Posted on 02/04/2005 11:21:16 AM PST by SW6906
This is not so good:
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003700.html
"The good news for Democrats was Bridges' ruling in Chelan County Superior Court that Republicans must show any illegal votes were cast in favor of Gregoire, and not Republican candidate Dino Rossi. There would have to be enough illegal Gregoire votes to erase her 129-vote victory margin."
How can it be proven who the illegal ballots were cast for? What about the fact that the number of voters doesn't even come close to matching the number of ballots cast?
They haven't been. They are still subject to subpoenas and testimony.
The case just didn't need 40 lawyers in the room. Getting rid of the county lawyers makes the case more manageable.
It can't be. The system might as well be designed to prevent illegal votes from being identified by candidate. And maybe it was.
That's the Seattle Times spin. I had been thinking along those lines as well.
But all that is not necessary. All that is necessary is for the judge to hear the case and if warranted, vacate the Governorship.
That's the good news.
The Shark is being pulled into a diversion by the Seattle Times. The judge did not say Rossi would need to determine votes to erase Gregoire's lead. He said he doesn't have the authority to order a revote. But he does have the authority to nullify the election and vacate the Governorship.
The Seattle Times reporter should be reprimanded by putting words into the judge's mouth. The 'count the illegal arguments' is I think the argument of the dem lawyer, not the judge.
Please someone correct me if I am wrong. I am getting my latest bit of info from the closing dialog between Mary Lane and John Carlson.
SECTION 10 VACANCY IN OFFICE OF GOVERNOR In case of the removal, resignation, death or disability of the governor, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the lieutenant governor; and in case of a vacancy in both the offices of governor and lieutenant governor, the duties of the governor shall devolve upon the secretary of state. In addition to the line of succession to the office and duties of governor as hereinabove indicated, if the necessity shall arise, in order to fill the vacancy in the office of governor, the following state officers shall succeed to the duties of governor and in the order named, viz.: Treasurer, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction and commissioner of public lands. In case of the death, disability, failure or refusal of the person regularly elected to the office of governor to qualify at the time provided by law, the duties of the office shall devolve upon the person regularly elected to and qualified for the office of lieutenant governor, who shall act as governor until the disability be removed, or a governor be elected; and in case of the death, disability, failure or refusal of both the governor and the lieutenant governor elect to qualify, the duties of the governor shall devolve upon the secretary of state; and in addition to the line of succession to the office and duties of governor as hereinabove indicated, if there shall be the failure or refusal of any officer named above to qualify, and if the necessity shall arise by reason thereof, then in that event in order to fill the vacancy in the office of governor, the following state officers shall succeed to the duties of governor in the order named, viz: Treasurer, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction and commissioner of public lands. Any person succeeding to the office of governor as in this Section provided, shall perform the duties of such office only until the disability be removed, or a governor be elected and qualified; and if a vacancy occur more than thirty days before the next general election occurring within two years after the commencement of the term, a person shall be elected at such election to fill the office of governor for the remainder of the unexpired term. [AMENDMENT 6, 1909 p 642 Section 1. Approved November, 1910.]
Can you essentially "appeal" to the same judge during the same case, saying "you got it wrong, your honor" without undermining his authority over the case?
Since he made this ruling so early on, he must be awfully sure of himself, I'd imagine.
Thanks, this is indeed good news and it's far preferable than any other approach.
If the judge had claimed authority to order a revote, I think he would have been overturned in appeal.
People need to keep the two concepts separate:
VACATE
vs.
REVOTE
are two separate actions. The judge was brilliant in denying a REVOTE and setting a hearing to decide to VACATE.
Should he vacate, void, nullify, whatever the Governorship, THEN IT FOLLOWS that a revote will occur, probably in November with the scheduled election.
This is from a comment on the SP thread:
"On illegal votes--the Democrats say Rossi must prove the votes were invalid. Bridges ruled it was premature to make that discovery. On using statute 68 .020 from the RCW as the sole basis for what is contestable, Bridges ruled that while they (Rossi) fail on .020, .11 CAN and does apply."
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003700.html
The court could, at any time, take notice of new facts that changes his mind.
But I think this guy did his homework, and that ain't gonna happen.
Now if there was any evidence that Butt Ugly herself had anything to do with tampering with the election, that's a whole new ball game.
Rossi supporters need a new mantra,
not revote but VACANCY NOW!
How about DON'T WAIT TO VACATE!
or,
SET THE DATE TO VACATE!
Somebody help me here....
GET OUT OF OWENS HOUSE!
* On illegal votes--the Democrats say....
However, 68 .090 allows Rossi to claim that the errors found are enough to open the question of whether the election was legitimate. Thus, the motion to dismiss based on the cause of illegal votes is DENIED.
Hmmmmm.........I think maybe the reporter got it wrong, but I admit I am confused.......
I AGREE SOMETHING IS WRONG BUT WHAT IS 68.090? JUST LOOKING AT THE FACT THE JUDGE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS MEANS 68.090 GIVES REDRESS PROVISIONS FOR THE ROSSI SIDE.
Sounds to me like a Nov. '05 election. Is that how your read it?
If that definition is true, then it is not so much a vacancy as it is a continuation of the 2004 election. If it is a continuation of the 2004 election, then several things come into play: 1) the argument that the gubernatorial election must coincide with the legislative election is still adhered to (as this is still a part of the 2004 election), and 2) that a "revote" has to wait until the next general election might apply to vacancies, but this is not a vacancy, it is a voided election so the court could order the legislature to call for an immediate revote (if it can't do it itself).
Now, the difference between a revote of the 2004 slate and a new election is significant: if it is truly a revote, then the 2004 slate from November 2 should be the exact slate that the population votes on again. If it is a new election to fill a vacancy, then anyone can announce a candidacy and run.
It seems that the logical conclusion is that the 2004 gubernatorial election is voided, and the exact slate is to be revoted on at a date specified by the courts.
-PJ
BTTT
Postman is wrong, looks like
Ha! Is Owens Lt. governor?
Sure; it's called a motion to reconsider. i doubt that this judge would be upset about such a motion. He seems to want to get it right rather than to be right. He also knows he is not going to have the final say on this matter, so simply making a ruling, whether he is right or wrong, speeds things up.
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.