Posted on 12/08/2004 6:00:54 AM PST by JosefK
Okay, here are some interesting excerpts:
-------------- Republicans yesterday cited support for their position from the Attorney General's Office. They pointed to a 1996 memo from then-Secretary of State Ralph Munro saying the Attorney General's Office had advised that a recount should not include previously rejected ballots.
The memo appears to put Gregoire in the awkward position of heading an office that is on record against the position of Democratic Party lawyers trying to help her win the election.
However, Jim Pharris, a senior assistant attorney general, said the office hasn't "expressed a view" on the issue since 1990, before Gregoire was elected. The advice Munro's office was citing "was before her day and certainly nothing she was involved with," Pharris said.
The recount was to begin today. But state elections director Nick Handy has asked counties to wait until tomorrow in the hope the Supreme Court will act on the Democrats' case. Some counties, including King, plan to begin work today by sorting ballots. Counting would begin tomorrow or Friday. ... In an interview, Reed said he hopes local elections officials don't reconsider ballots that were rejected.
"The purpose of a recount is to literally recount the ballots that were already counted," he said. "That's why it's called, well, a recount."
Auditors in the state's most populous counties agree. They say they don't think state law allows them to give new life to rejected ballots and they won't do it without a court order.
"I don't see anything in the statute that gives us the ability to go back after the election," said Dean Logan, head of King County elections. "I think the recount statutes are written in a way that contemplates you're only going to recount ballots that were counted in the first place." ... Republicans' arguments were bolstered yesterday by the 1996 memo from then-Secretary of State Munro.
"The recount procedure provided for by statute is a mechanical function of re-tallying the ballots cast and accepted as valid by the precinct election officers or the canvassing board during the canvass of the election," Munro wrote. "The decision of the canvassing board with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of a particular ballot during the canvass is not open to question during the recount." --------------
Figure this will keep the dialogue going - gotta update my blog at http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com !
LOL like she cares about what how hypocritical she is. It's a prerequisite to be a monster hypocrite and a Democrat officeholder.
OOOPS, I also should add some appropiate Marummy rants about this subject from other media:
*"This is all about not changing the rules... This process needs to go forward by the book."
*Mary Lane, spokeswoman for Republican Gov.-elect Dino Rossi [and Secretary of Defense of Washington State], called that a "flimsy excuse."
"She'd been attorney general four years," Lane said. "If she didn't say that, why didn't she correct it at the time?"
*"Christine Gregoire isn't interested in a fair recount. She wants this to be as inaccurate and as corruptible as possible. She didn't get the results she wanted, so now she wants to change the rules. Anyone who is concerned about the integrity of our election system should be very worried."
There's more and you know where to go!
Not necessarily...
Boy, you're quick on the draw!
"The purpose of a recount is to literally recount the ballots that were already counted," he said. "That's why it's called, well, a recount."
It is that simple -- but not for the bad guys. The democrat party hacks care not a whit for the law, for the rules, for tradition or (for all that matter) the Constitution. They care only about power.
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.