Judge Gives GOP An Opening In Election Challenge

[Scooter24]

Judge Gives GOP An Opening In Election Challenge

WENATHCEE - Republicans won an important victory Monday in their legal challenge of the election of Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire when a judge allowed them to use the "proportional analysis" method in their attempt to prove that illegal votes swayed the election.

However, Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges cautioned Republicans that just because he's allowing them to use the argument does not mean it necessarily will work in the trial that is to begin May 23.

Republican Dino Rossi is challenging Gregoire's November election. Rossi, a former state senator and real estate investor, won the first count and machine recount. But Gregoire, formerly the state's attorney general, won by 129 votes in a hand recount of 2.9 million ballots.

The state Republican Party intervened on Rossi's side and the state Democratic Party intervened on the state's side, defending the election. Republicans are focusing on King County, the state's most populous, where election officials have acknowledged mistakes that allowed some people to vote illegally while not counting other, legal votes.

State law includes provisions for challenging and nullifying an election, but they've never been used to try to kick a governor out of office. In allowing the use of proportional analysis, Bridges gave the GOP a key decision in making their case.

http://komotv.com/news/story.asp?ID=36607

[librechik]

1. why can't we use this in Ohio?

I'm so disgusted by the whole GOP thing.

[merwin]

2. No hard proof was found in Ohio. GOP made sure of that. Only statistical

evidence was found, with a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of possibility of not being fraud.

However, in WA, there is hard evidence that some votes weren't counted properly, which leads to the court's acceptance of the statistical model.

BUT, for it to be statistically accurate, they have to also do a statistical analysis of who felons vote for as well as the county analysis.

[progressivebydesign]

10. ANY election has scads of improperly counted ballots..

.. one needs only the venue and the political clout to have them questioned. In this case, because it is a slimy GOP who wants it questioned, then it happens. If it's the Dems, we are told to get over it!

[Horse with no Name]

19. That's easy

They don't charge their felons--they promote them to higher GOP ranks, so that is why statistically there probably are more convicted felons that are Dems.

[loudsue]

61. There HAS BEEN hard proof found in Ohio....

and that's why the republican judges won't let it come to trial. There is hard evidence of ballots that were altered by hand, with little white paper dots pasted over votes for Kerry, and votes for bush were subsequently punched out and counted as votes for bush. There were also laws broken in methods of recounting counties, and in allowing computer technicians to "tweek" the machines before recounts. There is a huge laundry list of hard proof in Ohio, but the republican courts are sitting on all of it, and not letting it move forward.

:rofl: I guess they think we're going to just "go away" if enough time passes!! Hahahahah! They'd better think again!

:kick:

[MeDeMax]

3. patience dear

let them run with the victory and get as far as they can.

when it is all said and done, we can your question. Be interesting to hear what they have to say then...

[sniffa]

4. what a sore Losermann

[denverbill]

5. The Supreme Court has ruled that time was too critical to recount Florida.

Since it's May, 2005, 7 months after the Washington election, shouldn't the time critical nature of confirming the election results overweigh anything else?

Jesus, we barely even got 1 month in Florida.

[bullimiami]

6. ahhh BULLSHIT.

there is hard evidence in ohio and all over the country if anyone would actually look.

the pukes are tenacious and for whatever reason democrats have turned into total wimps.

no wonder we keep losing.

[DELUSIONAL]

7. the GOPigs know they can cheat and the wimp Dem leadership

won't do a damned thing.

Although the grassroots efforts has massive evidence of wrong doing and crooks in the counting rooms. Apparently the Dem leadership could care less.

Most of the Dems who do win -- only put on an occasional show of acting tough. Barbara Boxer seems to be the only Senator really working for us.

[merwin]

8. I'm not saying there isn't hard evidence. There's just none that has been

allowed to be gathered. GOP owns the government at the moment, which allows them to ignore the rest of the country.

[progressivebydesign]

9. Aparently, REpubs are the only ones allowed to not 'get over it' n/t

[cascadiance]

18. Well, at least we can RE-ELECT Donna Frye now a few months later.

here in San Diego with Dick Murphy's resignation.

Perhaps we can get something back, even though the courts didn't help do the right thing *or* save us valuable money by doing the right thing to begin with!

[WI_DEM]

11. that is the difference between the two parties in this regard

The GOP is still fighting to overturn that election; if the show were on the other foot the Democrats would have given up by now--except for empty rhetoric. We need to be as ruthless as the GOP when it comes to elections.

[AndyTiedye]

14. No, That is Because The Repiglicans Own the Media and Most of the Courts

They can push it up the the USSC if they have to,
and we know what happens to elections when they get there.

[keopeli]

12. John Kerry said he would fight tirelessly for a fair election...

...then he gave up. It was the biggest disappointment for me. I figured the Repubs would attempt to steal it, but I trusted Kerry would not give up. He surrendered almost instantly. He equivocates with, "the margin was too large in Ohio", "there was not a legal principal", "the Republicans run the state elections"...as if I give a flying f#&% about any of that. I wanted my democracy back, and he gave up. I would have marched in the streets of Ohio. I would have joined in massive civil disobedience to expose the fraud. But, John Kerry did not rise to the occasion. Maybe he thought it would "do too much damage". Maybe he thought he could never win. But, if that's the case, that's sure not the attitude I want from my President. The damage being done by Bush* is so great that generations upon generations will pay the price.

And to think that I believed he could lead our country through one of the worst military debaucles in our history. He will likely never regain my faith, nor my vote, nor my support. I sure hope he doesn't get the Democratic nomination in 08. I would have to actually work against him because we can't have a coward in charge of our country, especially in times like these.

Harsh words, I know. But, it's his bed that he made for himself.

Take a stand, folks. We need winners & leaders.

--

Go ahead and flame me or save my post as a disruptor, and while you're at it, take the time to prove me wrong, please. My singular goal at this point is to revive our democracy that died in 2000. Until then, all other arguments are moot - crumbs for us to eat from the table of the fascists and oligarchs.

[merwin]

16. Remember the Alamo. We were significantly outnumbered, not by

the people supporting us, but by the people who were in charge of counting the votes, or giving court rulings. It would have been a great fight, and he may have beaten back a few people, but in the end he would kill his career and probably that of anyone in government who followed him.

He knew that, and retreated. Standing your ground is good, but doing it when you know 100% that you're going to lose is just stupid. There was not one Democrat in the chain of responsibility in Ohio, and up to the Supreme Court if it went that far. He would have lost. Kerry does much more good right now in the senate than if he had fought and been completely disgraced.

Now is the time to regroup and win the next battle.

[keopeli]

20. A valid argument you have, but a little flawed.

I'm from Texas and I do know a bit about the Alamo beyond the legends. The Alamo was a battle that was lost in a war that we won. The battle was significant because it featured the most prominent Texans pitted in a seemingly futile battle who died for what they believed. This steeled the hearts and minds of Texans for generations - even to today. The lost battle of the Alamo was a triumph for the war because of it's principled leaders and heroes.

You suggest that fighting would have almost certainly resulted in defeat. But, sometimes you just have to fight anyway. When you are on the side of truth and justice, you simply can not yield to the enemy. That is no way to win the battle.

By giving up, we validated the message of the Republicans which is that it doesn't matter how you count votes or what you do to manipulate the voting. All that matters is that you win, even at the expense of Democracy itself. I am virulently opposed to that message.

Had Kerry stood up and said, they've done it again and this time they will NOT get away with it, I believe millions of people would have risen up. In fact, it's possible that the momentum of such a rise may have changed the course of history. Instead, he sheepishly conceded saying he would wait to fight another day.

Had the defenders of the Alamo said this, the War for Texas' Independence might never have been won.

Now, we have to tolerate living in a fascist state that is becoming increasingly oppressive and suppressive. And history will record that Bush* was elected without contest - an utter lie that will forever be believed to be true.

I say shame on Kerry, and shame on all of us for our inaction.

Thanks for the exchange, Merwin!

[MeDeMax]

17. no flame, I see your point, I am sure Kerry had his reasons...

hindsight is 20/20, don't know if he would have conceeded had he known what we know now, exit poll & voting irregularities wise.

It was a shock to one and all that the prez was even within striking distance behind kerry, let alone ahead of him.

I still can't fathom the public that voted the way they did...

hurts to even think about it.

[progressivebydesign]

52. No flame from me. n/t

[The Straight Story]

53. Kerry didn't lose, we did

We lost our country - and what miffs me about Kerry is how he was able to go to vietnam where people were trying to kill you and fight, but here where the only thing on the line might be his reputation (which would not have suffered really as the people that did vote for him still would have backed him) he chose not to fight.

Ok, some will say he will fight a more strategic battle later, or took the fall for the good of the party (ala fears that the general populace would look at dems as sore losers and become disenfranchised with them 'whining' then they lost). But there was/is a lot more at stake then his reputation, his job, or how people might view the battle.

I fall back to the old hitler thing (ie, using him in an analogy) - would anyone just let him off the hook for 4 more years of power simply because they did not want to seem 'whiny' etc? Would they say, let him stay in power without a fight, we will try again in 4 years?

Dems, liberals, progressives, unions, gays, and so on all backed Kerry, believed in him enough to get out the vote and try to make him the leader of the US. When it came time for him to sacrifice and do his part, he just walked away preferring a different type of fight later on perhaps. He had the spotlight, and turned it off.

How many people will suffer because of this? Could he have changed things? Maybe not the outcome - but I damn well bet the press would have had to deal with the voting issues, people would have been educated, and that seed in the back of their mind about diebold/etc would start to sprout.

The right already hated him, they already hated the left, a few people in the middle might have crossed the other way, but then too some would finally see the light and cross to our side.

Either way we might have lost the election, and the end result would not have changed - but at least we could have used momentum, fired up the people, and had a dynamic and vibrant movement.

It died. It is still there, among us here and some blogs and internet news sites. But when the very person who lost is not crying fraud and pushing hard to make things change (nor are many of the other leaders) then we start to see why people are apathetic about. Voting issues are still being examined, some headway might even be being made, but it is so far down the stack of important items to our elected leaders that I am not surprised the avg american does not seem to care.

Leaders set agendas, goals, they get the people fired up about them, they go on tv and talk about them instead of letting the news dicks define what they will talk about. They hammer it home, again and again.

The fire died down to but a few embers, and why we must ask don't our leaders stoke it and get the flames going? Why have they abandoned the people out here who want answers and change? The avg american is not going to sit around day after day reading DU, blogs, et al - their attention span is sometimes too short - unless it gets in the news, in the papers, unless the message is thrust upon them and their busy life (and I am not slamming them, just making an observation on habits).

So now it falls to us, when it should be on the shoulders of the people we pay, the people we go to work each day and give part of our paycheck to - to do the job we must now do ourselves. If they are not going to represent us and our issues, I cannot see why we should support them.

On the other hand - yes, there are a LOT of other issues which must be dealt with now as well, ones which must be faced and dealt with so need talked about. But we can talk about more then one thing at a time. And unless we flood the masses with the obvious crap we have seen and are seeing, we will again lose momentum.

We need some fire and brimstone leaders, not the sisters of compassionate mercy holed up in their convent praying for change. We have the workers, we just seem to lack the leaders (again, we do have some, but sadly far too few).

Rant over for now.

[MeDeMax]

62. well said n/t

[bluedeminredstate]

13. What's with all these close elections?

It seems that the Gore/Bush election started a trend in these razor thin victories and/or upsets in races like Georgia 2002, not to mention the total fuck-up of the exit polls this past election. Is it that the repugs haven't gotten their formula down yet to steal them with enough leeway so as not to draw attention to the race in question? I'm serious - what gives? Has it always been like this?

:shrug:

[AndyTiedye]

15. It Wasn't Always Like This

We used to have a free press.
We used to have mostly free and fair elections.
Not anymore.

Now we have Fauxnews and Diebold.

We now have a one-party state.
Only symbolic opposition is tolerated.

Ask Senator Wellstone and Senator Carnahan what happens to real opposition.

and Senator Boxer, WE LOVE YOU! Stay off of small airplanes!

[StuckinBFE]

21. GOP Wins Election Challenge in Washington

WENATCHEE, Wash. -- The Republicans won an important victory Monday in their legal challenge to the election of Gov. Christine Gregoire when a judge allowed them to use a type of statistical analysis to try to prove illegal votes swayed the race.

Republican Dino Rossi is trying to have the election results from November declared invalid. Rossi won the first count and a machine recount, but his Democratic opponent won by 129 votes in a hand recount of 2.9 million ballots.

.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050200752.html

[Dr Fate]

22. it's good that some people are not afraid to challenge elections.

Perhaps DEMs will take note.

[liberal N proud]

23. What about Ohio and Florida then?

This simply blows!

:mad:
:wtf:

[paineinthearse]

38. It would take someone with a backbone to bring a challenge

Unfortunately, Kerry showed his lack of one on November 3.

[ibid]

43. GOP won right to use a type of statistical analysis -they did NOT WIN CASE

headline is misleading

[Mandate My Ass]

24. Where are the screams of tinfoiler hatters and conspiracy

theorists? Oh, wait, never mind...:eyes:

[kegler14]

28. It is amusing to watch the hypocrisy on FR...

If Democrats had won a ruling to use this kind of statistical analysis, the Freepers would be screaming about how liberals will do ANYTHING to win. Instead, they're celebrating.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rocktivity]

25. Careful what you wish for, GOP

If it can happen to a governor, it could happen to a President!

:headbang:
rocknation

[renaissanceguy]

32. God I hope so.

But that would mean our Dem leaders need a SPINE. We can't just let these thugs take over our country.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/588704

[Dr Ron]

36. Doubt it is possilbe

From the Washington Post article:

"State law includes provisions for challenging and nullifying an election, but they have never been used to try to remove a governor."

I doubt there is any legal basis for nullifying a Presidential election--but it is a great thought.

If nothing else, it gives credibility to statistical analysis of elections and makes it easier to question Bush's legitimacy.

[blm]

26. And judges in Ohio threw out cases brought by the Democrats.

One of the biggest problems in this country is that most of the judiciary are Republican tools.

[Straight Shooter]

50. Yeah, those damn activist judges.

:P

[miss_kitty]

27. Well I think they have to prove which votes came off illegal ballots

And IIRC, the Dems have their own model, which proves the opposite. The Thugs did not want the Dems to challenge when THEY were ahead, citing 'cost to the taxpayer' as a reason not to. :eyes:

[daleo]

29. If this is the ruling, it should become a precedent.

Of course it would probably get the "one time only" treatment from SCOTUS like the Bush-Gore decision.

[renaissanceguy]

33. Our elections are becoming a big joke.

Just look at it, our elections are being decided by power hungry Repugs and their judicial tools.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/588704

[daleo]

39. If the Washington state election gets overturned this way,

It would pretty much prove exactly what you say.

[Benhurst]

44. Becoming a joke?

They are a joke.

[The Doctor.]

30. Oh the Hypocrisy...

This is just painful.

Those tinfoil hat, conspiracy theory paranoid Republicans probably think {spooky voice} a-Ali-ens {/spooky voice} fixed the election.

[Tace]

31. My Guess Is That The GOP Will Lose, Setting A Precident For

any furthur analysis of the Nov. presidential "election."

[glitch]

40. Hmm. Good point.

They do know how to strategize, don't they?

[FreedomAngel82]

49. I hope

Hopefully the people who are still working on this election and investigation's will keep an eye on what happens.

[maxrandb]

34. Those Damn Activist Judges n/t

[SharonRB]

35. I just read this from a link on Raw Story and

was livid when I saw it. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, don't you think? We should take a page from their playbook. Unfortunately, with all the Republican judges in Ohio and Florida, it's probably not possible, but we need to get someone to look at all of the statistical analysis that's been done in the presidential race. They think there were illegal votes in Washington State, they should just take a good, hard look at Ohio and Florida -- illegal votes, lack of votes due to disenfranchisement, etc. There's so much evidence that something's not right and no one will listen.

:wtf:

[paineinthearse]

37. John Kerry, are you reading this?

Oh ye who rolled over so quickly.

[merwin]

45. Rossi has publically stated that he doesn't care if he is in politics.

He actually expects to be disgraced politically if he loses this challenge. However, Kerry is already a Senator... losing a seat in the Senate because Kerry makes a fool out of himself (note that the GOP owns Ohio and our federal government, and they blocked ANY access to any information by anyone) would be stupid. We need all the Senators that we can get at the moment.

[sweetheart]

41. The rule of the thuggish majority

has displaced the rule of law. There is no longer a constitution,
or any consensus, except to be ruled by a criminal mafia what define
whimsically laws as they need them, and disregard them when they don't.

The problem for the dems, is without any majorities in any branch of
government, they are not able to arbitrarily re-define truth as they
need it, as it only works when the vocal minority do it (GOP).

The white slaver's constitution is over. Its time we grew up and
called a spade a spade, lest we end up in shackles on a plantation.

[Robert Oak]

42. huh, didn't statistics get thrown out in 2000?

and aren't statistics in 2004 labeled "conspiracy theories"?

Talk about have your cake and eat it too...

the only hope is this ruling stands for both parties.

Here's another story on this, local news.

http://www.katu.com/stories/76862.html

[Rainscents]

46. I wonder why Judge OK for trial... Do you think, he did this, knowing

GOP had anything? I think, he just want to hear the whole case, just said, he was being fair to GOP.

[keopeli]

47. God, I hate misleading headlines.

If you live here and you are following things, this is a blip.

The Dems argued that using this statistical analysis model, based on the percentage of overall votes a candidate received in a county to determine what a felon who voted illegally would have voted, was guess work and should not be accepted.

HOWEVER, we are NOT dumb Democrats here in Seattle. While the Dems said this model should not be used, they have proceeded to USE THIS VERY MODEL in preparing their case.

Repubs cherry-picked heavily Democratic counties to discover illegal votes. So, the Dems have gone to heavy Republican counties and done the same thing, and finding much the same results. Now, when the Repubs say, King County (Democratic) had a bunch of illegal votes and since King county leans Democratic, they were mostly for the Democrat!, the Dems can say that the same thing happened in Spokane (Republican) and they are heavily Republican!

See? Everything is fine. Well, everything in my home is fine. The Washington Post doesn't do their homework well and writes misleading headlines.

[UrbScotty]

48. You lost! GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's what they've been telling us!

[bain_sidhe]

51. Gee, the Gov'ship of Washington must be key to their plans

to take over the country.

Either that, or the precedents that are/will be set in the fight are key to their plans for taking over the country. Those are the only reasons I can figure for them continuing to fight this election.

[BamaLefty]

54. AP Link

http://www.al.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1115079773238310.xml&storylist=politics

[Dr Fate]

55. Imagine that- a party that sticks by it's voters.

I wish I could be in party that did that.

[onehandle]

Washington state ruling Aids Republican challenge

SEATTLE (Reuters) - A judge gave Washington state Republicans a victory on Monday that kept alive their legal challenge to last November's razor-thin election win by Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire.

Gregoire took office in January following a 129-vote margin of victory -- the closest in a governor's race in state history.

Republican candidate Dino Rossi has refused to concede the race, which he won narrowly in the first count only to lose in a later, final recount.

Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges has ruled Republicans can use what is known as "proportional analysis" in their legal argument to potentially take votes away from Gregoire.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050503/pl_nm/politics_washington_dc_2

SoreLosermen may get their way.

[ibid]

57. The trial starts in a few weeks - I doubt the GOP will win anything.

:-)

[magellan]

58. This is nothing but an attempt to wind us up

They know a similar analysis of the presidential race shows Bush** lost (again). They're just pissing in the wind because they can. Don't give the bastards any power over you.

[farmbo]

59. Just for laughs...contrast Washington and Ohio...

Washington State (GOP challenges a narrow loss):

1. Six months of litigation with extensive discovery, including many depositions taken under oath; and,
2. A Court allows the GOP to use of a goofy, untested "proportional analysis" scheme to push for yet another recount.

Ohio (Democrats and Voting Rights advocates challenge a narrow Bush victory):

1.Ohio Supreme court summarily dismisses a legal challenge without allowing a scintilla of discovery while protecting GOP vote counters from testifying under oath; and
2. Court blithely ignores reams of Exit Poll analysis and machine tampering affidavits; and
2. Attorney General seeks to require Voting Rights attorneys to pay personal sanctions for bringing the case in the first place.

What a difference a POLITICAL PARTY makes.

[jody]

60. If SCOTUS were to approve statistical analysis like this, the GOP would

lose much more than it won. There was overwhelming statistical evidence in Florida supporting Gore in particular the votes for Buchanan in the infamous butterfly ballot debacle.
If the GOP wins the battle, it may lose the war. I'll drink to that :toast: