Posted on 02/04/2005 11:21:16 AM PST by SW6906
wow, thank you again! Please read Zap's articles; he speaks to conservatives AS a conservative.
Scott, actually it is not 68.090 that the Judge bases on but 68.11.
Here is what I found on 68.11 from:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:v6pWjkKE5ZMJ:www.timothygoddard.com/blog/index.php%3Fp%3D816+rcw+68.11&hl=en
Barry Says:
January 17th, 2005 at 8:58 am
Finally got the time to read the Foulkes case carefully. It seems those who are arguing against a re-vote are missing a very key point. The court lays out its legal findings at the very beginning of the cite. The first item gives the legal basis for the courts calling for a re-vote:
[1] Elections - Contests - Statutory Authority - Altered Ballots. RCW 29.04.030 constitutes an implementation of the court’s general equity power to inquire into and correct election errors. The general equity power, which is granted to the superior courts by Const. art. 4, § 6 unless vested by law exclusively in some other court, applies to a claim of altered ballots, and includes the right to order whatever remedy is necessary to correct an error, including a new election where appropriate.
Nowhere is the word fraud or even misconduct mentioned. It just says to “correct election errors”. It appears that the reason for the errors is irreverent. What seems to be relevant is that there were errors and enough to put the election in question.
To be sure the RCW has been updated since the 1975 case, but it looks like the only real change was in the numbering (i.e. RCW 29.04.030 is now RCW 29A.68.11). If anybody knows of any other chances please us know.
There seems to little argument about the presence of errors and many of them. Also, after hearing both SOS Reed and Dean Logan say that the real winner cannot be determined, the court should have ample evidence and testimony to call for a new election.
68.11 LOOKS GOOD FOR ROSSI!
WATCH THE RATS TRY AND FORCE THE JUDGE TO STEER ACCORDING TO 68.090!
I'M PUMPED because all along I was thinking that Rossi would have difficulties according to such requirements as specified in 68.090 BUT NOW we think of a better more practical criterion 68.11!
This is really good news. Thanks for pinging me on that reporter's take.
The decision was great!! Brilliant!!
See post #642.
Hi to you also---also. :)
Nice blog. I think I'll call it a night and hope you guys have figured it out by morning.
Then why did he specifically say he had no power to order a new election? Does he mean that AT THIS TIME he has no authority, but might at some later date?
I read alot of law, and this is confusing as hell to me!
Yeah we really need the transcript on this,
bump for later
He has the power to toss Gregoire out of office but he doesn't step in and say you must now hold a new election.
He vacates the Governorship and the state constitution handles vacancies by special election.
This judge is definitely sharp. Wow. Coming from me, a PhD in a quantitative field from UW, I am impressed and relieved to see a judge of this caliber handling the case.
Who would become Lt. Governor if Chrissy is ushered OUTTA THERE and we're all waiting till November (God forbid) for a new election?
I don't like the idea of having to wait for a full year (November to November) for our real governor to be seated.
Seems to me that there is just cause to order a special election pronto hasty when that is declared the essential remedy.
If this whole thing is happening under the courts equity power, the legislature has no standing.
They are not the aggrieved party. Actually, neither is Rossi himself. It is the people.
So a new election is certainly a valid form of equitable relief.
Brad Owens and according to John Carlson and Mary Lane, Owens is well-qualified to caretake the Governorship until legislature calls a special election.
Unlike some justices, I believe this ruling to be based in law. The MSM is doing their best to report a "Major Defeat For Rossi Campaign" but they only see (report) what they want to see.
A little integrity goes a long way. Queen G. is lacking in that area.
A tweak on post #648.
These things are beginning to gel now for me. Judge Bridges does not have the power to toss Gregoire. The State Supreme court does. See post #642.
But Judge Bridges can package the case for the supremes to act and that is a very good thing, because the supremes could disallow alot of evidence that the pubbies want to introduce and which will be introduced in Chelan County court under Judge Bridges. The Supremes will have no other course other than accept it.
It's like Judge Bridges is the cook in the kitchen and the Supremes are the tablewaiters. But Judge Bridges already has the menu orders.
Pubbies were smart here.
Thanks. I have also been doing a lot of talking with various county auditors around the state, and have talked with both Bobbi Egan and Bill Huennekens at King, more than once. In the next few hours I'll be posting the fruits of those inquiries, so please check back later.
Yeah, Mary Lane (Rossi's campaign mgr.) said on Carlson show that the dems would try to spin the news as favorable to them but privately they will be squirming over the weekend.
This round of spin will be all forgotten at the next hearing where the Republicans make their case.
Anyone seen any commentary from the Office of the Alleged Governor?
Thanksm Spunky, for Mary Lane's comments on Carlson's show. Helps a lot.
None at all yet. They are probably trying very hard to figure a way they can open their mouth and NOT insert their foot..
Does anyone know when the next hearing is scheduled?
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.