Posted on 01/12/2005 9:54:00 PM PST by Publius
In all the hubbub if this election and all its accouterments, it’s easy to lose sight of what matters. Broadly speaking, the only thing that matters is the Washington State Supreme Court decision that will be made after the Chelan court decision is appealed. Within that, though, there are a lot of things that matter, based on Washington law, and a lot of things that don’t–and it can be easy to confuse the two. First off, let’s look at what the law actually says:
RCW 29A.68.020
Commencement by registered voter – Causes for.
Any registered voter may contest the right of any person declared elected to an office to be issued a certificate of election for any of the following causes:
RCW 29A.68.070
Misconduct of board – Irregularity material to result.
No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of any election board or any member of the board amounts to such malconduct as to annul or set aside any election unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes.
RCW 29A.68.080
Misconduct of board – Number of votes affected – Enough to change result.
When any election for an office exercised in and for a county is contested on account of any malconduct on the part of any election board, or any member thereof, the election shall not be annulled and set aside upon any proof thereof, unless the rejection of the vote of such precinct or precincts will change the result as to such office in the remaining vote of the county.
RCW 29A.68.090
Illegal votes – Allegation of.
When the reception of illegal votes is alleged as a cause of contest, it is sufficient to state generally that illegal votes were cast, that, if given to the person whose election is contested in the specified precinct or precincts, will, if taken from that person, reduce the number of the person’s legal votes below the number of legal votes given to some other person for the same office.
RCW 29A.68.100
Illegal votes – List required for testimony.
No testimony may be received as to any illegal votes unless the party contesting the election delivers to the opposite party, at least three days before trial, a written list of the number of illegal votes and by whom given, that the contesting party intends to prove at the trial. No testimony may be received as to any illegal votes, except as to such as are specified in the list.
RCW 29A.68.110
Illegal votes – Number of votes affected – Enough to change result.
No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person’s legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.
Let’s go through the irregularities one at a time, and see how they stack up.
WHAT MATTERS:
50,000 ballots enhanced illegally: This matters immensely. These King County ballots were not read correctly by the vote tabulating machines, and so were taken out and “enhanced” so that the machine could read them. This is perfectly legal -- however, the election workers enhanced them to the point that it was impossible to review those ballots, which was supposed to be done. This is in violation of state law. Even if only 1% of those ballots had been determined to be invalid, that may have be enough to throw the election back to Rossi. This is an irregularity (or misconduct) that is certainly material to the result.
1,800 voterless ballots: It sure seems like this should matter, based on the RCW noted in this Sound Politics post. If the votes really are from voters who voted without signing in, as claimed by Dean Logan, it certainly should matter. If they didn’t sign in, we have no way of knowing whether they were registered voters, or voted twice, or even citizens. If it’s something more sinister, then it matters even more. It could, conceivably, be beaureaucratic incompetence, losing thousands of voter names. But I somehow doubt that -- and there’s no way to tell at this point. So obviously, this matters, even if Logan says it doesn’t. “This always happens” may be an excuse when “this” is smaller than the margin of victory, but it isn’t one now–again, it’s either an irregularity or misconduct material to the result.
348 unverified provisional ballots mixed with the real ballots: Once again, while this wouldn’t matter in a normal election, it matters here, because these disputed ballots are a great deal larger than the margin of victory. There’s no way of knowing if these ballots were signed by registered voters, unregistered voters, illegal aliens, space aliens or Mickey Mouse. This may be the strongest piece of the contest, as it has been well documented and was even anticipated before the election. This is clearly misconduct material to the result.
Felons voting: This obviously matters -- it says as much right there in part 5.a.ii of the first quoted RCW. So far, having looked at only Pierce and Snohomish counties, the BIAW has found 89 felonious votes. If there are just 40 more found in King County or elsewhere, that invalidates the election ipso facto. If those aren’t found, of course, they won’t matter at all. According to the second-to-last RCW cited abote, the names of all the voting felons will have to be produced in court, which will be all sorts of fun -- but it should be enough all by itself, let alone lumped in with everything else.
WHAT DOESN’T MATTER:
Dead voters: It makes for some catchy headlines and some amusing pictures, but there aren’t nearly enough dead voters to even come close to having an effect on this contest. I’m glad they were found, though. It provides an example of election fraud that is easy to relate to, and has no doubt helped convince most of Washington that a revote is needed. It will not, however, convince a judge.
Systemic problems: Systemic problems, problems with election law as written, as important as they are to fix, will not help with the contest -- namely, because the same systemic problems will almost certainly be in play in any revote. What needs to be shown -- and clearly has been -- is unique instances of illegal voting, or voting irregularities, that can be avoided in the next vote. Again, I’m still glad systemic problems are being brought to light, so that they can be solved. But again, it won’t matter to a judge.
Gregoire’s inauguration: This doesn’t matter a whit, according to the law. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
Polls and petitions: While these matter immensely in gauging the mood of the people, and certainly affected Rossi’s decision to go forward with the contest, they won’t actually come into play once the trial starts. This will be good to remember if the populace, understandably, starts getting tired of the mess (though I hope they’re in it for the long haul).
(Care to see something kind of spooky and completely irrelevant? If you take the total difference between Rossi’s initial margin of 261, and Gregoire’s current margin of 129, you get 390. If you subtract from that Rossi’s second margin of 42 votes, you get 348 -- which is the exact number of provisional ballots mixed in with regular ballots. Ooooh -- spooky.)
Looking at the facts right next to the law, this looks for all the world like an open-and-shut case. I can’t imagine the legal backflips and distortions that would be needed to not throw out this election. If any readers would care to give it a shot, I’m all ears. I certainly look forward to hearing the Democratic arguments in court. So far, they haven’t responded substantively to the facts, and I’m curious to hear what they say if they ever do.
Thank you for a good concise read and update. I like the part where the swearing-in does not mean a thing.
Heh... and one of the first things they'll address is ballot/voter registration reform.
My husband said that last night's ball was SO boring.
Gre-Gore came in to their break room while they were eating to thank them for their work and he said he didn't even turn around to look at her. LOL
I can't imagine that she wouldn't be effected by the lack of attendence. Wouldn't you think she'd find it a blow to her personally? I know I'd take it personally and be totally depressed.
Anyway, my husband worked there last night and said it was a bust. I'm glad to hear it.
Posted by megs at January 13, 2005 07:53 AM
Bobby Brige was let off by the then Attorney General Gregoire.
Yes, it is a power club they have going. They stand to lose all they have built up, the palatial digs in gated communities, the subsidies for upkeep, the memberships to exclusive clubs, the getaways to Palm Springs in Winter, the power to award contracts to cronies, and on and on etc.
It really is a corrupt group.
Wow, that is really negative press they're dishing out there in your town in NC. It must really be blue.
www.soundpolitics.com
Ping.
BTTT
Did you see this?
From what I see, propaganda is the only word for what the swearing-in ceremony accomplished for them; ditto for her moving into the Governor's Mansion.
I don't live there, but I am so angered by that abuse of our precious political system, there are not words to express my anger. They want everyone to feel that it is over; you must move on to govern, to fix the problems of the state, yada yada yada, because it is just too late to do anything about the rotten election. How do we know that?...why, she's already sworn-in and moved-in and everything!!!
Balderdash...
One Democratic legislator has introduced a bill that would make it a crime for a citizen to petition the legislature to change a law, which gives you an idea of just how scared the Democrats are. (The bill has no chance of passage and will die in commitee.)
At this point, the contest of the election is up to the courts.
I knew it. See what happens when the 'Rats (tyrants) gain complete control? Step 1: outlaw dissent. Step 2: persecute the opposition. Step 3: jail opponents. Step 4: ready the gallows. The 'Rats have learned well for their idols (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, et al.).
It bloody well better die in committee. But the fact that some lousy 'Rat would try it at all is chilling enough.
The same thing happens on the national scale: every year legislation is introduced to eliminate the Electoral College, to institute the draft and any other host of far-left ideas. You see the name Rangel or Kennedy or Kucinich on these bills. They never go anywhere.
ROFL!
Good argument.
I am still waiting for a response, although I am not holding my breath.
Click on the keywords at the bottom of the article, that will bring up other threads that have had the same keyword added.
That is the Freerepublic way to try and keep track of articles that cover the same general area.
Welcome to FreeRepublic~~The New Face of the Fourth Estate since 1996.
Yes, that is true. Seems we'll never be free of these wackos as long as there are no rules against introducing specious legislation. Still, the fact that they would think of such a thing at all is what I find discouraging. They are really being autocratic (which is what 'Rats do best, I guess).
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.