Judge Upholds Washington Governor's Election

[Vernal45]

Monday, June 06, 2005

WENATCHEE, Wash. — Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges on Monday ruled that he found no evidence of fraud in last fall's Washington state gubernatorial election, upholding the narrow victory of Gov. Christine Gregoire (search), the Democratic candidate.

Bridges concluded that more than 1,600 illegal votes had been cast in the election, but said it would be up to Washington voters, not him, to fix flaws in the election system.

"Unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken, their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts," Bridges said as he announced his decision.

"This court is not in the position to fix the deficiencies in the election process," Bridges added. "However, the voters are in a position to demand of their legislative and executive bodies that remedial measures be taken immediately."

State Republicans said they would appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Attorneys for state Republicans and Democrats, as well as state elections director Nick Handy, gathered in a Wenatchee courtroom to hear Bridges' ruling on the challenge to Gregoire's election.

Gregoire won her seat by 129 votes against Republican Dino Rossi (search) after two recounts.

Rossi, a commercial real estate agent and former state senator, made a long-shot bid against Gregoire, a three-term attorney general who was the anointed successor to Democratic Gov. Gary Locke. But his promise of a fresh start in Olympia left Gregoire struggling to define herself.

Rossi won the first count by 261 votes, then watched his lead shrink to 42 in a machine recount. In a hand recount of 2.8 million ballots, Gregoire won by 129 votes, the smallest margin in percentage terms of any governor's race in the nation's history.

Republicans sued five days before Gregoire's inauguration and sought to have a new election held in November. They concentrated their investigation into flaws in the election departments in the Democratic stronghold of King County, the state's most populous county, which includes Seattle.

Their charges pointed to inaccurate mail ballot reports and county election director Dean Logan's admission that he didn't know whether the results were accurate within 129 votes.

Bridges agreed with Republicans that 1,400 felons voted illegally and 19 people counted among voters were actually dead on Election Day. Six people voted twice and hundreds of provisional ballots were counted without verifying voter registrations.

As a result of the difficulties, the state Legislature has passed several election reform bills this year, but has left many others on the table.

"This is the biggest mess I've ever seen," GOP attorney Dale Foreman said in his opening statement as the trial began last month. "The system is broken and it must be fixed."

Democratic attorneys said the GOP lacked the clear and convincing proof needed to justify overturning the election. The election errors that Republicans characterized as "sinister" Democrats described as innocent mistakes that happen in every county, in every election.

"It's not enough to show a mistake, it's not enough to show a bad mistake, and it's not enough to show a really bad mistake," Democratic attorney Jenny Durkan said in her closing argument last week.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Polishrifleman]

Hooray for the Blue States

As a Washington native this is a very troubling item. It really goes to show what a vote really means. We are a divided state, geographically by a mountain range, economically by a mountain range, opinions by a mountain range, and although we want the process to work it is obviously flawed. Was there a grand conspiracy, I think not. Would I love to have the republicans in office, sure I would. Does our state need a clear cut governor before Seattle gets a mass transit solution, I think that would be nice but don't know for sure.

I don't think that this is huge news elsewhere so the post is appreciated.

 

[Jammer Six]

I'm also a native Washintonian.

Born here, raised here, lived here most of my life.

We live in a great system of checks and balances, and my reaction to the ruling is relief that it's over.

At some point, because our systems don't give unlimited power to anyone, it's better to have any Governor than one particular Governor.

Furthermore, if the election had been overturned, future elections could look forward to an unending series of legal challenges, just like countries that negotiate with terrorist for hostages can look forward to more hostages.

If a simple series of legal challenges can be permitted to delay an election forever, that's what we'd get- legal challenges.

Furthermore, if we allow Governor Gregoire to be unseated by the decision of a single judge, there is no reason to expect that a Governor we WANT to win would ever be allowed to govern.

At some point, you admit that due process has happened, that it's over, and you get on with your life.

The process is more important than the result.

The process was carried out, to the best of our ability. How good that ability is will never be known, but it was the best we could do, and it's the best we have. Because of that process, and because she doesn't have absolute power, it's good enough for me.

No one knows who got more votes, but then, no one ever knows. It's not possible to count the votes for ANY election twice, and come up with the same number. Ever.

She's our Governor.

As such, and because I expect your respect for that office if a Governor I vote for wins, regardless of who you vote for, she has my respect, and her office has my support.

 

[Bruce H]

Thank you Christine, you have made it very plain where you stand.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'd guess the Democratic (sic) party fix is in.

 

[jefnvk]

Bridges concluded that more than 1,600 illegal votes had been cast in the election, but said it would be up to Washington voters, not him, to fix flaws in the election system.

"Unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken, their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts," Bridges said as he announced his decision.

Ummm...

Don't thowse two sentences kinda contradict each other?

And to those saying that she won, let's not bog it down in court, she won on the third count. After losing two times. Even if this had been best of three, she still would have lost. She could hope to win the best of five, but we aren't playing that game. Furthermore, she won by less than one tenth the number of votes that were announced to be illegal.

Would a recall be a possibility, if there were enough people angered over this (As I am sure there are)?

 

[Jammer Six]

It's over.

Dino Rossi just "conceded".

Governor Gregoire is now the undisputed Governor.

 

[Fletchette]

It's over.

I agree, When the courts acknowledge evidence of voting fraud, especially voting fraud demonstrated to be large enough to change the outcome of the election, and then decides not to order a new election (the normal common-sense solution) and instead just pick a governor, it is indeed over... Government of the People, that is.

 

[rwc]

It really goes to show

that the system worked and that the state Republican party didn't have a case.

 

[Jammer Six]

RWC, That's exactly right!

Now, if the rest of the nation will let us choose our own Governor, we'll get on with our collective lives.

 

[pax]

The identity of the winner of Washington's election might never be known, but we should all know who the loser was:

The voter.

pax

"They care, we don't. They win." -- Douglas Adams

 

[jefnvk]

So Jammer, you don't mind that they recounted till she won, and when she did come out ahead, the admitted number of illegal votes was ten times her winning margin?

Apathy will kill the country. Somehow, I think that if this happened 150 years ago, the population would have probably used the 2nd amendment.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

The judge basicly ruled that ballot privacy means you can never overturn an election result, because you can't prove who the illegal votes were cast for. You'll have to track down the illegal voters, I suppose, and get affidavits from them attesting to who they voted for...

 

[Henry Bowman]

What this means is thet the Dems will never be held accountable in the state of Washington for any amount of cheating. Given that fact, the only available countermeause is for the opposition party to learn how to cheat better.

Sad.

 

[priv8ter]

Sigh

I would like to have seen Rossi win. I'm a libertarian, but both my wife and I voted for Rossi in the election.

What makes me mad in this case is the 'Holier-than-thou' attitudes adopted by each party. Yes, the Dems sniviled and asked for recounts until they won. And prior to each recount, the side winning at the time said for 'The good of the state', the losing side should give up. The Repub's said this twice, the Dems said it after the hand recount, and then the repubs get all mad...'Why didn't YOU give up when WE told you too...now we can't give up! And then the Dems were calling the Repubs hypoctites, for daring to challenge the hand recount.

Grrrrr.

The fact is, the same thing would have happened if the Dems had won the first counts, with the Repubs winning the hand recount. I would be willing to bet that speaches would have been almost word for word the same, and the Republicans would be calling the Democrats Hypocrites.

It's just an ugly situation all the way around, but the numbers were too close, and the prize was too big not to fight over.

The only good solution would be to say that neither Rossi or Gregoire are worthy of being Governor, and so we need to put Ruth Bennet(L) in the office.

greg

 

[PaulV]

As such, and because I expect your respect for that office if a Governor I vote for wins, regardless of who you vote for, she has my respect, and her office has my support.

All hail the elected queen. I wonder if you'll feel the same way when the assault weapons and .50 cal ban bills roll around again next year?

Hitler was elected too. Did that entitle him to respect?

 

[Jammer Six]

Goodwin's law. You'll find it, and thank you.

 

[lunaslide]

The judge said that it was not his place to challenge the inneptitude and misconduct of the elections officials and that the people must hold them accountable.

How are we supposed to hold them accountable when those who manage the election cannot be trusted? What this verdict said to the cheaters was they should go for it, cheat all they want because Washington State law will not bring any consequences to bear on those who do. And as was demonstrated by this past legislative session, the ruling Democratic party not only has no interest in making meaningful reforms to the election system, it will make it even easier next time to cheat by making the whole state mail-in ballot only.

"He who votes decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything." - Joseph Stalin

The whole thing makes me ill.

 

[RealGun]

I don't see where anyone has drawn a parallel to the 2000 presidential election. If you changed the names to Bush and Gore, I wonder how the statements would play.

No one knows who got more votes, but then, no one ever knows. It's not possible to count the votes for ANY election twice, and come up with the same number. Ever.

She's our Governor.

As such, and because I expect your respect for that office if a Governor I vote for wins, regardless of who you vote for, she has my respect, and her office has my support.

I feel the same about the Presidency.

 

[Jammer Six]

How are we supposed to hold them accountable when those who manage the election cannot be trusted?

That's a matter for a civics class. It has nothing to do with this election or discussion, other than, perhaps, to explain why you hold the views you've expressed.

The judge was absolutely correct that his courtroom was no place to take that question up, and that it is our duty, not his, to change the system.

The middle of an election, and certainly the middle of a dispute over an election is no time to change the rules or the laws.

I feel the same about the Presidency.

As do I.

I've always been extremely careful, since the moment of his inauguration, to call him "President Clinton".

That way, if someone I support ever wins, I can hold a moral expectation for the same level of respect.

Disdain and contempt for a politician is and always has been, apparently, in fashion, but I care nothing for fashion. I respect the office(s), and I pay respect to anyone who holds them.

There is only one method of expressing contempt for a politician that means anything, and everything else doesn't reflect on the politician in question.

 

[lunaslide]

How are we supposed to hold them accountable when those who manage the election cannot be trusted?

That's a matter for a civics class. It has nothing to do with this election or discussion, other than, perhaps, to explain why you hold the views you've expressed.

Nice dodge, but it doesn't answer the question which is, in fact, not simply a matter for "civics class". It has everything to do with this election, which demonstrated that the election contest statute in Washington is ill-equipped to deal with elections as close as this one, much less with elections that have seen an inexcusable level of incompetence.

There is one appropriate measure that can be taken in light of what happened here: the election statue is changed to compel a run-off election in the event of a "tie", defined as being when the margin of error in the election is larger than the margin of victory.

The middle of an election, and certainly the middle of a dispute over an election is no time to change the rules or the laws.

I didn't say that the judge should have ruled the other way. I stated how he did rule and asked a question which he did not address with his verdict. Under the law as it currently stands, the judge made the proper legal decision. It is conceivable that he could have struck the contest statue down because it is essentially meaningless, but no one expected him to do it.

But my question still stands. How do we change the law to reflect the will of the voters when the voters' will is consistently ignored and marginalized by the ruling class in the state? Efforts to get an election contest statute initiative started are already under way, but considering the recent gutting of I-601 in the past legislative session, what hope is there that it will even matter?

It isn't the judgement that makes me ill, it's the whole thing. What good is an election contest when meeting the bar to have it voided is impossibly high? What good is voting in a county when you can't even be sure it will count?

 

[Fletchette]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"This court is not in the position to fix the deficiencies in the election process," Bridges said. "However, the voters are in a position to demand of their legislative and executive bodies that remedial measures be taken immediately."

Anyone see a contradiction?

 

[rwc]

Hitler was elected too. Did that entitle him to respect?

PaulV - Do you honestly believe that is a reasonable analogy? Hitler first served Germany in the infantry. Would you feel so free to analogize him to the men and women of our armed forces on the basis that he too served in the military? I hope not.

 

[RealGun]

Anyone see a contradiction? - flechette

None whatsoever.

Congress shall make no law [] abridging the [] right of the people []to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

the voters are in a position to demand of their legislative and executive bodies that remedial measures be taken immediately."

I hope we don't expect the Court to address all grievances directly. What they can address are unconstitutional laws and applications. What they can't address are things we don't like but which are technically legitimate Congressional acts. Regrettably, what they tend not to address, using transparent rationalizing that we don't always see in public commentary, sometimes only implication, are questions which would force upsetting the status quo. Thus Thomas' popularity and contempt for the Court in general. If Thomas is considered a lightweight, then it would follow that it doesn't take a genius to see through what the Court is doing and what they should be doing.

 

[Henry Bowman]

The middle of an election, and certainly the middle of a dispute over an election is no time to change the rules or the laws.

Change the rules or the laws?! Are you kidding me?! Isn't it already the law in Washington that dead people can't vote, that felons can't vote, and that each eligble voter can only vote once???? Didn't the court recognize that all three of these things happened and to an extent more than ten times the margin of win?

To choose to ignore the existing rules and laws in the middle of an election, and certainly in the middle of a dispute over an election, is changing the rules! :banghead: