« Babylon Ruins Damaged-- Reconstruction Cometh | Main | The Good, the Bad, and the Mendacious »

January 15, 2005

Comments

G Davis

I started wading through Goddard's analysis but as it happens when I read legaleze my old eyes gloss over. ;)

The first question that comes to mind is would the 1975 case cited be relevant in that election law has changed since then?

I'm certainly no lawyer, so the above may qualify as the dumbest question of the decade...if so, sorry.


I do agree that common sense dictates proof would be needed that any *irregularities* would have gone one way or the other. Were irregularities more proportionally prevalent in solidly *blue* counties than *red*? Would we assume the percentages of the *regular* votes for assessment of which way *iregularities* went?

Barring solid proof of how the votes actually went (and assuming there were irregularities outside the norms of other elections), seems to me it's correct that the courts would be opening the door to contest any *within the margin of victory* election. Seems counterproductive to republican goverance.

I'm no fan of CG, but I'm less a fan of the selective outrage this current batch of Republicans displays. There were elections all across this nation that were close, questionable and if their boy won, the Rep's were silent.

Where is my country and it's principles? insert wailing smilie thing ;)

Erik

But in a nutshell, I think Rossi's hemmed in: either he needs to prove someone intentional tried to fudge votes for Gregoire
>>>

Yes, and that they succeeded.

>>

unlocked vote bags and altered ballots they could examine! Skullduggery and shenanigans!

>>

That's what most people don't understand about Foulkes. They could actually count at least some of the votes that had been changed and how that benefitted one of the parties.

The GOP to date has not been able to show how any of the elections errors benefitted Gregoire.

Torrid

G--do you mean election law in general, or something specific of Washington election law? The last change to the codes were Aug '04, according to the link, so I'm assuming whatever's in there is on the books as the record.

Proportional vote prediction seems like something Rossi has got to be hoping for, but judges are risk-avoidant if anything, and that seems like a mighty big leap. I'd like to see other states who may have taken apportionment as a way to count ballots, and how they did it. If they were going to do anything like that, I think they'd have to have some kind of information about the subset of votes--precincts, type of ballot, vote tallies--before they'd be willing to judge how they went based on percentages. The Foulkes case is interesting that way because they did have 53 known altered ballots, and 46 were changed for one candidate. So even though they did not specifically count enough to overturn, they counted "a number" (as from .110) that they could pin on the putative winner, they got a percentage of the very set of ballots they were talking about, and figured they had enough to go on. So I think there is wiggle room around the statutes, but it has to be on a foundation of something. The provisionals in particular are just hazy votes without record.

I should correct myself--the bags were locked, but the keys were tied to the bag. King's lawyers should make a point to recount the 22 ballots found in a voting station traybasket, that they subsequently rejected for ballot security reasons. I think the standard for neglect is flagrant dereliction. Perhaps the provisionals qualify, but they can't be traced. It seems like Rossi has half the equation a number of ways, but never the full monty.

Thanks for the comments, folks.

Erik

Proportional vote prediction seems like something Rossi has got to be hoping for, but judges are risk-avoidant if anything, and that seems like a mighty big leap.
>>>>>
I have considered this. Would the judges just multiple KC improper provisional ballots by .20 and subtract from Gregoire's lead. The problem is that this is a general stat from KC.

If we are speaking about felons, they are mostly men who preferred Rossi. Also, Eastern King County favored Rossi. Thus, I am not sure than the Washington Supremes will extrapolate with excel spreadsheets with the unknown voters.


Carla

I spent part of yesterday afternoon with a local attorney who read through the various WA State statues on this with me...and gave me the arguments he thought both sides would use. This is my second discussion on this with an attorney..the first was a lawyer from Washington State. (I live in Oregon).

I plan to blog on this tomorrow afternoon (I hope) but the legal issues are looking pretty tough for Rossi as far as I've been able to glean.

But honestly...I don't think that's what this is about.

This is about undermining Gregiore's ability to govern. They want to make her victory so shaky in the eyes of the public that she will be weak and have no political capital to do what she feels is necessary.

That's why I've been so frustrated with the lack of pushback toward Sound Politics blog in the Washington State media market. These blokes are getting a lot of face time to say their piece...and as I blogged again today...their work is sloppy and their fact checking is once again dubious.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

AlsoThinkTank

Blog powered by Typepad