[ethical]

Incorrect. The Judge acknowledged she had standing in his decision, albeit relunctantly.

[rxsid]

"The Judge acknowledged she had standing in his decision, albeit relunctantly."

You are correct ethical:

"Most were dismissed on standing grounds; a question not directly at issue in this case because plaintiff purports to bring this case under RCW 29A.68.011, subparts 1 and 3, which confers standing on any elector."

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/superior/court%20opinions/Jordan%20v%20Reed%20Opinion.pdf

Reading the rest of the courts "opinion" and decision is pretty stunning.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Where do you read that? He never touches standing because he slaps her case down on five different matters: failing to include Obama (as an "indispensable person" to the case), lack of jurisdiction (it's congress's job), failure to comprehend the applicable law (the plaintiff cites as controlling a law specifically excluding the president from it's operation), the unreasonableness of complaining that the Washington secretary of state provisionally certified Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate before their convention (to get the ballots printed in a timely manner), since that outcome was never in doubt, and that the state law treating political party candidates differently than independent write-ins is not, despite plaintiff's claim, a violation of the state constitution.

Basically, the state's lawyers didn't even need to go to the matter of standing.

link to decisison

The fine, by the way, wasn't for using e-verify (although that may have been an illegal use), but for filing a frivolous appeal, which the court rejected, awarding costs to the state. The $13,000 is basically for two lawyers billing a total of 52 hours.