[4woodenboats]

What I am saying is that there you had a case that, despite a secret ballot system, the court came to know the identity of the cast ballot in 46 cases. So the RCW by definition cannot be setting an "impossible" standard, since the standard of being able to count illegal votes for one candidate or another was in fact ment.

It seems you keep attempting to use the fact that they were able to know the identity of 46 as evidence that there must be a process of identifying secret ballots or else there couldn't be a standard for discovering the identity of secret ballots, and the fact that neither Rossi or you has been able to discover this secret process is incidental.

I don't know Faulkes from a hole in my floor, but I think I'll wait for the rest of the story on this one.

[SW6906]

What it comes down to is torridjoe believes the law only allows for illegal votes to contest an election in the case where those illegal votes can be individually identified and segregated from the rest of the ocean of secret ballots. Foulkes happened to be a case of that becuase the ballots were added after the count and could be readily identified and removed from the pile, IIRC.

Under this interpretation of that clause of the law, the only time you can contest based on illegal votes is when you catch someone red-handed stuffing the ballot box and you can identify and remove the ballots they stuffed!! Do you realize how exceedingly rare that is? That is why many, many of us disagree with torridjoe on this point as the rest of the contest statute and other election law doesn't set impossibly high standards like that, so why would this one?

And, it appears the judge agrees at least somewhat based on his ruling yesterday.........