Posted on 06/06/2005 11:11:03 AM PDT by dangus
A Washington state judge found that more than 1600 votes were illegally cast in the gubernatorial election last year. They were nearly all cast in overwhelmingly Demonrat-controlled regions, and constitute several times the margin of "victory" by the Demonrat candidate, Christinie Gregoire.
The judge acknowledged the injury due to the fraud. But, he found that as defined by the Washington State election statute the fraud provided no basis for overturning election. The statute states that the challenging party would have to not only demonstrate that fraud occured, but that the perpetrators of the fraud intended to commit fraud. Merely being incompetent, even when the incompetence was pointed out ahead of time, and a benefit to the incompetent party was the only foreseeable outcome of the incompetence, is not sufficient proof of intent to nullify the result of the fraud.
This isn't mens rea, folks. A prosecutor does not have to read the mind of a killer to establish murder. The fact that he stabbed the victim 37 times is usually quite sufficient to establish that he wanted the victim to die. But, the statute here in Washington states that the actions of election officials are not sufficient grounds for demonstrating intent.
This is simply the result of a poorly worded law. Election laws have been discarded numerous times. In my recent recollection, I can think of Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, New Jersey, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the entire bloody reconstructed South. In the case of New Jersey, the law was set aside very lightly: the Demonrats nominate Sen. Toricelli for re-election, and then changed their mind, so they were allowed to nominate Lautenberg instead, and, of course, reset all their spending limits.
In this case, the law clearly sets an unreasonable test for grievances: the aggreived party must be able to prove that they have succeeded in reading the mind of the guilty party. The constitution, and several implementing acts of Congress demand the principle of one vote per person be upheld.
The judge acknowledges it's an absurd law. But under his concept of conservative principle, conservatives have to live under the law as they think it should be, but can be abused by Democrats who live under the law as they craft it to be for themselves and for no-one else. It's sort of like telling conservatives, "You wanted to play wiffle ball, so here's your wiffle bat. But the Democrats still get to throw hundred-mile-an-hour hardballs at you.
Here's where the judge calls for armed insurrection: He states, "the voters of this state are in the position to demand that remedial measures be implemented immediately."
Obviously, he doesn't mean that voters shall make this change through the electoral process, since he just legalized vote-rigging. Obviously, he intends for voters to form an angry mob, storm the capital and behead their tyrranical rulers, instead.
I'm afraid I can't quite agree with this advice. Satisfying as his suggestion might seem, I think the Republicans should simply appeal his ruling, hoping to find a less violent and more democratic judge.
Call me an irrational optimist.
Now you're just trying to make me feel better. :)
OK... You are an "irrational optimist"
As soon as I can, I am leaving this state.
Quick, call me a cab... =^)
O..K. You're a cab.
O.K. You're a cab!
:-))
The voters of WA are stuck with Fraudoire & all her huge tax increases. The judge must be one of those liberal leftist demoncRATS appointed to the bench. In fact I rec'd an email indicating that the judge wore his earring to court to read his decision.
essentially the judge is saying that fraud is LEGALLY permissible in elections as long as not "thought" can be proven in the fraud.
The judge said fraud? so what?
equal protection? who cares.
Got you by over a minute.... ;)
Wow, what a misleading headline!
Hey... We can't ALL sleep our way into writing Fox News teasers.
(Either I have too many morals, or I'm too ugly.)
IOW: Here's a nickel, kid. Buy a sense of humor. ;^)
Sigh.
Ok...What's next?
>> Got you by over a minute.... ;) <<
Both of you guys:
Really, it's the thought that counts.
I'm touched. Deeply. Or so my psychiatrist says.
Fraud was proven to everyone except the judge who's blinded by being a demoncRAT liberal leftist appointee.
>> Ok...What's next? <<
Gallows humor, silly.
And I'll be right behind you (or maybe even before you).
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.