Posted on 02/04/2005 11:21:16 AM PST by SW6906
scum bag haywire!...good luck skank!...you will need it!
It seems you keep attempting to use the fact that they were able to know the identity of 46 as evidence that there must be a process of identifying secret ballots or else there couldn't be a standard for discovering the identity of secret ballots, and the fact that neither Rossi or you has been able to discover this secret process is incidental.
I don't know Faulkes from a hole in my floor, but I think I'll wait for the rest of the story on this one.
Could you please clear something up for me?
It involves the 300+ provisional ballots that were counted despite their not having been verified for elligibility.
Do the counties have the empty envelopes that supposedly went with those improperly tallied ballots? If they DO, then the counties would have at least been able to do after-the-fact verification. In that case, do you know what % of them were eventually verified as legitimate voters?
But, if they DO NOT have the empty provisional envelopes, then there is no possible way to determine the elligibility of those ballots. They will have bypassed the verification process that was required of all other voters.
Could the second scenario form a basis for claiming all voters were not treated equally?
Under this interpretation of that clause of the law, the only time you can contest based on illegal votes is when you catch someone red-handed stuffing the ballot box and you can identify and remove the ballots they stuffed!! Do you realize how exceedingly rare that is? That is why many, many of us disagree with torridjoe on this point as the rest of the contest statute and other election law doesn't set impossibly high standards like that, so why would this one?
And, it appears the judge agrees at least somewhat based on his ruling yesterday.........
WTF?
I was thinking last night the Reps should do surveys of "who would you vote for" in State prison. I bet they go Dem at a huge rate.
Thanks for the ping.
It would appear that Dino Rossi possesses a goodly amount of SISU, wouldn't it?
Well, if you thought you were confused about the outcome of yesterday's hearings, you'll get precious little comfort from this excerpt from Chris Vance's news update:
Chelan proceeding results:
On the motion of Venue (keep or move location of the trial)—Judge agrees with GOP- stays in Chelan County.
On the motion of jurisdiction (court or Legislature)- Judge agrees with GOP-stays in Court.
On motion that the filing of WSRP case was not timely- Judge agrees with GOP- Filing was timely.
On several motions to dismiss the case in relation to illegal or improper votes and voters- Judge agrees with GOP- denies dismissal.
On the motion of court authority to rule for a Re-Vote- Judge opposes GOP-says he has no authority to order a special election.
We are unsure of the implications of these rulings taken together. We will consult with our lawyers and keep you updated!
Next day reply ;) I think all in all the dems hav a VERY bad day, no matter their spin, and that we had a pretty good one. My only gripe is that a new vote in November should be between those two candidates, as a run-off, not an open contest. The seems very a strange idea.
I spoke with King official Bobbie Egan on this. They say they have been able to verify 252 of the 348 as valid voters. That appears to be as many as they could do; they said they were not attempting further reconciliation at this time.
So they validated about 75%, compared to an overall validation rate of around 87% countywide.
kyllä
8^)
LOL Washingtonians coming out of the woodwork! Greetings, SISU :)
YES! They're finally wearing ORANGE!!!
Striker, Striker...
Two points for inserting an "Airplane" reference into this farce.
Sounds like you have a good thread there with that story. Why not post?
I think the point is that the Republicans get an evidentiary hearing by a respectably friendly judge. He will be able to find in favor of Rossi, then pass the case up to the Supreme Court, which will have to decide whether the Chelan judge interpreted the law correctly and whether to order a new election as a redress, but the Washington Supreme Court would not be able to conduct a new evidentiary hearing.
Score a victory for Republicans.
-PJ
Yeah... I actually got pinged to it just today, and didn't realize it was days-old news. That's why I didn't find the other article; I didn't look back far enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.