Queen tossed out in the street!
Posted by: SP Fan on May 29, 2005 08:08 PMAt the end of the day their are 'X' number of ILLEGAL VOTES that are COMINGLED with legal votes. THere is no way to specifically identify them and the Judge WILL NOT require all felons who voted illegally to be deposed.
So will Judge Bridges do absolutely NOTHING???
I doubt that. So the felon votes will be apportioned somehow.
The reconciliation issues are another matter. Lots of circumstantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe ballotboxes and absentees were STUFFED and UNSTUFFED to Gregoire's advantage and Rossi's disadvantage.
What will be done here is of more concern to me than the felons....and will likely decide the contest if the felons aren't enough.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 29, 2005 08:15 PMThe judge believes he cannot set aside the election unless the evidence shows that irregularities, errors, etc., changed the election's outcome.
He believes that the petitioners must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the outcome was changed.
He believes that crediting voters is a post-election administrative exercise that has nothing to do with the authenticity of the election. (When the Dems' lawyer referred to the May 2 ruling and argued that voter crediting records weren't sufficient to show that there were 875 absentee ballots in excess of voters credited with casting absentee ballots, the judge said: "The crediting issue has been decided." -- TVW audio recording for May 25 at 4 hr 5 min. The judge must have been referring to his own May 2 ruling.)
Through his own questions to Nicole Way, the judge revealed that he's thinking along the lines noted in Hill v. Howell -- that failing to follow prescribed procedures isn't a fatal flaw when it is done through ignorance and in good faith. Way grabbed the lifeline the judge threw her and said that the "ballots received" number on the false Mail Ballot Report was the best she could do with the information available to her. The judge apparently is inclined to think it wasn't a false record that was submitted with the intention of fooling the canvassing board or anyone else.
The petitioners have not persuaded the judge to admit into evidence the testimony of their experts on "proportional deduction/reduction." He said he has grave concerns about the proffered evidence, and he read the law to petitioners' counsel so they would have no reason to be ignorant about the reason for his concerns. Without that evidence, the petitioners appear to have nothing to show how the "illegal votes" may have affected the election's outcome.
The petitioners had no expert testimony to offer about the alleged bias in the voters-to-ballots precinct data for the apparent excess of absentee ballots in some precincts and shortage in others -- even assuming the judge accepts as valid the voter crediting data showing that there is an excess of ballots compared to voters in some precincts and a shortage in others.
The petitioners have rested their case, so it isn't likely that they are going to be offering any additional evidence to fill in any gaps.
I wish I could be as optimistic about their chances at the trial level as you are, but I don't see much reason for optimism now that they've presented their case without clearing those hurdles.
Posted by: Micajah on May 29, 2005 08:35 PMYeah Hanna - I got a photocopied absentee ballot from the KC elections office because mine was mailed to an address out of state where I thought I would be but ended up not going to.
I asked the "worker" (who had a horrible attitude and clearly did not like me because I didn't have purple hair and a pierced nose) if it mattered that I didn't have an original. She looked at me like I was crazy.
So, anyone in the system could just photocopy the damn ballots in order to stuff them.
What should have happened is they should have had to mark down that my original was cancelled (or at least one out of the total mailed was cancelled) and mark down that I was given a new one. Or something - little tired now but it could be kept track of.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 29, 2005 08:35 PMThat would be a very logical outcome. Someone in the system MUST HAVE THE AUTHORITY to say that a certification was done with invalid or fabricated information, and therefor needs to be re-issued based on the correct information. It's amazing to me that apparently there is nobody in the process that can do this.
It would also give an easy out for Bridges. It would push the election issue back to the legislature where it should be. They would be forced to reconsider their vote on the matter.
However, while I don't know exactly what Bridges options are, and I have looking for specifically this option as being among those discussed, I have not seen it.
Does someone know if this would be an option for Bridges?
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 29, 2005 08:42 PMI'm afraid I'm with you on this one Micajah.
Bridges is letting in every bit of evidence and, in the end, I think he will simply say that the evidence presented did not meet the burden of proof.
End of game. Durkan is lauded as a hero, and we have a whole new wave of celebration about how wonderful lesbians are and, "well, shouldn't we just let her marry her partner?" Gregoire becomes more defiant than ever and takes the court ruling to mean a mandate to pass an income tax ... etc ...
It will be an unholy mess out there. Time to move!
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 29, 2005 08:56 PMI am a big time skeptic but I agree with you all of the way.
For Bridges not to set it aside now is to repudiate the law and condemn our state's legal processes and political health.
It is sick now, but it can be remedied, and we can not afford to wait any longer.
Thanks for the comments.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 29, 2005 08:59 PMThe legislature never anticipated anything like November 2004. However, I doubt the legislature expected a judge (Bridges drew the lucky straw) to check his common sense at the door.
If the standard to be met requires relying on technicalities by the Respondents, and that standard is upheld, the value of the vote in Washington is very cheap indeed. My hope is that Bridges brings his common sense to bear.
Posted by: Danny on May 29, 2005 09:09 PMIf you are referring to the legislatures we have had for at least the past 15 years, I think you are making a mighty big assumption.
Look at the legislation passed in the current group, and you wont find much common sense.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 29, 2005 09:12 PMI am not a legal expert, but think that Rossi's team may need a boost to make it over the bar - not to say they won't get it this week, but I would say that they need look for any openings to get them to the promised land. To put this into sports venacular; What we have is synonomous to 4th and goal between the 1 and 2 yard line and they need a touchdown to win. Right now, my gut says its too close to call with 3-4 days left, but like Shark's optimism, but at the same time heed Micajah's analysis.
Posted by: KS on May 29, 2005 10:02 PM29A.60.200 clearly has language that requires the canvassing boards to VERIFY the results before certification, which was obviously not done. Reports were simply passed up the chain without any kind of check and balance to conclude their accuracy.
There's an out for Bridges if he wants to take it. I go back and forth when I try to envision which way he will decide this case. On the one hand, I agree with Stefan's points, and on the other, Micajah's. For all who have been following this since Nov. 2nd as I have, there's been no sharper analysis than that of Stefan, Micajah and possibly with honorable mention from Richard Pope.
It's really going to come down to Bridges personal objectivity and his measure of the gravity of this ruling and the severe malingering which brought us to this point. If Bridges truly has the ability to distance hismself from his ruling and to forsee the future implications to election in WA and in fact all over the US, he will throw this election out. If instead he is more vain and worried about the implications of this ruling for himself, and/or wants to take an easier route, he will let the results stand with vague justifications that are far too literal interpretations of the RCW.
The decision will be tremendously difficult either way, and hopefully he has a sense for the awesome power of written law and the implications on the future that perhaps our founding fathers had as they drafted the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I wish you good premises Judge Bridges.
I will however cross my fingers and wish for a different outcome. I just don't think it work.
Posted by: Deadwood on May 29, 2005 10:18 PMMicajah,
I thought that he couldn't set it aside unless the evidence showed that Mrs. G WON because of the errors, not unless the errors showed it changed the outcome. Couldn't Bridges rule based on that distinction?
Posted by: VaCSProf on May 29, 2005 10:59 PM"Way grabbed the lifeline"..
Yes, but Way's deposition is a concrete block for the Intervenes.
Did Judge Bridges catch onto the difference between Way's deposition and on-the-stand testimony? And what about Logan's deposition? That is a wealth of ignorance...
Maybe Bridges was trying to keep Way from taking the Fall for someone who ordered the books cooked.
King County workers, here are your four excuses:
"I didn't do it." (It was the "Culture")
"It wasn't me." (Doing as told)
"You can't prove it." (Troll's choice)
"I didn't know." (If ignorance is bliss King County is Nirvana)
Micajah, you always have great posts (and a nice blog) but I don't believe you give the petitioners credit. There is a fine line between offering evidence and trying the courts patience. I would say eight County auditors is trying the courts patience (and pressing their luck).
The Intervenes reek of desperation.
Posted by: Splatter on May 29, 2005 11:53 PM‘The judge apparently is inclined to think it wasn't a false record that was submitted with the intention of fooling the canvassing board or anyone else.’
While it may be difficult for one to refute your conclusion based on the law, it is not hard to disagree that it is the correct one. The conclusion that he will reach is still very much unknown. If two neutral people witness an accident from the same street corner, you will likely still get two different conclusions as to what happened. Take another two people; let them have only listened to the same witnesses/evidence presented concerning the accident, and the different conclusions only become more confounded. The Judges decision will be based on two things, the law as he interprets it, and the evidence as he sees it. Appeals can only be based on the law as he interprets it. The evidence as he sees it cannot save for the objections as to its admittance (hence the laws). We can surmise his ultimate decision based on the laws as know them but, we cannot as to the evidence as ‘he sees’ it.
‘I cannot imagine that our ladies and gentlemen of the state legislature ever contemplated a situation that we find ourselves involved with today.’
I believe this is a very telling statement. He obviously realizes that there is a problem.
His ruling will definitely answer his thoughts concerning this be it one way or the other.
But it isn't. Heck, even a few of the koolaid drinkers here have been paying attention to the law. You need clear and convinicing evidence that illegal votes changed the election. And the GOP has put up not a single indication that a single mistake or error in King County or elsewhere changed the election in one little bit. Oops.
Which is the problem with KS's metaphor. 4th and goal was on Thursday, and the GOP blew it (and, let's be truthful here, it was 4th and 25 from the GOP's 15, and they blew it). Now the Dems have the ball, and the Judge has left the GOP not a single ground for appeal.
The tea leaves are not that hard to read. The judge will rule that there were obvious errors and mistakes, but that petitioner (the GOP) has failed to prove that they effected the outcome of the election. The Supreme Court will uphold the decision, holding that without a showing that the election outcome was actually changed by illegal votes, the final outcome is just that, final.
I only thing worth debating is will Judge Bridges throw out the GOPs statistical evidence as being improper or will he let it in, but since there are many ways to do the statistical analysis, and some show Gregoire winning, some show Rossi winning, none can be clear and convincing.
Heck, might as start preparing your character assaination of Bridges now, what else do you have?
Posted by: JDB on May 30, 2005 12:19 AMI'll have to read the transcripts from the past week - but there were several occasions where the Judge went beyond simply allowing the Republicans evidence for the sake of a later appeal. He offered the Dems the reasons why he was allowing certain evidence - saying "I feel it's important" ,etc... When Judge Bridges insisted on reading through a sample CFR to decide on it's relevance in the Felon votes - he was pulling an *in your face* to the Dems! When he gave Nicole Way ONE MORE CHANCE to tell the court the truth about her knowledge and belief about the flawed absentee ballot numbers - he was allowing her to hang herself.
This goes far away from any attempt to create an appeal proof ruling in favor of the Dems....In fact he may have made it impossible for himself to do anything but nullify the election.
Guys...It really is OK to be optimistic here.... Your pessimism only feeds the trolls! I have great optimism for this coming week! If I am wrong - then I will follow the appeal process...and watch us win there! Retreat is not an option! That goes for your faith as well.
Never let them see you sweat!
Posted by: Deborah on May 30, 2005 12:27 AMHey Deborah, regarding your plea for optimism, Oscar Wilde had a point when he said, "The basis of optimism is sheer terror". You need only read between the words here to see that.
Meanwhile, whatever happen to election reform? Remember that? Nah, didn't think so, this court case never had anything to do with election reform, just Rossi's thirst for power.
Posted by: Daniel K on May 30, 2005 01:17 AMWe all know that this case is in Judge Bridges hands, lets hope that Judge bridges is in Gods hands and that it is his will that the time has come to drag this deceit and fraud out into the light and clean house.
God bless Judge Bridges, to do what is right, that will insure more FREEDOM!
If we turn a 'blind eye' to a wrong, are we indeed FREE?
Bye, Bye, Christie, DO forget to write! [;-D
Posted by: arky on May 30, 2005 05:06 AMStefan has shown evidence of vote tampering in King County. But the Republicans could not finger the guilty parties, partly because they could not vigorously investigate the crime. Presumption of innocence means that the folks who attempted to hide the vote tampering had to be tied to vote fraud, but without a true investigation vote fraud could not be proved. And, finally, a judge who refuses to legislate from the bench should be voted onto the Supreme Court--even if he does dash the hope of overturning this fraudulent election.
There is little doubt that this election was stolen by KC Dems. But until criminal investigators dig into it, how it was done will remain hidden. And until there is someone to convict of vote fraud, then alternative claims of massive incompetence joined with criminal misconduct regarding certification make it hard to prove beyond doubt election fraud occurred.
Dems will celebrate this "win", but it will stick in their craw at some point in the future. Abuse without consequences leads to greater abuse. Stealing Gorton's election only required 2,000 phony ballots. Stealing Rossi's required nearly 10,000. Stealing the next one will likely require more yet. At some point, even the criminally slack laws in this state will come into play (or we get a real US Attorney, instead of the lapdog McKay) and the state will be treated to seeing not a few Democrats do the perp walk.
Posted by: iconoclast on May 30, 2005 06:49 AMFor Judge Bridges to do nothing would mean he is condoning and almost encouraging future ILLEGAL VOTING. He isn't going to do that.
Bridges will go through the ILLEGAL VOTES presented..validate them to his required standard. Accept a reasonable proportional reduction method (I believe by Precindt) and then simply do the math.
The question is will it be enough to make up the 129 vote difference???? Whatever, it is what it is.
Regarding the voterless votes...that one is tougher. Not sure but Bridges cannot simply ignore the falsified reconciliations presented to the canvassing board....can he?
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 30, 2005 06:59 AMEarth to Daniel K.....this court case was not about election reform, you moron. Try using two hands the next time you're searching for a clue.
Posted by: Danny on May 30, 2005 07:09 AMThe trial did nothing to PROVE Rossi DEFINATELY got more votes than Gregoire. People will be mad, but at the end of the day, life will go on with CG as Governor. It's the path of least resistance.
Posted by: who'dathunk? on May 30, 2005 08:56 AMI'm not claiming you are calling for this, but the path of least resistance is the one typically chosen by cowards...which mean's it'd be perfect for the lefties in this State.
Posted by: Danny on May 30, 2005 09:29 AMI know Judge Bridges likes to hold his cards close to his chest with respect to this contest....but that attitude alone is conservative! Is it not the Liberal Democrats who wear their emotions on their sleeve? If the Judge were leaning toward the Demcorats in this contest he would show much more favor to their case! He certainly wouldn't encourage the Republicans as he has..
After reading the Judges pre-trial brief - and how he gently enlightened the Petitioners of their options using Foulkes, Hill, etc.. case history... and thus causing them to alter the dynamics of their case to include fraud - I would see this as a set up to nullify the November Governors race WITHOUT the need for much of the clear and convincing evidence that the Dems argue is needed! Add to that - the Judges statement that he is going to read up on the Foulkes, Hill, etc..cases this weekend to refresh his memory of his interpretation....tells me that he is getting ready to overturn the election based on the appearance and potential of fraud, errors, illegal votes,etc....
I know DanielK and the rest of the trolls don't want to hear this...but it's just going to go that way and you need to be prepared for a loss - an investigation and a major change in politics as usual in this state...
Posted by: Deborah on May 30, 2005 09:44 AMSo...this judge is taking evidence out of the picture from an appeal perspective. Even with all the R evidence, there is proof of nothing but a multi-million dollar gain for lawyers.
Posted by: Jim Peterson on May 30, 2005 09:51 AMYou 2 really need to start thinking about how you will accept defeat in this contest. You need to begin this dialogue with your fellow liberals so you will not be shell-shocked with the Judges decision..
Drugs can only numb some of the pain....
Hey! I know! You can start producing another "I'm Sorry" website! .....snicker....
Posted by: Deborah on May 30, 2005 10:59 AMSo while you are very confident that Judge Bridges will set the election aside, keep in mind that 1. he won't unless he has legal cover to do so (no judge wants a reversal on his record), and 2. if he does, that's the easier hurdle of the two.
Ultimately, this is out of your hands in mine, at this point, and instead of focusing on the court contest, it is more important to look at what has to happen irrespective of the final disposition of the case. That would be inititives, publicity, in short, general activism. I'm afraid we're all wasting a lot of energy watching this gladiator fight.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 30, 2005 11:09 AMI respect your opinion. Nevertheless please explain why your comments would mean what you say.
That "The crediting issue has been decided.” can easily go wither way is obvious. Common sense says that it will underscore the Republicans contentions given the fact that the disparity is significant and the election outcome was close. Had the election outcome not been close, the disparity would still be quite significant (though arguably not an issue). The only practical difference here is that the disparity almost certainly affected the outcome just as we saw in the final hand-count that put Gregoire over the top. That cannot be ignored without bias in the wrong direction.
Re Nicole Way, the statement that the “false Mail Ballot Report was the best she could do with the information available to her, essentially ignores the fact that THE BEST SHE COULD DO IF SHE WAS HONEST WAS TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE ELECTORATE in the damned first place!!! Way had many choices and support mechanisms. I never heard about any guns pressed to her head or family/children threatened. She could have simply told the truth when instead she made them force her to. There is no acceptable excuse for this, but there is an explanation. The word is FRAUD. Everyone at some point in life is faced with truth or consequences; it obviates trustworthiness. My family called it honesty, an apparent anachronism today.
Either Bridges will ”admit into evidence the testimony of their experts on "proportional deduction/reduction,” or he won’t. If he does he’s on solid ground. If not –what can he do; conclude that there is never any remedy for an election that has clearly been stolen through inveiglement and a refusal to call fraud-fraud? He will have no option but to conclude exactly that.
If Bridges can’t call fraud fraud, fraud will mean something new to Republicans just as it already means something distinctive to Democrats. Courts that excuse fraud excuse defrauders and teach them to commit more fraud. They also teach those who play fair that there is no use in fair play.
You may well be right about what you say, and I have much the same concerns, but I will call a turd a turd, fraud fraud, and an obviously stolen election stolen. Let Bridges play whatever cards he likes in his own way – it won’t change the FACTS.
FRAUD, CONSPIRACY
BananaLand, Eyago, et al,
Precedents in the law do not exist in a vacuum, and the guidance that will emerge from this contest WILL AFFECT MUCH MORE THAN ELECTIONS.
Those who say that fraud hasn’t been found in this election contest surely won’t mind if someone steals ALL OF THE YOUR RETIREMENT FUNDS through transactions they call mistakes, errors, coincidences, and little white lies. Little things like meetings and vague conversations that witnesses “don’t quite remember” – of course – won’t really matter in court because there was no REAL conspiracy and therefore it must have just been a MISTAKE. You won’t mind much if the President of the financial institution from which your retirement was seized (not stolen) is not sure about how financial institutions process and administer RETIREMENT FUNDS, but you are willing to accept his word that he did his best and after all, “lots of things happen in busy” financial institutions.And by the way, if I were a democrat, I wouldn’t give a damn about your friggin’ pension anyway; I’ve got my Social Security.
Hold on a second, this pension deal has already happened . . . many, many times. And golly, very often by labor unions. And gee whiz they used exactly this type of evidence as facts supporting conclusions of fraud and conspiracy.
I guess you guys won’t mind if we just change the word from FRAUD to ENIGMA, and let it go at that.
Of course, you and I know that it is all but certain 90%+ of them went for Gregoire, but it's difficult to prove. They've done a good job with the stupid statistical standard they were given, but I just think that the judge won't buy it.
However, the Supreme Court might make it interesting if they go by the Adams County/ North Carolina standard. Then we will win.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on May 30, 2005 11:22 AMDeborah, I'll accept your invitation to bet on the outcome. I'll email you. Anyone else interested, feel free to email me...
Posted by: Bruce on May 30, 2005 11:34 AMIt means that the standard for reporting election results is so low that we can't trust anything. That is a huge concern and one that you would think many more people would care about. You would think that the legislature would care about that and would have taken action to tighten up the laws that govern how elections are managed.
Instead, the dems involved are simply playing the game with the aim of keeping their gal in office. They are not thinking down the line any further than that.
The problem with the court challenge, it seems to me, is that Bridges needs to work within the laws that are already in place. He needs to decide if mistakes or fraud changed the outcome.
That was always a Catch 22 for the reps to prove. How can you prove that mistakes, errors, or fraud changed the outcome of an election when there is no way to determine who cast each ballot? You can show that voters credited and ballots counted do not equal each other. You can determine that there were illegal votes. You can determine that there are ballots that came out of nowhere. But, in the end, you can't determine who those ballots were cast for.
Either the legislature knew that when the law was written and thought that there could be some political advantage in that, or they were dumb. Both are possible.
The statistical evidence showing over and under votes per precinct in KC is very convincing. But, as far as I can tell, this information is not part of the republican case because it was not presented with expert testimony.
So, I think Bridges is between a rock and a hard place. He does not strike me as the sort of guy that gets confused about right and wrong. He smells a rotten fish - how could he not?
But, what can he do?
I keep hoping that among his options is to invalidate the "certification" because it was based on deliberately false information. That would get Gregoire out of office and it would throw everything back for re-examination. In which case, if the SoS and then the legislature choose to again certify the election, the reps could build a much stronger case and go back to court.
Or, the legislature could save everyone the heartache and could vote to hold a new election. That, for once, would make them appear to have some stature and integrity - something our state's legislature has not been known for in a long time. That would solve this to everyone's satisfaction and, in the future, everyone would be much more careful about elections in KC. They would know that people are watching and they have figured out the game.
To do nothing, to let it stand, would be the worse possible outcome. Not just for reps, but for the entire state - everyone. It lowers the bar for elections to such a low level that we cannot have confidence in them. It would make them dirty beyond belief.
I have asked here before - would simply invalidating the "certification" be among Bridges options? And, if he did that, what would be the sequence of events that would follow?
Can anyone answer that? Micajah?
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 30, 2005 11:52 AMExactly! That's why I found it very encouraging when the Judge chose to bring the *will of the people/voters* into his consideration last week.
As he stated - this isn't just about Rossi and Gregoire and their constituents - this is about our election process in the state and how these errors, fraud, and lax laws effect the overall will of the people when they vote - now and in the future. How can the Supremes then NOT consider the will of the people - and how the flawed and fraud election affected this will - when the case goes for appeal?
I have to admit.....Judge Bridges has mastered the ability to keep both sides guessing at what his ruling may be! But he reminds me of a very wise man I once knew - and if he continues this course, as I believe he will...we will see the election set aside.
Posted by: Deborah on May 30, 2005 12:02 PMOf course they showed this as well as fraud. That the outcome was changed in favor of Gregoire can be logically inferred from the fact that before the first recount, the irregular, illegal, etc. ballots reduced Governor Rossi's lead from 261 to 42, then during the hand recount, Gregoire ended up with a 129 vote lead. In other words, the outcome of the election was changed in favor of Gregoire by these ballots.
Since almost all of these irregularities, illegal votes, etc. occurred in pro-Gregoire precincts, and that pro-Gregoire KC election officers falsified the ballot reports, how can any "thinking" person not see that some type of fraud must have occurred?
Even though the Republicans were not able to point at a single person and say "he/she did it", it was definitely shown by the evidence that the outcome of the election was changed in favor of Gregoire by the irregular, illegal, etc. ballots and the falsified ballot reports. It is obvious that some type of fraud went on in KC.
Also, since these problems were so much greater than Gregoire's supposed margin of victory, this is shown by a "preponderance of the evidence" which is a higher standard than "clear and convincing."
Posted by: Clint on May 30, 2005 12:04 PMI'm not a gambling woman....heh...but if somone has already set up the wager....let me know and I'll go in!
I'm not going to be the one to set it up...
Posted by: Deborah on May 30, 2005 12:08 PMhttp://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
Posted by: sgmmac on May 30, 2005 01:53 PMIt can't be the law of our state that you can get away with ballot box stuffing as long as no one caught you while you did it, and as long as no one can identify which individual ballots you put in as well. That would be like saying you can't charge someone with stealing money unless you catch them while they do it, and unless you can identify which bills in their wallet came from the victim. It's too ridiculous, and offers no protection to the citizens at all.
Also, while possibly every report relied upon by every county canvassing board in the state contained one or more errors, there is a difference between a genuine error made by diligent elections officials, who know how records need to be kept and do everything they can to follow accepted accounting practices and who don't leave any error that comes to their knowledge uninvestigated, and the "errors" made by King County officials. To know you aren't following proper and accepted procedures to ensure accuracy in you numbers, and that in fact you are completely unable to corraborate them or verify them in any way, yet present them as solid and reliable; to become aware of actual errors but refuse to report them, to cover them up, and to claim publicly that your numbers are in fact accurate; these cannot be called mere "errors". For the law to be unable to distinguish between the two types of wrong data would be like the law being unable to distinguish between someone's accidental death and murder due to depraved indifference.
I like what I've seen of Judge Bridges. I know he has a hard job. I simply can't believe he will rule that county officials can be cavalier about their responsiblities to the point of incompetence, with no remedy for voters, or that concievably we could know that a ballot box had been stuffed, but without knowing which ballots were the illegal ballots, no remedy is available.
Also, prior to including the set of ballots that were not fully canvassed (see December court decision), the KC vote only gave CG a 10 vote lead, which is a difference of 52 votes from the second count. This can easily be traced to the difference of ballots that the machine could not count. As far as I can tell this part of the process has not been challenged by the Republican's.
The other 119 votes swing came from the ballots, which should have been included at least in the first recount. These were the ones that the election workers failed to check signatures against physical records on file (i.e., the ones where the fouled-up KC computer system was missing signatures). The court reviewed these ballots and deemed they should be counted.
Don't you mean the other votes that were fabricated, found in mysterious places, possibly the results of Dem election workers that were sent home with blank ballots that were never accounted for, the dead people who voted, the felons who voted, and the thousand or more votes than voters? And, let's not forget the forged ballot totals that came out of KC and were confirmed under oath by Nicole Way.
You need to stop listening to the Dem spin on this, and pay attention to the facts that have been proven and admitted under oath in the dpositions.
Statistical analysis is a way to get the best estimate of an occurrence when there is no other way of arriving at an exact number. Like when there is a secret ballot, or information fudged or withheld as in the ballot reports.
Without statistics, there would be no Quantum theory in physics, which relies on the statistical probability of the behavior of atoms on a subatomic level, which means there would be no nuclear bombs or reactors, there would be no microchips, which means the computer you're reading this on would not exist... and niether would cell phones, GPS navigation, digital watches, satellite broadcasts, and all the neat digital bells and whistles that we all love on our microwave ovens, washers and dryers, auto dash displays, television sets (especially plasma and lcd TVs, we would not have sophisticated missle guidance systems, the high-tech cockpits of civilian and military aircraft, the space shuttle, fast intercontinental communications, or even the internet.
Obviously, statistics and probability works, and it's accuracy is determined by the methodology used... in other words the larger the data sample that is used, the more accurate the results. Like when Dr. John Locke used over a million data points taken from FBI records, local and state police records, etc. to determine that states that allow their law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons have (by far) lower crime rates, especially violent crime, than those which don't allow their citizens that right.
As this relates to the election, how much bigger data sample can you get than all the people who voted? People with Doctorates in statistics tend to know what they are talking about. That PhD didn't come easy.
If you really are a pro-second amendment person, then you would do well to be more careful with your statements and not go beyond what the actual facts warrant. It would also be helpful not to bring the issue up at all when it's a complete irrelevancy to the actual topic.
Daniel K, what a short short memory you have. Election reform - TRUE reform - died an ugly death at the hands of this past farce of a legislative session. Apparently they were too busy ramming through as many tax hikes as they could in fear of Queen Christine being deposed before they could get enough out of the cookie jar.
So - if I wanted to stuff ballots into a specific precinct - say a Gregoire leaning precinct - I would make up hundreds of fake voter registration cards - without signatures (because for some bizarre reason, King County allows this) and print up corresponding absentee ballots - fill them out and boom-boom-scoot-scoot! Who would know?
I suppose the Feds will be checking the voter registration cards from those specific precincts to see how many are without signatures and valid information......I know I would...
This is what the Petitioners were able to show while presenting their case for fraud.
You are correct. I got the name wrong. I read a synopsis of the study quite some time ago in the "American Rifleman" magazine, which I receive as a card-carrying life member of the NRA. If my three handguns, four rifles, and my Remington 870 pump 12 gauge, along with monetary and grassroots support of the NRA, along with my WA concealed pistol license and the completely clean record it takes to pass the FBI and state checks to aquire such a license don't make me pro-second amendment I'm not sure what would. Not to mention I am a U.S. Army Veteran from the Vietnam era.
I believe the second amendment is the protector of all of the the other amendments, and if it is compromised it is only a matter of time before the others will be eroded away in the same fashion that the anti-gun wingnuts (Shumer, Hillary, Feinstein, Boxer, Brady, and all the jello-for-brains who believe their BS and follow them) are trying to erode away the second amendment.
And as far as being careful with my statements, everything I said was in Dr. Lott's findings. For instance, he found that had Florida enacted concealed carry for their citizens back when it (the bill) was first introduced, it would have prevented hundreds of homicides and thousands of rapes and other violent crimes between that time and the time it was finally enacted.
As far as his results being disputed "not merely by those with an anti-gun bias", I have to ask how you can be sure of that? It only takes a couple of very wealthy anti-gun left-wing liberal types such as George Soros, Kennedy, and possibly overseas interests who would all like to see the United States come under the "one-world government" rule of the UN, to make sizeable donations to various universities or organizations , who are not directly connected to the anti-gunners, to dispute Dr. Lott's findings and come up with studies of their own to try to refute his study.
Do you think it's not possible? Studies downplay the dangers of smoking, 2nd-hand smoke, etc., even though thousands die from tobacco smoke each year. Studies have got a large portion of the public believing that a glass or two of wine with a meal is healthy, and that even casual drinking won't hurt you. This is a nightmare to anyone pre-disposed to alcoholism or a recovering alcoholic. This, in spite of credible scientists who have found that alcohol, even a small amount since it is an organic solvent, destroys the bi-lipid memberanes that surround all of our cells, essentially damaging all of our cells at once while it is in our systems.
Who do you think directly or indirectly pays for these studies? It couldn't possibly be the people with the most to lose from the scientific studies that found these substances damaging, like maybe the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry, huh?
And as far as my comments about Dr. Lott's study being relevant to this this election, if you will read my post again, you will see that I was using it as an example of how the statistical findings will be a more accurate picture of what happened when you use a larger set of data points.
Anybody can cherry-pick the sample for a study in order to skew the results the way they want, or are paid to find. Since the Rebublican's statistical experts used all of the provided information to arrive at their conclusions, which just so happens to match Stefan's findings, then I believe their findings are as credible as they can get.
Now, you tell me which of us is a "mole planted by the Other Side"!
I'm confused by the enormous slide off topic!
Heh..NRA? Fanatics? Paranoid? Puh!
OK - Tomorrow morning - on with the show!
Posted by: Deborah on May 31, 2005 12:37 AMWhat part of "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
Throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, every reference to "the People" refers to an individual citizen's rights. Yet, the anti-gun crowd would have us believe that in the Second Amendment, when it says "the People", refers to a state's right to keep a "Well-Regulated Militia" in order to control their people. Why would the Founding Fathers all of a sudden change the meaning of "the People" in only this one instance? (go read the U.S. Attorney General's findings, which have been called the most definitive study and interpretation of the Second Amendment since the Founding Fathers wrote it into the Bill of Rights.)
Gun control is uncontitutional by definition. Heck, most liberal teachers don't even include the Second Amemdment in their curriculum when they teach our kids about the Constitution and Bill of Rights anymore. So yes, the Second Amendment is under attack and attempts have been made to erode it away.
And by the way, the NRA members that I have known have been some of the finest people I have ever met. They are law-abiding, normal family people with a strong sense of morals and ethics, who believe that the law should be enforced and the Constitution and Bill of Rights follwed to the letter... not perverted and twisted with word games into something that supports the anti-gun agenda of the left-wing politicians, wealthy individuals, and all of their cattle... who believe they know what's best for everyone.
NRA members are hardly the "fanatic, paranoid adherents" that you describe them as.
Get your nose out of the liberal spin long enough to do a little of uour own thinking... Go meet some NRA members and see for yourself!
And I won't carry on a "battle of wits with an unarmed person"
Rember a Veteran today! You owe them for your freedom.
It's getting late... brain is wearing out.
Good Night, and God Bless you folks!
30% Annul state certification
30% Annul KC certification
2% Annul last recount
16% Annul election
2% Declare Rossi winner
10% Abstain
10% Deny
If the Nov. WA election is allowed to stand, I really think that will embolden cheaters all over this country. I care more about the national races. They already got away with stealing Wisconsin.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 31, 2005 08:00 AMFace it. You are confused.
Pull yourself together.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 31, 2005 08:26 AMThen again, as Yogi says, predictions are hard to make...
Posted by: Interested Observer on May 31, 2005 08:40 AMI think Judge Bridges will make a two sided ruling. He will declare that due to KC mistakes there can never be any certainty of the outcome of the election and therefore he will set it aside removing Christine from the chair. But he will decide that only the legislature can authortize a revote.
It will be appealed to the State Supremes who will affirm and Christine will turn over the keys to Brad Owen who will call a special session and they will do nothing.
Posted by: dennis on May 31, 2005 09:07 AMA "reasonable man" (and woman to be PC) would pick Rossi because the Republican lawyers did a better job than the other lawyers did. This case should give Rossi a clear and easy win.
That said, given that we have a legal system and not a justice system:
54.5 % Rossi wins
74.5% Rossi and all Washingtonians lose.
I understand Yogi Berra also said, "If you see a fork in the road, take it."
And "I never said all the things I said."
I wonder what kind of quote he would have for us regarding King County.
That is possibly true of most judges, but minority who have no inhibitions about making new law are prolific....
Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 09:17 AMNo reason to worry. After spending millions of dollars and who knows how many thousands of hours probing every aspect of this election, the GOP has been unable to show one instance of fraud, vote stuffing, or cheating of any kind.
Of course, if you don't really care about justice and just want an activist judge to ignore the law and place the candidate that you support in office even though he lost, you can listen to the wingnuts on this board. However, you will be very, very disapointed by the end of this week.
Posted by: JDB on May 31, 2005 09:56 AMIf you're comfortable with that level of incompetence, carelessness, and invitation to abuse, that's fine for you, but don't pretend to speak for all Americans. A normal American does not like getting cheated.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 31, 2005 10:19 AMRemember that there does not need to be proof of fraud for the election to be tossed all that state law requires is for it to be shown that there were sufficeint mistakes so that the election results are impossible to know. Fraud being a criminal actions has different rules of evidence and even the admission of fraud by election workeres like M. Way does not consistute proof, however before you blow yourself up with pride over being right there is little doubt that the republicans have proven their case for mistakes.
Equally important the Democrats have not proven or shown that the results are reliable enough to be counted on or that there were anti rossi mistakes.
This thing is total mess brought about by a group of incompetent fools at King County who are so used to sloppy work they have fooled themselves and you by the way into believing it good work. It is like the impressionist who has spent so much time impresonating others that they never developed a personality of their own.
Posted by: Dennis on May 31, 2005 10:21 AMYou are about three months behind on the GOP spin. I know reading this board makes it hard to know the truth, since most of the posters here ignore it, but the judge has made clear that the standard is not "Things are so messed up, we don't know who won."
Rossi has to show that the illegal votes changed the election. Has he shown that? Clearly not.
And let us stop pretending that this election was a "total mess." Should it have been better, yes. But we are still talking an error rate that is very, very small.
And Ms. Way did not admit to fraud, you need to stop repeating the spin you hear. Heck, even the GOP attorney's don't claim that.
I'm still waiting for one example of actual a) fraud, b) ballot stuffing or c) cheating. The GOP has rested, and there is none.
Bostonian:
You are right, as Ameican's we should all hate being cheated. I assume that means you will celebrate with me when Judge Bridges upholds this election.
You are wrong (on many points) but specifically on the point of fraud. Way and Fell created a fraudulent report. Whether that meets a legal definition of "fraud" is rather beside the point--it is fraud nonetheless.
Whether the GOP wins the legal case or not, it is clear to anyone who is not a partisan (and I am not a Republican), that it is likely that if only legal votes had been counted in a legal manner in this election, Rossi, and not Gregoire, would be our governor. You are beginning to sound like Bagdad Bob in ignoring the obvious.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on May 31, 2005 10:53 AMHow eager am I to virtually guarantee that all close elections should be decided in a court of law?
Posted by: The_Gent on May 31, 2005 11:05 AMProof? Show me the REAL education reforms WORKING in our systems, the loosening of the union strangleholds in our lives and governmental performance audits in place. I'll believe reform when I see it--until then, I'll count my change. Hope I'm proven wrong--you are right--this is a national issue in all voting districts. Heck--some smaller foreign countries do a better voting job than us. As I say, "...and WE landed on the moon?!!"
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 31, 2005 11:06 AMWhy would I celebrate a ruling that allowed an election to stand when it counted votes from dead people?
Illegal voting is BAD. Is that really hard to understand?
Posted by: Bostonian on May 31, 2005 11:07 AMBridges should also be asking how to protect each and every voter against having his vote canceled by someone else's illegal vote.
Voting is our most basic right; it is at the core of our system.
If it can be gamed so easily by criminals taking advantage of security holes (left in place by officials who benefit from them!), then we have no vote at all.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 31, 2005 11:15 AMFirst of all I am not caught in anyone's spin. I have read about 2000 pages of pleadings, filings and other assertions on this matter. I have not had the time Stefan has had to do the math. I count both Dale Foreman and Jenny Durken as friends. I also spend a lot more time with lawyers than is good for me so as a non lawyer I am pretty savy.
I have also taken the chance to read the state election codes and the codes, have you done as much?
The burden of proof for fraud is simple it is the knowing creation of a false filing or document. State law is exceedingly clear that all votes must be reconciled before certification and Michelle Way admitted that she could not do that and created a false report. All of my lawyer friends (not Dale and Jenny who I have not talked to since they have been invovled)agree that Ms Way's testimony and its corroboration was very damaging to the Demo case.
Second there is a larger element of fraud in that she and her co workers had no knowledge of the number of absentee ballots sent out, that is not conjecture it is fact.Again washington law and case law in the Adams county election set aside state laws says in clear language that election workers and auditors are responsible to maintain accurate counts of ballots, how the F*** do you maintain an accurate count if you do not know where you started from ? My cum laude degree and MBA and 31 years of finance work would really welcome that sort of formula!
The errors are small but so is the margin of victory so it is important that, as you Demos say every vote count, and we do not know if they did.
Talk about spin your take is based on total ignorance and foolishness.
You are confusing vote fraud with fraudulent reporting. This may seem like splitting hairs, but elections are overturned when there is solid evidence of an organized effort to cast illegal votes that changed the result. This is the conventional definition of vote fraud. By contrast, filing an erroneous report, even deliberately, without any evidence that it produced or covered up illegal votes, is not vote fraud.
You can use the term "fraudulent" to describe the report, and the people involved should be retrained, disciplined, fired, and/or prosecuted, but it's not vote fraud and there is no law or precedent suggesting that it should void an election.
Posted by: Bruce on May 31, 2005 11:46 AM(sorry for the bad child-abuse reference. My official position: Child-abuse is bad... m'kay.
The people who were wronged here were the VOTERS. You seem to be saying that as long as *intentions* cannot be proved, these people have no legal recourse.
That's an interesting message.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 31, 2005 11:54 AMBut my main point is that regardless whether the court overturns the election or not, I am personally convinced (as are, I believe, most non-partisan observers who have looked at all of the evidence) that if only legal votes are counted in a legal manner, Gregoire did not win the election. The result in court is important, but does not impact my view. I also believe that O.J. is a murderer, even though he was acquited in criminal court. And I believe John Scopes was not guilty in the "Monkey Trial", even though he was found guilty.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on May 31, 2005 05:05 PMIs this Florida or Washington?
Posted by: Dan Grant on June 3, 2005 09:25 AM