Posted on 01/26/2005 5:14:36 PM PST by djf
The Washington State GOP has just ended a news conference where they reavealed the latest numbers in the hotly contested race betwen Gregoire and Rossi.
The current numbers of votes in question are:
Felons - 240 Deceased - 44 Duplicates - 16 Illegal provisional ballots - 437
total - 737
All indications are that as they keep investigating, these numbers will grow.
Democrats are arguing that the issue should be decided by the legislature. The court hearing in Chelan county that took place last Thursday rescheduled further court action until Feb 4th., and denied the Democrats motions to dismiss the case.
From what I understand of WAC, if the number of disputed ballots exceeds the margin of victory (129) then a new election is mandated, not the option of the legislature.
If there is another vote will it be fair and square or just more of the same?
This might be a "blue" state but Bush runs the Federal government and President GWB personally asked Rossi to run.
NO, WAC is not some athletic club, it is the Washington Administrative Code
"Democrats are arguing that the issue should be decided by the legislature."
The dems have changed their tune...... AGAIN!
Is this poster correct? If so, it's news to me.
"Gee, let me guess. ALL of those voters were DemonRATS, weren't they? I hope the Republicans stay on top of this."
Absolutely no way to tell, now. The ballots are identical and once they're put together, that's it.
They counted every vote, even ones that did not exist.
Some needs to go to jail for a long for this one.
Interesting....I was hoping it wasn't over. I'm just accross the river in Oregon, but my dear old conservative grandmother is up there in enemy territory (King County). She had her hopes so high with the first two counts.
That's a dangerous slippery slope. If the party in power chooses to stuff the ballot box, and then vote to accept the illegal votes, they can always guarantee reelection.
-PJ
I tried to get some confirmation of this in a google search and couldn't find it. Could you provide a source?
For days we have been researching the votes cast in the November election. As of late yesterday, the number of confirmed illegal votes is at 737… and growing.
Seattle, WA – Today, our attorneys filed briefs responding to the Democratic motions to dismiss the case before the Chelan County Superior Court. Attached is a summary of those briefs.
Also attached is a summary of the confirmed illegal votes we have discovered thus far. As of this morning, the WSRP has identified 737 confirmed illegal votes cast in the 2004 election and we expect this number to grow in the days ahead.
Confirmed Illegal Votes Discovered
Felons – King County 186
Felons – Other Counties 54
Deceased 44
Duplicates In-State 10
Duplicates Out-of-State 6
Illegal Provisional Ballots 437
Total 737
...and counting
Summary of Rossi/ Republican briefs filed Jan. 26, 2005
1. The court has jurisdiction to hear this case
Article III, § 4 of the Washington State Constitution says that “Contested elections for [statewide executive officers] shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law.” The Legislature adopted a law, RCW 29A.68, which establishes how election contests are handled. That law says election contests may be heard by the courts of the state.
The Democratic Party and Christine Gregoire interpret this part of the constitution to mean that the only place for an election contest is in the state Legislature. But the constitution clearly allows the Legislature to decide the “manner” of contesting elections, and that can include having courts consider them. The Democrats are ignoring the phrase “in such manner as shall be determined by law.” The fact that the Legislature passed a law allowing election contests to be heard in court refutes the Democrats’ and Christine Gregoire’s argument.
Even Democratic legislators agree that courts are appropriate places for this election contest. Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and many other state senators and representatives have said that the Legislature intended for election contests such as this to be heard in court, not in the Legislature.
Additionally, the Legislature has the authority to delegate non-legislative functions, such as presiding over an election contest. This authority is reinforced by the use of the phrase “in such manner as shall be determined by law” in the constitution. The out-of-state cases cited by the Democrats involve challenges to legislative elections, not executive ones.
The 1940 election for governor did not involve an assertion of jurisdiction by the legislature. A contest petition was filed, and at the joint session to certify the election results a legislator made a motion to refer the petition to a committee for investigation. The Legislature did not pass the motion. Declining to investigate a contest petition does not constitute an assertion of exclusive jurisdiction over such actions.
The state Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction over contests of state executive offices in the past, including a contest of the 1992 auditor’s race and the case in this election filed under the contest statute by the Democrats (where they said the Supreme Court had the authority and the duty to act to provide a remedy).
The argument advanced by the Democrats would require the court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the election contest statute is unconstitutional.
2. The case should not be moved to another court
Chelan County and its officials are among the respondents named in this action. The Chelan County Superior Court is a proper place to hear a case involving Chelan County. Under Washington law, in a case with multiple defendants, if venue is proper over one defendant it is proper over all.
The election contest statute allows cases to be brought in superior court, a court of appeals, or the Supreme Court. In a prior contest of an election for statewide executive officer (the 1992 auditor election), the case was initially heard in superior court.
The contest statute specifically contemplates factfinding (“discovery”). If this case were moved to the Supreme Court, that court would then have to appoint a superior court judge to conduct the factfinding (“discovery”), essentially re-starting the process. This type of delay is exactly what the Democrats want.
3. The contest petition makes a valid claim to void the election
An illegal vote is a vote cast in violation of the election laws. The election contest statute states that illegal votes include, but are not limited to, multiple votes cast by a single voter and votes cast by ineligible felons.
The exception to the definition of illegal votes (for registrations required to be challenged prior to the election) does not affect any of the votes at issue in this case:
County officials are obligated by law to remove felons and dead persons from voter registration records. The contest statute should not be read to transform illegal votes into legal ones because private citizens did not do what county officials were required to do by checking for invalid voter registrations.
Contrary to what the Democratic Party and Christine Gregoire are arguing, the election contest statute does not require that each illegal vote be identified to a candidate and subtracted from that candidate’s vote totals. Courts in Washington and elsewhere have ordered new elections where the number of invalid votes exceeded the margin between the candidates.
The one Washington case cited by the Democrats to support their position was in 1912. It has been superseded on this point by Washington’s 1975 Foulkes v. Hays case. Also, in the 1912 case there was evidence of only three illegal votes being counted, while the margin was five votes.
4. A Revote is the appropriate remedy in this case
The election contest statute specifically provides for elections to be annulled and set aside, and for election certificates to be declared void. This is what we are seeking.
Once the election is nullified, holding a revote –- as the Washington Supreme Court approved in Foulkes v. Hays –- is simply a continuation of the 2004 election for governor to achieve a final result. The courts have the authority to order a revote under the contest statute and their equitable power.
Even if the court were to find that it cannot order a revote, the vacancy in the office of governor brought about by the nullified election would be filled under the provisions of Article III § 10 of the state constitution. That section calls for a governor to be elected at “the next general election,” which would be in November 2005 (not 2006 or even 2008 as the Democrats claim). The statute the Democrats say prohibits elections for governor in odd-numbered years does nothing of the kind. It merely fills in a gap in the constitution regarding vacancies in other offices, whereas vacancies in the office of governor are filled at the next general election under the terms of Article III § 10.
The Legislature also could determine that it would be in the best interests of the state to resolve this matter, and pass legislation calling for an earlier election.
I lived in Washington for many years, but escaped before things got as bad as they now appear to be.
That "re-elect Rossi 2005" phrase would be great on bumper stickers. Have you seen them around? I have a friend on the peninsula who does signs and I might suggest he make these bumper stickers to sell.
I may use it for my tagline for a while.
The silence on DU regarding voter fraud in WA state is DEAFENING! They have hundreds of threads regarding Ohio where Bush won by 113,000 votes, but nary a peep about a 140 vote difference in Wa state. Bunch of hypocrites el grande.
Actually things have improved here in Washington state since we moved here 5 years ago, mainly due to the constant referendums being submitted by republican activists. The voters approved a reduction in auto licensing down to $30 flat fee versus the value based tax before. We still have the rainy days though, and no referendums can cure that problem.
Anyone want to take bets nothing is done about this and the corrupt election results stand?
I'm digging through RCW now. It's Title 29A.68, "Contesting an Election"
Says all about how to do it but can't find anything about what if it is contested and won.
There is a small blurb about voiding the certificate of election. I thought it would be under the category "Specal Elections" but I couldn't find it there.
There's no way they could maintain peace in this state and hand it over to an obviously partisan legislature, especially one that broke the law when they certified her in the first place.
I think Washington was the only place they got caught. The RATs have been stealing elections for decades.
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.