Posted on 01/12/2005 9:54:00 PM PST by Publius
In all the hubbub if this election and all its accouterments, it’s easy to lose sight of what matters. Broadly speaking, the only thing that matters is the Washington State Supreme Court decision that will be made after the Chelan court decision is appealed. Within that, though, there are a lot of things that matter, based on Washington law, and a lot of things that don’t–and it can be easy to confuse the two. First off, let’s look at what the law actually says:
RCW 29A.68.020
Commencement by registered voter – Causes for.
Any registered voter may contest the right of any person declared elected to an office to be issued a certificate of election for any of the following causes:
RCW 29A.68.070
Misconduct of board – Irregularity material to result.
No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of any election board or any member of the board amounts to such malconduct as to annul or set aside any election unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes.
RCW 29A.68.080
Misconduct of board – Number of votes affected – Enough to change result.
When any election for an office exercised in and for a county is contested on account of any malconduct on the part of any election board, or any member thereof, the election shall not be annulled and set aside upon any proof thereof, unless the rejection of the vote of such precinct or precincts will change the result as to such office in the remaining vote of the county.
RCW 29A.68.090
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.
RCW 29A.68.100
Illegal votes – List required for testimony.
No testimony may be received as to any illegal votes unless the party contesting the election delivers to the opposite party, at least three days before trial, a written list of the number of illegal votes and by whom given, that the contesting party intends to prove at the trial. No testimony may be received as to any illegal votes, except as to such as are specified in the list.
RCW 29A.68.110
Illegal votes – Number of votes affected – Enough to change result.
No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person’s legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.
Let’s go through the irregularities one at a time, and see how they stack up.
WHAT MATTERS:
50,000 ballots enhanced illegally: This matters immensely. These King County ballots were not read correctly by the vote tabulating machines, and so were taken out and “enhanced” so that the machine could read them. This is perfectly legal -- however, the election workers enhanced them to the point that it was impossible to review those ballots, which was supposed to be done. This is in violation of state law. Even if only 1% of those ballots had been determined to be invalid, that may have be enough to throw the election back to Rossi. This is an irregularity (or misconduct) that is certainly material to the result.
1,800 voterless ballots: It sure seems like this should matter, based on the RCW noted in this Sound Politics post. If the votes really are from voters who voted without signing in, as claimed by Dean Logan, it certainly should matter. If they didn’t sign in, we have no way of knowing whether they were registered voters, or voted twice, or even citizens. If it’s something more sinister, then it matters even more. It could, conceivably, be beaureaucratic incompetence, losing thousands of voter names. But I somehow doubt that -- and there’s no way to tell at this point. So obviously, this matters, even if Logan says it doesn’t. “This always happens” may be an excuse when “this” is smaller than the margin of victory, but it isn’t one now–again, it’s either an irregularity or misconduct material to the result.
348 unverified provisional ballots mixed with the real ballots: Once again, while this wouldn’t matter in a normal election, it matters here, because these disputed ballots are a great deal larger than the margin of victory. There’s no way of knowing if these ballots were signed by registered voters, unregistered voters, illegal aliens, space aliens or Mickey Mouse. This may be the strongest piece of the contest, as it has been well documented and was even anticipated before the election. This is clearly misconduct material to the result.
Felons voting: This obviously matters -- it says as much right there in part 5.a.ii of the first quoted RCW. So far, having looked at only Pierce and Snohomish counties, the BIAW has found 89 felonious votes. If there are just 40 more found in King County or elsewhere, that invalidates the election ipso facto. If those aren’t found, of course, they won’t matter at all. According to the second-to-last RCW cited abote, the names of all the voting felons will have to be produced in court, which will be all sorts of fun -- but it should be enough all by itself, let alone lumped in with everything else.
WHAT DOESN’T MATTER:
Dead voters: It makes for some catchy headlines and some amusing pictures, but there aren’t nearly enough dead voters to even come close to having an effect on this contest. I’m glad they were found, though. It provides an example of election fraud that is easy to relate to, and has no doubt helped convince most of Washington that a revote is needed. It will not, however, convince a judge.
Systemic problems: Systemic problems, problems with election law as written, as important as they are to fix, will not help with the contest -- namely, because the same systemic problems will almost certainly be in play in any revote. What needs to be shown -- and clearly has been -- is unique instances of illegal voting, or voting irregularities, that can be avoided in the next vote. Again, I’m still glad systemic problems are being brought to light, so that they can be solved. But again, it won’t matter to a judge.
Gregoire’s inauguration: This doesn’t matter a whit, according to the law. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
Polls and petitions: While these matter immensely in gauging the mood of the people, and certainly affected Rossi’s decision to go forward with the contest, they won’t actually come into play once the trial starts. This will be good to remember if the populace, understandably, starts getting tired of the mess (though I hope they’re in it for the long haul).
(Care to see something kind of spooky and completely irrelevant? If you take the total difference between Rossi’s initial margin of 261, and Gregoire’s current margin of 129, you get 390. If you subtract from that Rossi’s second margin of 42 votes, you get 348 -- which is the exact number of provisional ballots mixed in with regular ballots. Ooooh -- spooky.)
Looking at the facts right next to the law, this looks for all the world like an open-and-shut case. I can’t imagine the legal backflips and distortions that would be needed to not throw out this election. If any readers would care to give it a shot, I’m all ears. I certainly look forward to hearing the Democratic arguments in court. So far, they haven’t responded substantively to the facts, and I’m curious to hear what they say if they ever do.
For the gory details: soundpolitics.com
Interest from non-locals is much appreciated. Feel free to write to our Sec. of State, Sam Reed (email), and tell him what non-Washingtonians think of this mess. This whole thing is a joke - 129 vote lead for Gregoire after the THIRD count, after trailing by 261 (count #1) and then 42 (count #2), and ONLY after questionable votes (with no associated voter) mysteriously appeared. 9 times during the counts, King County "found" ballots unexpectedly.
One thing this Washington State voter can assure you: Rossi's case is ROCK SOLID. I have every confidence that an impartial decision rendered on the basis of fact will THROW OUT THIS SHAM OF AN ELECTION.
I already read this.
I don't know if you might have caught christine on the news in any sound bites from her inaugural speech, or at other times, but she has a very BAD habit of having her voice shake like she's under waaaaay too much pressure and scrutiny, and has lost it.
She reminds me of someone who, caught in a criminal act, is running from the crime scene, and wondering when the cops will blow the whistle and tell her to STOP OR THEY'LL SHOOT.
Maybe i'll call her office tomorrow and tell her assistant that I will be filing a petition to recall her no later than Tuesday morning. Shopuld make her day, because she will know who I am with the mere mention of my first name.
BTTT Thanks for psoting this. He was on KVI this afternoon.
Bravo, Timothy! Fantastic layout of the issues. Very informative!
Fraudoire--Sheesh!
"He's damn good. His brief is tightly argued, and as a non-lawyer, a tightly argued brief is the only kind I can understand."
I hate it when my briefs get tightly argued....
8^)
Judge John Bridge annulled and set aside the 2000 election for Wenatchee Mayor, finding that Gary Schoessler was not eligible because he failed to meet the residency requirements.
Judge John Bridge was meticulous in his findings of fact and law. He enumerated 90 separate findings of fact and 15 conclusions of law. His thoroughness may be one reason why the WA State Supreme Court unanimously upheld the election annulment.
Another notable fact is that Judge John Bridge did not delay the proceedings. The election contest was filed December 3, 1999 and the ruling was filed January 7, 2000. Also notable was that the WA Supreme Court immediately accepted review and affirmed on April 20, 2000. Almost 5 months from the filing to the final decision.
Sounds like HE belongs on the State Supreme Court.
i remember reading the opinion. It was a pretty strait-forward case and there really wasn't even a little bit of wiggle room. If Bridges applies the unambiguous wording of the election contest statutes to the facts of this case, a revote is a foregone conclusion. there really is no other option, especially with all the public attention being paid to it. The state SC will be unanimus in ruling for a revote.
Those maybe "in the inner sanctum", lol, is there any TRULY hope the fraud and purposeful "errors" will be judged and revote granted, or even better, any criminal charges?
Just thought this needed to be BTTT.
In all fairness and the spirit of justice, I must point out that many Freepers may suffer from that regrettable Republican tendency to insist on live, registered voters, voting once, and once only, and within the precinct in which they reside. This sort of limited view shows up the GOP as mean-spirited dorks, and entirely lacking in imagination.
This strange, antediluvian mindset causes the process many problems. It makes no provision for the dead. Even worse, it does not take into account the entirely fictitious voter.(Known in the trade as a "loretta" after Loretta Sanchez, who was elected to congress with the votes of entirely imaginary Mexicans) Are not these voters absent? Of course they are! That means they get an absentee ballot. It is designed for absent people. It doesn't have to say WHY they are absent, dummie!
Furthermore, you Republicans never take into account the special and tragic plight of the minority and female voter. These downtrodden citizens must be allowed to make up the votes they missed during the long and bitter period in which they were denied suffrage. The mantra, "One man, one vote," perfectly expresses the racist, misogynist, and homophobic slant of the Republican mind. With only one vote, it would take these poor people who have been sorely oppressed by white racist males, a thousand years to get even! The Washington way is faster, as you can plainly see. Faster means fairer.
Also, I think it is tragic that the Republicans keep using Abraham Lincoln's cheap trick of offering the vote to our military. It's even worse if they are overseas. Don't you realize that these people are armed voters from war zones? They might easily tip the balance against Democrats, and are thus racist, homophobic, and quite possibly misogynistic themselves!
A true voter, alive or dead, real or virtual, must therefore have three options for reaching the polls and making their vote count:
(A) They must be registered so their vote van be counted in a precinct, or many precincts depending upon the need.
(B) They must have provisional ballots that can be carried by volunteers for use in precincts other than their home, graveyard, or computer file.
(C) They must have absentee ballots.
OTOH, The live voter presents certain difficulties. They must be bussed all over the place. They whine. They moan. They are affected by the weather. They are unreliable. The street money they can soak up is up there in Soros-Land. Nope, for vote efficiency, give me the dead, or imaginary voter every time.
I hope this has been enlightening for you.
Donna Brazile.
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.