« Sharkansky and the Sosin Challenge, Part II | Main | Revelations from Secret Bush Tapes »

February 19, 2005




Where did you get the GOP pleading? As soon as I read the transcript was attached to the GOP memorancum I looked for it on various sites, but coudln't find the GOP memo. Was it just posted?

While I agree from a policy point of view, that its better to have the case in Court, I found Bridges claim that the 1977 amendments to the election laws constituted such a legislative delegation too cursory to be persuasive.

Judge Bridges is very persuaded by the broad claim of judicial power in Foulkes, a very poorly reasoned case. And as I feared he uses it to find that the errors statute, .011, INDEPENDENTLY creates grounds for a contest on the basis of "misconduct", "neglect", and "error in the issuance of a certificate of election. God knows what he could find was an "error" or "neglect" if he wanted to. True he explicitly states that any claim under .011 will have to meet the requirements of .070. I'll comment more on this when you address it. But I really do blame the DEM lawyers for not addressing Foulkes more in their briefs.

BTW are you a lawyer?


Nope, not a lawyer. And I don't think I've been authorized to say where I got my copy. I've come across it, let's say. Maybe I'm making a cloak and dagger situation where there is none, but I haven't asked so I won't say.

I'm more sanguine about his ruling I think, because I agree with the level of standard at each step. You have to be liberal in receiving causes for contest IMO, because otherwise you cut off that avenue at birth in too many cases. The pre-trial standard of "can this be taken seriously," is fair enough for me, and while I think it's an entirely thin case, the nature of the margin and the general truth about the number of apparent illegally cast votes makes it rationally questionable.

Foulkes is going to be relied on no matter what the Dems try, I think, since it seems to be the closest analogue to what Rossi is claiming (even though it's not really very close at all, that's just a function of the lack of major contest cases in WA or anywhere for that matter).

Bridges does say at the end, to the effect that Foulkes had been beating the Dems about the head all day, but it also granted them the motion to deny a revote.



Thanks for posting the copy of the transcript of the judge's rulings. I have been wanting to read it for quite a while (but was too cheap to try getting a copy from the court clerk).


absolutely, Micajah. Please come back for Part Two, because the stuff on the revote is of course relevant to our discussions, and revealed for me what I think is additional, Constitution-based evidence preventing a 2005 election for governor.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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


Blog powered by Typepad