Washington State - Vote fraud counts

KING-5 | Wash State GOP

[Auntie Dem]

I wonder if they will have to forcibly remove the democrat candidate from the Governor's office -- once it is shown that she is sitting there due to election fraud.

Surely, you don't think she had anything to do with this fraud do you? Why she's just an innocent victim in this. It would be unfair, and probably illegal too, to remove her from office for something she didn't do.

Rossi just needs to be the gentleman here and do the right thing.

Keep pushing until the rats scream for mercy!

[Veto!]

Many thanks for the education. I wonder whether the Rats are planning to steal the revote. Without changes in the way polling places and those who control absentee ballots conduct business, GregGore could win again.

[Seattle Conservative]

"Is there a State Police in WA state?

I wonder if they will have to forcibly remove the democrat candidate from the Governor's office -- once it is shown that she is sitting there due to election fraud."

Yes, we do have the Washington State Patrol (they'll have to drag her out kicking and screaming)

[Seattle Conservative]

"RCW 29A.68.50
If in any such case it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes, said court shall declare such person duly elected.
Sounds like the court could outright declare Rossi the winner, but I doubt they would take that approach."

John Carlson, who has been keeping in close touch w Rossi, has said that Rossi doesn't want it that way because there would always be a question. He wants a revote, so that whomever wins (clearly I think he would overwhelmingly now), would be a duly elected governor of the people (paraphrasing).

[BenLurkin]

I am NOT accusing her of having anything to do with the fraud personally.

[BenLurkin]

Usually the word shall means the court MUST do it.

If the court refuses then you may have a bigger problem in WA state than just vote fraud.

[Seattle Conservative]

According to Stefan Sharkansky, King County votes alone are off by 3,700 {see FReeper post here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327195/posts

[Auntie Dem]

I am NOT accusing her of having anything to do with the fraud personally.

Well, I think you should be. It strains credulity to think those at the top of the demonrat machine don't know there is fraud going on.

They make great pretense to maintain plausible deniability, but I think they MUST know about it--and not just in general terms. I believe at some point in their journeys through the demonrat power ranks they get introduced to the various ways of commitring election fraud, and may have even gotten their hands dirty doing it when they first started out. Participating in election fraud is kind of a loyalty test, and guarantees they've got to keep toeing the party line or risk eventual exposure for their earlier "youthful" misjudgments.

[CyberAnt]

737 - 129

I'd say a new vote is mandated. Am I wrong?

[CyberAnt]

Plus .. like CA - WA has a dem legislature - which we already know would do whatever it could to favor the dems ..?? Right?

[rockrr]

Fact is, it's way wack.....

[Carling]

This is 100x worse as the Texas redistricting that the media was all over for much of 2002.

I am so sick of the media bias.

[hadit2here]

The laws that are passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor are codified as the "Revised Code Of Washington". Thus, these are the actual "laws".

The laws then have to be "interpreted" and rules and procedures drawn up to "implement" the laws that were passed. These rules and procedures are codified in what is called the "Washington Administrative Code".

So the RCW's in Washington State are different but related to the WAC's in that the WAC's implement rules of the laws enacted by the legislature. As you can probably guess, since bureaucrats "interpret" and write the WAC's, what is in the WAC's may not actually be the law that the legislature intended- just the bureaucratic interpetation of it.

Jeez, doncha just love government!

[bigfootbob]

don'tcha know!

[DoorGunner]

Usually the word shall means the court MUST do it.

_________________

Agreed. Shall should always mean that an action is mandatory. In this case, though, the confusion in King county is unlikely to result in a determination of which “has the highest number of votes.” I think that they will be focused on the previous paragraph:

 

29A.68.050

“After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, the court shall pronounce judgment in the premises, either confirming or annulling and setting aside such election, according to the law and right of the case.

     If in any such case it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes, said court shall declare such person duly elected.”

_______________

 

[One of the problems is that the law is (extremely) poorly written:]

 

 

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.68.090
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.68.110
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.

_______________________

[The above sections seem, to me, to be both confusing and contradictory. Some judge will have to try to figure out exactly what the legislature meant, by these sections. The biggest challenge is to find a judge who is both competent and honest.]

 

If the court refuses then you may have a bigger problem in WA state than just vote fraud.

I think that ship (a Washington State Ferry) has already sailed. Let’s hope it doesn’t crash into its dock!

DG

 

[Lexinom]

For one thing, it won't be close, and hence such problems would not tip the result: Dino would whip Gregoire by 12 points as the latter has upset so many of her constituents through her behavior, waltzing in there as though she won a landslide after barely squeezing out a 129-vote edge AT THE VERY END OF THE THIRD COUNT. 57%-60% favor a revote, which means a sizeable number of Dems (mostly from rural areas, no doubt).

For another, Rossi's people have said they will insist upon a purging of the rolls prior to any special election.

[Hank Rearden]

The only reason they are arguing this is because they know that they'll have no chance in court now that someone has finally decided to hear the case.

The funny part is that WA FReepers and others have been collecting recent missives from their 'Rat "representative" arguing just the opposite until recently and submitting them to the court as part of the briefs.

"I believe the court is the proper forum to resolve this, blah, blah, blah . . "

Until it wound up before a moderate judge in a conservative county. Now it's "Legislature is the proper forum, blah, blah, blah . . ."

It's getting fun now.

[Political Junkie Too]

I believe at some point in their journeys through the demonrat power ranks they get introduced to the various ways of commitring election fraud, and may have even gotten their hands dirty doing it when they first started out. Participating in election fraud is kind of a loyalty test, and guarantees they've got to keep toeing the party line or risk eventual exposure for their earlier "youthful" misjudgments.

It's even more egregious when you're the Attorney General running for Governor.

-PJ

[Quix]

Lord God,

Please bring on a new election in WA!

[Lancey Howard]

(Yawn) The Republicans have taken the issue to court, and the Democrats say the issue should be decided by the legislature (surprise, surprise). Meanwhile, where are the people with the handcuffs? At least they showed up for work in Florida....

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- The U.S. Attorney's Office announced Monday it is launching an investigating of nearly five dozen ballots cast in the November 2004 Presidential election.... The FBI is helping in the investigation.