#48#
[next in a series covering the Washington State 2004 gubernatorial election contest trial, being conducted in Wenatchee, Chelan County Superior Court, before Judge John Bridges. Previous postings in the series:
Week One Wrapup
Day Five Morning Session
Day Four Wrapup
Day Three Wrapup
Day Three Morning Session
Day Two Wrapup
Day Two Morning Session
Day One Wrapup
Day One Morning Session]
As the Democrats and King County continued their defense of the '04 election, state Elections Director Nick Handy took the stand. Counsel Durkan began the questioning and in many respects began a review of the material gleaned from Friday's roll call of county auditors, in order to establish both the statewide prevalance of elections errors similar to King's, and the lack of perception in those areas that the errors constituted fraud. For example, Durkan asked Hardy whether the vote count changes that occurred during recounts in King, Pierce and Spokane Counties were an indicator of any type of fraud. Working around several Rossi objections, Handy was able to reply, "No, those were the kind of mistakes we were expecting," and that as counties learn more about the tally, the count does change.
In an exchange that the GOP team would be quick to jump on in the afternoon session (look! I'm seeing into the future!), Durkan attempted to get the SoS's view of voter crediting--the process that consumed right wing advocates like Sharkansky for months, making them sure that fraud and error had fully compromised the election. Durkan's question about whether the crediting system is an indication of who actually voted, Handy responded in paraphrase:
No, it's not required during the canvass. Some auditors integrate crediting into the reconciliation process, but there's not anything in state law requiring it to be done...there are a lot of reasons--10 or 15 reasons why comparing credits to ballots is not an indicator of the accuracy of the election.
Durkan then turned to Handy's assessment of the actions of Way and Fell, the two King personnel who admitted entering information they could not verify, into the absentee ballot totals form. Knowing that Reed had called the situation "appalling," Durkan asked if Handy agreed. He did not, choosing to respectfully disagree, characterizing the problem in his judgement as two people trying as hard as they could to do their jobs. The pattern continued as Durkan turned to provisional ballots misfed before validation, which led Handy to respond (again paraphrased), "Do we have serious concerns about provisional ballots being fed through before validation? Absolutely. Do I feel that it had a serious impact on the outcome of the election? No. Why? Because in our experience we have found that those ballots tend to fall the way the total election went.
Counsel Forman handled the cross, and got into reviewing the GOP's exhibits. When asked about the 'disproportionate number' of discrepancies in the Queen Anne's Hill district mentioned by GOP witness Clark Bensen, Handy replied, "I remember it tended to support your side." When asked whether the SoS office would be taking a position on proportional reduction, Handy said they would not take any position on the acceptance or rejection of the statistical theory. However, when asked if he believed there was some other way beyond proportional reduction to prove the existence of illegal votes, Handy did not--saying "which is why we support the use of circumstantial evidence in this case." However, he strongly resisted the attempt by Forman to assert that crediting was a requirement of the law, twice consecutively making an emphatic statement that it was not.
Forman was just warming up, and right before lunch the sparks started to fly, as they did when GOP witness Jonathon Katz was being cross-examined by counsel Burman. When asked what he would have done had he personally received Nicole Way's "it's hopeless" email, Handy replied that he would have dispatched Paul Miller from their office to assist them--as he had done for Grays Harbor County. But when pressed as to whether he would have halted or refused the certified totals from the counties in order to pass it on to the legislature, he noted that "our role to not accept the certification is very limited," explaining that the framers of the law wanted power specificially vested to the counties, rather than the SoS office.
Forman then began reviewing emails sent between Handy and county officials, attempting to show that Handy was explicitly helping people like Dean Logan to work around or ignore the errors they were making, and what kind of public face to put on their explanations for the problems. At one point, frustrated, Forman blurted out, "Are you neutral in this case?" Handy's reply of yes flabbergasted Forman, and he asked again, incredulously. After another yes from Handy, Forman launched into a question that I wish I had caught verbatim, but which amounted to "So you want to dishonor this court by trying to undermine the Republican's case?"
Handy got in the last word before lunch (again paraphrased from notes) : "I believe the GOP had invalid claims, that they were manipulating information with a very misleading campaign that was not correct or accurate--and I wanted this issue exposed."
Woo!
Court recessed at 12:02, to be continued at 1:15.
--TJ
Comments