[connectthedots]

The ruling did not question, however, county elections boards' option of "recanvassing," or re-examining and counting ballots that may have been erroneously rejected before they could be counted.

This was addressed during oral arguments; I was there. The reason the ruling does not address the option of "recanvassing' is because there is no provision in the statutes for recanvassing. The statutes make mention of canvassing and recounting. The purpose for not allowing recanvassing is to prevent vote fraud.

None the less, i will be going to the Rossi HQ on Thursday with some very useful information regarding criminal conduct by Gregoire.

[JosefK]

Make sure you call 425.646.7202 first - I've heard they've moved...

If you've got the new address - go ahead and post that here. We need to know where it is...

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "None the less, i will be going to the Rossi HQ on Thursday with some very useful information regarding criminal conduct by Gregoire."

What about that "kind" of vote, that I outlined (above) from the NW Cable Channel, regarding the election board, which rejected valid votes? Now, that's one thing I've got a question about.

It's one thing to reject bogus, bad and invalid votes (and I agree with that), but it's quite another to be rejecting perfectly valid ones. I say that, because then I might find (one day) my vote on the "rejecting end" of that process.

Regards,

Star Traveler

[jonrick46]

Do you think there is enough misconduct to disqualify the second recount being done by King County?