First off, what happened was that the Washington Legislature cloned the California Election Contest Law and turned it into the Washington Election Contest Law. The law strictly required plaintiffs to specify exactly which ballots were illegitimate and should be excluded. The Republicans couldn't do that, which required Judge Bridges to follow the letter of the law and deny the contest. Under the terms of the Washington Election Contest Law, fraud could not be proven.
But the Washington Election Contest Law was in violation of the Washington Constitution. Why? Because the Washington Constitution sets a low bar for determining if fraud or outright incompetence has fouled an election. The case that the Republicans should have made was that the Washington Election Contest Law was itself unconstitutional and should not be applied. Even Phil Talmadge, an establishment Democrat in Washington State, said the Republicans should have gone to the Washington Supreme Court to make that case. A lower court trial judge would hesitate to make such a broad judgment, but the state Supreme Court would take that seriously.
Talmadge even offered to be the lawyer for the Republicans in a state Supreme Court challenge because he believed the election contest law was unconstitutional. The Republicans wouldn't take him up on the offer.
Thanks for the input but I heard the court and the Rossi response.
The fraud was proven in the late voter registrations shown to have been voted. That’s not even in question.
The judge asked the Rossi team what to do with the fraudulent voted ballots which of course couldn’t be separated out.
The Rossi team requested proportional reductions according to certain reasonable metrics.
The judge denied the request and also denied arguments for a new election but was not constrained to go the other way especially with clear public interest. The law was not clear in itself.
Judges have wide latitude to apply law especially in cases such as this where there is enormous public interest.
Your input may have been in findings of facts and law, but the decision could easily have gone the other way, with a subsequent appeal denying Gregoire based on what you brought up.
If it had been done this way, WA State voters would have had their legitimate Governor sworn in. But King County, like Cook County for Chicago, is corrupt including its courts. That is not a light statement. The lawyers there are cowed before its judges both state and appellate, even though they know there is an underlying corrupt ethos.
Pro Hac Vice attorneys soon discover the “provincialism” of Western Washington state courts, and quickly motion to dismiss voluntarily moving to federal courts where they can.
The malfeance and violations of King County’s Elections Director Dean Logan forced his resignation and his Deputy’s resignations. His Deputy actually smirked and laughed before reporters when caught.
Logan took a job in the elections office in Los Angeles where he is now Director and is running the same election shenanigans.