Posted on 02/04/2005 11:21:16 AM PST by SW6906
Live discussion of the hearings in Chelan County on Dems motions to dismiss the Rossi con test of the governors election. King5.com is streaming live!
>>>>finally, new elections for Governor must occur during a general election. and 29A 04.321 specifically omits elections for Governor in odd-numbered years.
Yes, nice blog and nice analysis. Are you leaving out the possibility of a special election for a three-year term?
Mary Lane mentioned on Carlson the election could be held this November and the term would be three years.
Also to have Owen there until November 2005 or 2006 woudl at least serve the purpose of bring public weight to bear on thise responsible for the present state of affairs, the perception in the public eye of no confidence in the system.
I think Gregoire will ignore this, so as to fall in line with her "I don't want to be distracted by this, so can't we all just move on and get on with the business of the Washington people, who are all threatening my life on a daily basis thanks to Right-Wing Talk Radio...?" theories.
I believe you are right, And really this is so much about Dino Rossi as it is about fair, free and valid elections.
People's confidence has been shaken and all the excuses by Logan and others is not doing anything to restore that confidence. In fact it is worsening.
No, I'm not leaving out the possibility, only that in Bridges' opinion the courts cannot order one. The constitution tells them that the Lt. Gov takes over until the next general election in an even year.
Which leaves it to the Legislature to craft a bill declaring probably not just a single special election, but law to govern them for the future. Which would appear to require amendment to the Constitution, a dicey prospect to any fan of Constitutional stasis as a guiding principle. As such, I expect a greater majority is needed to amend, further raising the bar.
This is my personal opinion, but if the election should be vacated, you're looking at Brad Owens until November 2006 at the earliest. The statehouse will not order one, is my guess.
(I should also also say that from his comments I wouldn't be very confident that he's going to overturn in any case, but I know that's not what you want to hear. :) )
I thought the supremes considered rules of law, not the rules of evidence that culminate in lower court decisions...
I am not sure how you draw the conclusion that he will not vacate the Governorship.
I admit I'm not a practitioner here but my level of education and experience can read the gist of most things that are material to the case.
I don't want to spend that much time on this anyhow and if I came to the same conclusion as you, I would be far removed from any of this.
But I defer to your experience. However, after reading poprtions of the transcript, or reporter's versions of it, it appears there is evidence for Judge Bridge pushing along 68.11 and not 68.090.
Now if he was not going to overturn the case, it would be because the republicans lack data to support such a decision.
So I infer you are not confident because the repubs lack sufficient evidence IAW 68.11. For otherwise why would this Judge waste everyone's time? Including distracting public citizens like me?
So no it's not a question of what I want to hear, it's more of a puzzle and I am fond if puzzles. In this case I can follow how to possibly unravel this Rubik's cube. As I said before, if I couldn't I'd be doing something far different.
So please explain, clarify, educate.....we could all use some insight to this mess right now.
my reading is that .11 is the grounds for requesting a contest (explaining cause for the action, in other words). It's .070 and .110 that represent the standards for VALIDATING those causes. Bridges relied on .11 and .020 very heavily today, because that's where the procedural sections are. Very clearly, the rules for annuling an election based on misconduct by officials are in .070 (and to an extent .080), and for annuling by illegal vote in .110.
It very much follows to me that the courts would seek an expansive view of what was worth looking into, and a narrow view of what is worth overturning an election for.
Stefan Sharkansky's point tonight is that the judge surely could not be subjecting Rossi to a standard that is impossible to meet. What I think he misses is that it's only impossible for ROSSI to meet. What Foulkes shows us is that you CAN identify illegal ballots, since they did. 46 of them, in fact, complete with who the vote was recorded for. So while I agree that votes like the provisionals are now by definition lost to the wind, that doesn't mean the law has to accomdate that happenstance. It is not impossible to provide evidence of who was voted for; it just looks impossible based on what Rossi alleges.
The law is 68.11. Post #642. The lower court is looking to satisfy the evidence according to 68.11.
The Supremes may or may not be able to ignore the evidence depending on how it is packaged by the lower court. Knowledgeable people have opined that this judge is a very good packager. We infer therefore that it will be difficult for the Supremes to rule on the law apart from what the evidence satisfies.
Does the evidence satisfy 68.11? Or must 68.090 be used? Since there is precedent for setting aside an election based on 68.11, it would be interesting to see how the supremes will ignore precedent and push 68.090.
IMO 68.090 is impossible to satisfy here and if strictly adhered to would provide a roadblock to all future election contests.
If election contests are the only means that voters have to address a failed election system, then 68.11 is the only practical measure and provision currently specified.
I am quite prepared to be disappointed again with the legal profession, the judiciary branch and the subtle ways they allow partisanship to enter their deliberations.
"Any commentary from the alleged Governor?"
Take a long look at the PHOTO in post 155 this thread (below) There is somebody who is DEFINITELY not in the mood for a pizza party....
WOOOOHOOOO from California for y'all, praying hard for JUSTICE to truly prevail. (Psalm 2!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1336089/posts?page=155#155
Yes this is what bothers me. You are arguing that for example Rissi would need to show who the felons actually voted for.
And you are saying that in Foulkes, this was done and so can be done.
But that is the question, it can be done? And if not what is to prevent a recurrence? Observers? Affadavits?
We have no way of knowing now if Rossi's original 262 vote lead was originally 10,262 votes, diluted by tens of thousands of 'found votes'. So this is not just a question of stealing an election fair and square in a close race. This is about rigging any election to one's desires.
The bar must be higher for the election process, not for the contest. Had it been higher for the process, the contest would have less if any irregularities to report.
If you support the current state of affairs, then I say you have won, you have taken democracy away from the people.
Is this too far an abstraction? Note your own thinking, "an expansive view and a narrow view". This is arbitrary.
You are accepting an arbitrary view to buttress an argument to support loss of democracy. That leads to tyranny.
I know, I know, you have a job and a pension to look forward to, etc. Don't be a rebel. Accept things the way they are and leave a legacy of one-party rule, whichever party is more shrewd, cunning and "narrow" when power is in play.
Sorry for the diatribe. I just happen to think peoople deserve a legit leader. And I'm frustrated with people who have lived in the legal world so long they've forgotten humanity. They are so predictable as to be boring. And boredom to me represents a lack of intelligence and vision, yet the judiciary will hold court and manipulate their 'narrow' and 'expansive' levers while posturing as repositories of wisdom. Meanwhile why bother to vote?
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV (nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but my read of the judges ruling is that you do not have to prove whom each illegal vote went for. Proving that there were sufficient illegal votes to call the election into question is enough.
You are so right. I heard the other day on the radio that we lack, can't remember, a particular type of office or something whereas it makes it basically impossible to investigate our state governmental offices.
Man, that is one damn good argument for burkas and facemasks!!
Cripes, she makes LOWRY LOOK GOOD!
Thank you. In my thinking as I posted to torridjoe, the bar has to be higher during the election than after. He seems to think the reverse is true. The only way to raise the bar for future elections is to rule that enough illegal votes exist as to throw the election in doubt, and vacate the Governorship accordingly.
Of course I would guess people such as torridjoe, not him per se but people like him, think they are closer to the machinery than I and you are, and that because of that proximity, they are insiders, we are outsiders.
I fear we are looked down on.
I should say that I _was_ on SoundPolitics; I was quickly banned when I asked if Stefan had asked King County about the allegations he was making at one point.
My point in bringing up Foulkes here is that to say "it's clearly impossible with our secret ballot system" defies the truth, since somehow the very same secret ballot system allowed 46 votes for a candidate to be identified. How could any election be contested under that standard? Ask Foulkes.
Proving that there were enough to call the election into question satisfies the terms of .11, how you can contest--but not .110, how you can succeed in your contest.
Well the 46 votes were found before they were counted and they were noted to be illegal/invalid. They were used to support the inference of other illegal votes for which the actual vote was unknown.
So I am not sure your argument is watertight.
Quite different than this case, but in the end under the law, illegal ballots are illegal ballots, isn't that what the judge ruled today?
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.