WA Gov. Race: Judge Upholds Election of Governor Gregoire

KOMO-TV ^ | 6 June 2005

[Publius]

A state judge has upheld the election of Washington Governor Christine Gregoire.

In turning back the Republican challenge to the Democrat, Judge John Bridges says there was no evidence of fraud in last fall's election.

The judge did find there were more than 1,600 illegal votes, but he says it's up to voters to fix errors in the state's election system.

Republicans have said they will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

[Publius]

Basically, the judge indicated that the law requiered him to produce this decision. The judge is known as a strict constructionist, and this decision is in keeping with his reputation.

[AmishDude]

Judge John Bridges says there was no evidence of fraud in last fall's election.

Unless this is an inaccurate press report, the Judge -- strict constructionist or not -- must have been smoking some of that "medical" marijuana.

[Publius]

The Republicans presented no convincing evidence of fraud as defined by state statute. The judge merely pointed this out.

[dangus]

"Yes, the Democrats succeeded in rigging an election, but the voters will just have to suck it up."

Not my concept of a strict constructionist. An election law which permits an illegal outcome is an illegal law.

[Publius]

An election law which permits an illegal outcome is an illegal law.

You're confusing right-and-wrong with the law. The first thing they beat out of you at law school is this distinction. What counts is the law as it is written. It's legal until repealed or a court says otherwise.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Judge John Bridges says there was no evidence of fraud in last fall's election [...] The judge did find there were more than 1,600 illegal votes

Intellectual dissonance, anyone...?

[jmaroneps37]

This will be another "victory" that the rats will live to see cost them in future elections. Maybe not in Washington State, but in other places, the idea that rats need crooked judges to uphold voter frauds to win. The crap they pulled in Mo. with the widda carnahan and the stunt they pulled in South Dakota with johnson's phony Indian votes, come to mind.

[Publius]

The judge is not crooked. He is merely following the law. It's the law that needs to be changed, not the judge.

[chimera]

Basically, the judge indicated that the law requiered him to produce this decision.

If so, then who was it who said, "the law is an ass"? Or maybe it's just Bridges who is an ass (and a coward, more interested in the process of the law than it's purpose)?

[EQAndyBuzz]

It is a good decision.

The Republicans failed to prove their case and the RATS proved that they were incompetent.

[Republican Wildcat]

[Publius]

"The law is a ass" comes from Oliver Twist and is uttered by Mr. Bumble, the parish beadle.

[Republican Wildcat]

So illegal voting is permitted under Washington State law? That's unbelievable.

[Publius]

The judge pointed out that the number of illegal votes is irrelevent unless petitioners can prove for whom those illegal votes were cast. This is because of the wording of the election contest statute.

[lilylangtree]

DemoncRATS win yet again using nefarious and criminal methods. Wonder what this judge's payoff is? Further, wonder if he is a demoncRAT appointment? We're stuck with Fraudoire.

[Publius]

Illegal voting is not permissable, but in order to void an election (acccording to statute), the Republicans had to show how those illegal votes were cast so as to change the vote tallies in the election.

[So Cal Rocket]

Well, the pony in this pile of manure is that perhaps Rossi will run now against Cantwell for Senator in 2006.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

The judge did find there were more than 1,600 illegal votes, but he says it's up to voters to fix errors in the state's election system.

How are voters supposed to do that if their votes are being canceled out by the votes of convicted felons and dead people?

[Publius]

The judge is clean. You have to get past the idea that anybody who rules against you is a criminal. The judge followed the law, which is what he was supposed to do.

It's the law that needs changing.

[Political Junkie Too]

How does a judge otherwise reconcile in impossible law? How can one prove for whom an illegal vote was cast when, by law, all votes are confidential?

-PJ