Good evening.
Your response to my questions leads me to another. I can appreciate your point but how far must we go? How many recounts is enough and why should election rules be changed in an attempt to allow enough questionable votes to be counted to change the results?
Evidentiary standards have changed since the Constitution was written. All of the rules we live under are interpreted by judges. This will have to go to the state Supreme Court. And if that doesn't provide a satisfactory result then on to the highest court in the land? After that...?
I'm unable to respond to your litmus test because I can't recall the Republicans ever going to the lengths the dems have to 'win'.
Michael Frazier
Your response to my questions leads me to another. I can appreciate your point but how far must we go? How many recounts is enough and why should election rules be changed in an attempt to allow enough questionable votes to be counted to change the results?The answer to the first part of your question -- "how many recounts is enough" -- is "as many as are provided by law". In this state, one or two: a candidate-initiated (and paid-for) hand recount, and a possible mandatory machine recount if the margin is within a certain narrow range. The answer to the second part of your question -- "why should election rules be changed" -- is "they shouldn't be". And they haven't been. RCW 29A.60.210 provides:
Whenever the canvassing board finds that there is an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns of a primary or election, the board may recanvass the ballots or voting devices in any precincts of the county.
...and always has. If ballots have been erroneously disqualified, the law permits and has always permitted the canvassing boards to allow them.