The Flag of the World

17 Responses to “Rossi v. Gregoire: Democrat Doublespeak”

1. timothy Says:
   January 14th, 2005 at 11:15 pm

   here’s another one
   Dear …

   Thanks for taking the time to contact my office. I appreciate learning your views on the gubernatorial election. Please excuse the length of this letter, but I think it is important that I thoroughly explain my views on this crucial topic and what I have learned by talking to many people in both political parties. I have to tell you up front that I do not support the proposal to hold another election for governor.

   The recount process followed current Washington laws.

   Several years ago, the legislature established the current election and recount laws (and Senator Rossi voted for them) that reaffirmed that a recount must occur in any election where the two candidates are separated by one-half of one percent or less. The law also established one additional recount, by hand, if paid for by candidates or parties. That is the process that was followed in the 2004 governor’s race. In the hand recount, each ballot was examined by one Republican, one Democrat, and one neutral person who had to agree on the voter’s intent before a ballot was counted. While the 723 additional ballots in King County received lots of press, there were actually 4,018 additional ballots added to the manual recount, many of those in counties that Mr. Rossi carried.

   The main problem with the governor’s race is that it was very, very close.

   With over 300 people elected by the voters in Washington State this year, I find it difficult to say that there were major problems with the election. Yes, it was the closest gubernatorial election in state history, but closeness is not a reason for voiding an election – at least in my view.

   We finished the most accurate vote count in state history.

   Votes have been checked, double checked and triple checked under the eyes of thousands of Democratic and Republican county auditors, observers and elections officials providing ample opportunity for counties to correct any errors.

   In the hand count, every precinct is manually counted by teams (each composed of a Democrat, a Republican, and a non-affiliated person) who must cross-verify their counts. The result is compared to the results from the prior machine count and any difference between the two is investigated and resolved. This approach combines the benefits of both types of count and is far more accurate than either a machine count alone or a manual count alone. There were zero complaints of irregularities from any of the persons in any of the 39 counties in the state. Those directly involved in counting the ballots seemed to agree that it was a good process. Not one single county auditor has questioned the legality of this election.

   As reported in the Seattle Times 12/29/04 “Your Questions Answered” article: “Under Washington state law, the hand recount is reserved for only the closest elections. John Pearson, the state’s deputy elections director said, “the most accurate recount is when a machine recount is combined with a manual one, such as in this election, so the counts can be compared and rectified.”

   We cannot have a “re-vote.”

   State law does not provide for run-off elections in close races. A further problem is that there is no guarantee that all of the people who voted in the November election would vote in a new election—they cannot be forced to vote. What would happen with voters who died between the elections? How about voters who have registered since October, 2004? There is no precedent for limiting an election to only the candidates who were on the November ballot. Other candidates may wish to file for the new election. Can they be denied access to the ballot? A Libertarian candidate was also on the November ballot. Would she be denied access because she received a smaller number of votes? Whatever happened, it would not be a “re-vote,” as many situations would change.

   Costs of a new election would be substantial.

   In addition to the approximately $5 million cost of running a new statewide election, each of the candidates would raise millions of dollars to finance their campaigns. Since this would be the only race in the nation, many individuals and groups across the country would likely pour large amounts of money into the campaigns.

   No fraud or other major violations of law have been charged or proven.

   There have been no verified charges of fraud or violations of law substantiated by anybody to date. All 39 counties certified their elections and none of the people involved in counting ballots have presented any verified challenges. No county elections officer has questioned the election process in his/her county.

   The state’s chief elections officer certified the election and has found no legal grounds for challenging the election.

   “I do not feel this has been a botched election. Nothing I have been informed about rises to the level of fraud,” says Secretary of State Sam Reed (R), the state’s chief elections officer. He says that he has not heard or seen of any fraud in the election.

   Claims of excess ballots are unfounded—Republicans received early voters’ lists.

   As to the claims being made about more ballots than voters, that is questionable. The Republican Party was told that those were preliminary lists. Due to the length of the recount and the staff required to conduct it, counties have not done the final reconciliation between 2004 voters and the county voter files. Some military voters are allowed to register at the time they vote, and that has to be added. Address confidentiality voters have to be included—people who use a special PO Box address. And each poll book has to be checked to make sure all voters were included. Most counties have not had time to do this yet.

   The election is not a best two out of three playoff format. State law says the winner of the last recount is the winner.

   And as the Seattle Times (a paper that endorsed Rossi) says, “It’s not a playoff series. If you need a sports metaphor, consider the recounts as an instant replay of a disputed call. The point was to look for errors in the initial count.” And some were found without any change in the rules or bending of state laws.

   Washington is what is called an “intent” state.

   That means that county auditors have the responsibility to try to determine a voter’s intention, even if the ballot is marked differently. For instance, a ballot is not thrown out if a voter makes an “X” instead of filling out the oval, or if two or more corners of a ballot chad are removed.

   County elections officials bent over backwards to help military voters cast their ballots.

   There are always ballots mailed to auditors after Election Day, and none of those ballots were counted. It is unfortunate that the federal government cancelled the SERVE project that would have allowed U.S. military and civilian voters living overseas to vote via secure Internet sites. The Defense Department cancelled the project because it was not sure Internet voting would work. I hope that they continue to work on the idea during the next four years because it would be a fast alternative to ballot delivery by mail. However, Washington State does allow overseas and out-of-state voters to email absentee ballot applications and receive ballots by email to help facilitate delivery of ballots. Ballots can also be faxed from out-of-state voters. County auditors did all they possibly could to get ballots to military voters; however, the counties cannot control what the postal service does or how the delivery of ballots is handled. Military voters who do not receive a ballot can use a special Federal Write-in Ballot (FWAB) if their ballot does not arrive in time. Any military ballot properly postmarked and received in an auditor’s office by November 16th was counted.

   Ballots postmarked after Election Day are not counted.

   In every election, ballots postmarked after Election Day arrive in county elections’ offices. Those ballots have not been counted in the past and were not counted in 2004. State law prohibits it.

   Moving the primary election to an earlier date will help future elections.

   Over the course of this election, certain minor flaws have been exposed. We will work with Secretary of State Sam Reed and our colleagues from both parties in the House and Senate to remedy these concerns. I think one thing we definitely need to do is move the date of the primary election earlier in the year. County auditors are placed at a disadvantage with a mid-September primary because the election is not certified until October, leaving less than a month to get ballots printed and mailed. Having an earlier primary would assist voters in getting their ballots in timely manner.

   As far as the cost of the manual recount, that was paid for by the State Democratic Party and not the taxpayers. The funds came from private donations. While the Democratic Party is eligible for a refund because the outcome of the election changed, I have recommended that the party forego the refund.

   Christine Gregoire played by the established rules and state laws.

   The goal of our election process is to provide an accurate count of every legitimate vote. It is an exhaustive, secure, transparent, deliberative process. We did not punish people who did everything right – we counted their votes. Before the recount started, Christine Gregoire said she would live with the established recount process – win or lose. I wish Mr. Rossi would do the same.

   That said, our focus and our agenda in the House will remain the same: helping create good paying jobs with benefits, improving public education, and increasing access to affordable health care.

   Sincerely,

   Representative Patricia Lantz
   26th District

2. David Lewis Says:
   January 17th, 2005 at 8:02 am

   Here’s another one from the D playbook.

   Dear …,

   Thanks for emailing me with your thoughts about the recent gubernatorial election. Yesterday, after over an hour of floor debate in a joint session of the House and Senate, the Legislature voted to “accept” the
   recommendation of 39 counties and the Secretary of State certifying the
   election results in the governor’s race.

   The Legislature’s ratification of the election results will not alter or
   stop the Chelan County Superior Court from hearing the election
   “contest.” Former Senator Rossi did have the opportunity to appeal
   directly to the Legislature, but chose instead to appeal directly to the
   state judicial system. I am confident that the judges will examine the
   evidence brought before them in an unbiased way and will make their
   judgment based on the evidence and the rule of law.

   I voted to certify the results because Secretary of State Sam Reed, a
   Republican, and 39 county auditors - both Republican and Democratic -
   and local canvassing boards across the state, were unanimous in their
   decision to certify the election. Local Democrats and Republicans
   worked side-by-side all across the state to make sure the recounts were
   handled fairly and in accordance with the law.

   The law is clear - it is the Court’s responsibility to determine if an
   election is valid when contested. They are the only ones truly qualified
   to do this, and it would be an alarming violation of our Constitutional
   separation of powers for the Legislature to intervene in such a
   decision.

   I took an Oath of Office Monday to uphold the laws and Constitution of
   the State of Washington. I take that oath very seriously. With an
   issue this contentious it would be irresponsible of me as an elected
   official to make determinations solely based upon public opinion. The
   only responsible course of action for me as an elected official is to
   let the Courts decide this issue.

   The Secretary of State and the Legislature will work together to resolve
   identified shortcomings in the process that this historically-close
   election has revealed.

   But the constitution has been followed, no evidence of organized fraud
   has been presented, and no matter what the outcome had been, 50% of us
   would have been disappointed. Disappointment, however, is not a reason
   to invalidate an election.

   It’s time to move on from this election and focus on what the
   legislature was sent here to do this session — energize our economy,
   improve our public schools, and increase access to affordable health
   care.

   Thanks for taking the time to write and please stay in touch about the
   issues that concern you.

   Brian Blake
   State Representative, 19th District

3. ScottM Says:
   January 17th, 2005 at 10:53 am

   I must say, this absolutely shocks me.

   Sincerely,
   Louis Renault,
   Prefect of Police

4. Dennis Jones Says:
   January 17th, 2005 at 12:19 pm

   Here’s another letter saying its not the legislatures responsibility

   Dear …..,
   This week, after over an hour of floor debate in a joint session of the House and Senate the Legislature voted to “accept” the recommendation of all 39 counties and the Secretary of State, certifying the election results in the governor’s race.

   No matter what side of the issue you are on, today’s debate was democracy at work and I am proud to have been a part of it.

   My position regarding the Legislature’s role in the election, shared through emails and letters was reinforced, however I was very impressed, and humbled by the passion and commitment inherent in the comments from both sides of the issue. Clearly, people feel very strongly about it.

   The Legislature’s ratification of the election results will not alter or stop the Chelan County Superior Court from hearing the election challenge in court. Former Senator Rossi did have the opportunity to appeal directly to the Legislature, but chose instead to appeal directly to the state judicial system. I am confident that the judges will examine the evidence brought before them in an unbiased way and will make their judgment based on the evidence and the rule of law.

   I assure you, there will be an investigation into the problems and questions with the 2004 election. In fact reforms are already in the works. As a Legislature, we will look at these issues closely and work to eliminate irregularities in future elections.

   It is the Court’s responsibility to determine if an election is valid when contested, and it would be an alarming violation of our Constitutional separation of powers for the Legislature to intervene in such a decision.

   I took an Oath of Office yesterday to uphold the laws and Constitution of the State of Washington; I take that oath very seriously. The only responsible course of action for me as an elected official is to let the Courts decide this issue.

   Upholding the rule of law is representing my constituents (and should always transcend party politics). I hope it is your first and foremost concern, as well. I look forward to the Superior Court ruling in this case and to the day when this is behind us and the work of the legislature will be focused on education, jobs, health care, and transportation.

   Thank you for contacting me.

   Sincerely,

   Tami Green
   State Representative
   28th Legislative District

5. Eric Benton Says:
   January 17th, 2005 at 12:40 pm

   Here is the reponse i got when writing to Representative Sam Hunt.
   Basically he “poo-poo’s” the whole thing and writes it off to a few people making some mistakes and it being over blown by the media. I wrote to every single one of my Representatives and Senators and so far Mr Hunt is the only one to repond.

   Here is the text of his reponse in full:

   Eric, Thank you for your email asking for a new election for governor.
   I do not favor another election for governor. Yes, the election was
   close. Yes there were mistakes made by some of the thousands of
   community-minded people from all political parties who worked for very
   small salaries to help carry out an election of over 300 people in the
   state. But closeness, and a few cases of human error, do not invalidate
   an election. Yes, I have heard all the charges from the advocates of a
   re-vote, but there is a good explanation for each of them. I have seen
   them in newspapers, from county officials, and from friends of mine in
   the military who voted.

   In my view, there is no mechanism that allows the legislature to cancel
   election results and call for another election for governor. It would
   take an amendment to the Washington State Constitution, which would
   require a 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature and approval of the
   voters at the November 2005 election. If approved by the voters, the
   legislature would have to pass legislation establishing a new election
   for governor during the 2006 session. So the earliest we could have an
   election is mid to late 2006. And, if another election were held it is
   doubtful that the number of candidates could be limited, which might
   force another primary election; I know of no possible way a new
   election could be limited to two candidates.

   We will be working on ways to make our election process better. As US
   Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) said recently in commenting on
   Washington state elections,, “I have never seen a perfect election,” but
   he said we all keep trying. That is why the Congress passed the Help
   America Vote Act. The primary date needs to be moved to an earlier
   date. I hope the Department of Defense will implement its Internet
   voting project (SERVE) for military and overseas voters that it
   cancelled for the 2004 election. And we will be looking at other
   changes, as we do every year, to improve our state’s election processes.

   Representative Sam Hunt
   Majority Floor Leader
   22nd District (Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater and Northern Thurston County)
   360-786-7992
   hunt.sam@leg.wa.gov
   http://www.leg.wa.gov/house

6. Kathy Says:
   January 17th, 2005 at 1:04 pm

   I received the following response from my Representative in the 42nd District, Kelli Linvill. I sent her an e-mail urging her NOT to certify the election results, and she didn’t respond until after the inauguration - not surprising…

   The election results have now been certified by all 39 counties and
   Secretary of State Sam Reed; and the Legislature has accepted this
   certification. The matter is currently before the Chelan County Court
   system, which is the next legal step in resolving this election. At this
   time, the courts must determine whether a new election is required and I
   will fully support their decision.

   Sincerely,
   Kelli
   Representative Kelli Linville
   42nd District

7. Micajah Says:
   January 17th, 2005 at 1:45 pm

   I’m no Democrat, so maybe I don’t count when I say the contested election should have been decided by the legislature as required by our constitution before the certificate of election was issued to Gregoire the Pretender.

   Count or not, I foresaw that the issue of the Chelan County Superior Court’s jurisdiction would be raised after the Pretender took the oath of office:
   http://crokersack.blogspot.com/2005/01/can-wa-courts-decide-contested.html

   Now, it appears that the case needs to go straight to the state supreme court before going back to the legislature:
   http://crokersack.blogspot.com/2005/01/gregoire-pretender-and-writ-of-quo.html

   The supreme court wouldn’t need to do much fact-finding to decide that the legislature must decide the contested election, and that the Pretender is not rightly in office as governor. They only need to find that the election was contested before the certificate of election, that the legislature was aware of the contested election, and that the legislature refused to decide the contested election before certifying Gregoire as the newly elected governor.

   The speeches made by the Democrat legislators in the Senate on Monday and the joint session on Tuesday before the certificate was issued don’t bind anyone, and so they are relevant only to people who want to use them for PR purposes: “But you said!”

   Those speeches simply make it plain as day that the legislature was aware that the election was contested and refused to decide the contested election before certifying Gregoire as the newly elected governor. (She couldn’t have qualified for office without that certification, so it’s not just a meaningless, ministerial act involving no exercise of discretion on the part of the legislature. Nothing the counties or the SecState did certified her as the newly elected governor — they only certified that the election returns were a true and accurate statement of the vote counts. And they did it with a straight face, which is amazing.)

   I suspect the supreme court would decide that Gregoire is not yet the duly elected successor to Gov. Locke, if asked to decide a writ of quo warranto. That would take the Pretender out of the office of governor for now.

   And, I believe the supreme court would issue a writ of mandamus directing the legislature to decide the contested election, if asked.

   Ironically, I don’t think the Democrats in the legislature want to make the decision, and the Republicans don’t trust them so don’t want them to make the decision — but the lawyers involved in the litigation have an ethical obligation to disclose legal authority that could be read as in opposition to what they argue, so they probably can’t find a way to avoid the issue of which government branch is supposed to be deciding the contested election.

   It will be interesting to see if the courts can find a way to decide the contested election (assuming the judge and justices want to decide it for some reason, therefore try to rationalize what they want to do) or if they find it necessary to send it back to the legislature.

8. torridjoe Says:
   January 18th, 2005 at 4:20 pm

   uh, don’t you have to speak twice to doublespeak? The PI are not “Democrats,” nor is there any link made between the Democrats you cited, and anyone who talked to the reporter before they wrote what they did. WHO said this–lawyers? Party aides? “Officials?” There are no representatives of the Democratic Party named in the lawsuit that I’m aware of; everyone who is a Democrat is named as a county Auditor.

   I’d be curious to find out who the “Democrats” are.

   As a bit of a side issue, doesn’t Foulkes make pretty clear as a precedent that courts can and have decided election contests?

9. torridjoe Says:
   January 18th, 2005 at 4:28 pm

   my bad, my bad! I neglected Chopp and Owen, who are of course both Democrats (and are listed at the bottom of a long list of respondents–my apologies). Chopp represents a link to the Legislature, but has he commented on his view of the case?

10. Timothy Says:
    January 18th, 2005 at 7:04 pm

    Torridjoe–the Democratic Party itself has filed a response to the Republican contest, requesting that the case be thrown out because the Courts lack juristiction, just as the PI article states. See here–scroll down the the third to last paragraph. I also just recieved the latest Rossi filings, in response to that particular claim by the Democratic party. I hope to soon have a post on those as well. I can’t blame you for being skeptical of the PI, but this time they were accurate. ; )

11. Jim in Clark County Says:
    January 24th, 2005 at 3:02 pm

    Here you go, from Deb Wallace District 17:

    Dear ,

    Thank you for writing about the recent events in our Governor’s race.
    After the November 2nd, election and two recounts, the election results
    have been certified by the Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed and 39
    county auditors. I was prepared to work with either of the final two
    candidates, as they are both well qualified. On Tuesday the Legislature
    accepted the certification.

    Pursuant to current state law, Dino Rossi has filed in State Superior
    Court to contest the election results. Should the State Superior Court
    rule to have a new election, I will abide by their decision. I was
    elected not only to represent the constituents of my district, but took
    an oath to uphold U.S. Constitution, Federal law, the Washington State
    Constitution and Washington State law. The court system will now
    consider the evidence and decide if the election of Governor was done
    appropriately. This is the election process set out by state law. Our
    forefathers and mothers anticipated and made provision for challenges to
    our election system. Now we will see the system at work.

    Again, thank you for contacting me regarding the Governor’s race.
    Because of this unprecedented and highly contentious situation, I
    believe it is critical to be deliberative and as fair as possible. I
    appreciate your comments and will continue to look to citizens, such as
    yourself, for input. My door is always open, so please do not hesitate
    to contact me with your questions, comments, or concerns on any matter
    in the future. On that note, if you would like to receive my bi-monthly
    E-memo update please let me know. The E-memo will provide information
    on legislation being considered this session as well as provide you with
    a convenient opportunity to share your thoughts and opinions with me as
    decisions are being made.

    Best regards,
    Deb

    Deb Wallace
    State Representative
    17th Legislative District

12. Josef Says:
    January 24th, 2005 at 4:00 pm

    You’re being tracked back to http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003595.html on the SoundPolitics.com homepage!!!

13. JH Says:
    January 24th, 2005 at 4:40 pm

    Here’s another one from Geoff Simpson (from Jan. 8th):

    Dear Jessica,

    Thanks for the message. I intend to vote to certify the election of
    Gregoire as our new governor unless credible evidence of organized fraud
    or malfeasance that could have resulted in a faulty election is produced
    and legitimized by the courts. I ask you to consider what would happen
    if the remainder of our democratic-controlled legislature and I refused
    to recognize Dino Rossi as the legitimate governor if he had won the
    final recount allowed by our laws and these (rather routine) mistakes
    were uncovered. Be honest with yourself. Do you think for one minute
    that the GOP would accept that ? There would be rioting in the streets.
    That’s exactly why it is such a dangerous precedent and why I decline to
    take such an ill-advised action under any circumstance except for
    organized fraud or malfeasance. The issue is in the courts where it
    belongs. I will live with whatever decision they make, just as I would
    have lived with the results of the final recount allowed by our state’s
    laws, even if that recount had elected Dino Rossi as our governor by
    only one vote.

    In the meanwhile, I will continue my efforts to reform our election laws
    again this session. Maybe it’ll be easier to get something done in that
    regard now.

    It’s good to hear from you!

    Thanks again.

    Geoff

14. Erik Says:
    January 24th, 2005 at 7:49 pm

    Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts regarding
    the recent election for governor. I certainly understand your concerns.
    I’m certain most citizens — regardless of whom they supported in the
    race — have been shocked and very disturbed by all that’s transpired
    in the tumultuous canvassing and counting of ballots. I am confident
    that the Legislature will be addressing serious election reform during
    the 2005 legislative session.

    As you likely know, Dino Rossi and the state Republican Party
    have filed suit in Chelan County, requesting that a revote take place.
    They have not alleged fraud nor are they trying to block the swearing in
    of Christine Gregoire as Governor. As the matter is now before the
    court and as even the Republican county auditors around the state as
    well as Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed believe the election was
    conducted fairly while acknowledging changes need to be made, I do not
    believe it would be prudent to vote against Ms. Gregoire’s certification
    or swearing-in, I will be voting affirmatively for these. If the state
    Supreme Court were to uphold a superior court determination that there
    should be a revote, then of course I will support that decision.

    Thank you for sharing your views and please do not hesitate to
    contact me if I may be of further assistance.

    Jeanne

    Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D)
    State Senator
    36th Legislative District

15. Randall Bartley Says:
    January 25th, 2005 at 8:21 am

    here is my response to my representative:
    Dear Randall
    This week, after over an hour of floor debate in a joint session of the House and Senate the Legislature voted to “accept” the recommendation of all 39 counties and the Secretary of State, certifying the election results in the governor’s race.

    No matter what side of the issue you are on, today’s debate was democracy at work and I am proud to have been a part of it.

    My position regarding the Legislature’s role in the election, shared through emails and letters was reinforced, however I was very impressed, and humbled by the passion and commitment inherent in the comments from both sides of the issue. Clearly, people feel very strongly about it.

    The Legislature’s ratification of the election results will not alter or stop the Chelan County Superior Court from hearing the election challenge in court. Former Senator Rossi did have the opportunity to appeal directly to the Legislature, but chose instead to appeal directly to the state judicial system. I am confident that the judges will examine the evidence brought before them in an unbiased way and will make their judgment based on the evidence and the rule of law.

    I assure you, there will be an investigation into the problems and questions with the 2004 election. In fact reforms are already in the works. As a Legislature, we will look at these issues closely and work to eliminate irregularities in future elections.

    It is the Court’s responsibility to determine if an election is valid when contested, and it would be an alarming violation of our Constitutional separation of powers for the Legislature to intervene in such a decision.

    I took an Oath of Office yesterday to uphold the laws and Constitution of the State of Washington; I take that oath very seriously. The only responsible course of action for me as an elected official is to let the Courts decide this issue.

    Upholding the rule of law is representing my constituents (and should always transcend party politics). I hope it is your first and foremost concern, as well. I look forward to the Superior Court ruling in this case and to the day when this is behind us and the work of the legislature will be focused on education, jobs, health care, and transportation.

    Thank you for contacting me.

    Sincerely,

    Tami Green
    State Representative
    28th Legislative District

    —–Original Message—–
    From: rabartley@comcast.net [mailto:rabartley@comcast.net]
    Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 6:41 AM
    To: Green, Rep. Tami
    Subject: Revote

16. Deborah Conforti Says:
    January 25th, 2005 at 10:54 pm

    Please note in the e-mail that I have forwarded to you below that Rep. Dave Quall also has stated that it is the courts responsibility!

    On Tuesday, January 12, the House and Senate voted to accept the
    certification of the Secretary of State and all 39 county auditors of
    the 2004 election. There was a motion to delay, but there was no motion
    to hold a “re-vote”. There was no discussion of this option and no
    opportunity to vote for a “re-vote”. The Legislature’s ratification of
    the election results will not alter or stop the Chelan County Superior
    Court from hearing the election “contest”.

    Former Senator Rossi did have the opportunity to appeal directly to the
    Legislature, but chose instead to appeal to the state judicial system.
    I am confident that the judges will examine the evidence brought before
    them in an unbiased way and will make their judgment based on the
    evidence and the rule of law.

    Should the Courts rule that we should have a new election, I will fully
    support their ruling.

    The law is clear - it is the Court’s responsibility to determine if an
    election is valid when contested. They are the only ones qualified to
    do this, and it would be an alarming violation of our Constitutional
    separation of powers for the Legislature to intervene in such a
    decision. The only responsible course of action for me as an elected
    official is to let the Courts decide this issue.

    Upholding the rule of law IS representing my constituents on both sides
    of this issue. This should always transcend party politics. I look
    forward to the Court’s ruling in this case so that we can concentrate on
    the issues that face us: education, jobs, health care and the budget.

    Sincerely,

    Dave Quall
    State Representative
    40th District

    —–Original Message—–
    From: dconfor@wavecable.com [mailto:dconfor@wavecable.com]
    Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:58 PM
    To: Quall, Rep. Dave
    Subject: Election Irregularities

    HOUSE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE

    TO: Representative Dave Quall

    FROM:

    Mrs. Deborah Conforti
    14851 Benson Road
    Bow, WA 98232

    E-MAIL: dconfor@wavecable.com

    PHONE:

    SUBJECT: Election Irregularities

    MESSAGE:

    Dear Representative Quall,

    I am concerned that the election for governor was fraught with mistakes
    and irregularities. I feel that Washington States reputation for having
    honest elections is being damaged. I want to see a re-vote for the
    governor’s office. I do not feel that any one candidate was a clear
    victor. I have talked to many other citizen’s that feel the way I do
    and we want you, our elected official, to support us in this matter.
    Thank you.

    Deborah Conforti

    NOTE: Mrs. Conforti has requested a response to this message.

    NOTE: We are 99% sure that this constituent is in your district

17. Nathan Says:
    January 26th, 2005 at 12:26 am

    Excerpt from E-mail sent by Rep. Geoff Simpson (D) 47th Dist.

    “When somebody thinks they have been wronged by our laws, their proper
    avenue for appeal and redress is our independent judiciary system. When
    somebody is found guilty of a crime that they did not commit, they
    appeal to the courts, not the legislature. When someone believes they
    are victims of somebody else’s negligence or malfeasance, they take
    their case to court, not the legislature.

    There is a reason why our government was set-up with a separation of
    powers. The framers of the Washington State Constitution did not want
    too much power vested with any single entity. If legislators were given
    the power to decide whether elections certified as valid by our state’s
    elections officers were actually valid, a very dangerous precedent would
    be set.

    This is not a partisan matter for me, you’d be getting the exact same
    answers from me if the democratic party stood to gain from the
    legislature’s failure to recognize the certification of the election.
    The only circumstance under which I feel that I would be justified in
    denying the certification of an election is one in which organized fraud
    or malfeasance on the part of an elections official had occurred and was
    legitimized by the courts.”

Leave a Reply