RCW 29A.68.090 just lays out the standard for proceeding with a contest:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.68.090&fuseaction=section
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.
Thanks. I found it also while typing up post #629. Now we need to be sure the reporter was accurate.
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.