Bridges Speaks: Republicans get the present, Democrats the bow…
But in all honesty, the bow’s pretty darn cool. In other words, both parties got something they wanted–the Republicans came out ahead overall, but the Democrats can still be as confident as they want to be.
In Chelan County today, Judge John Bridges made a whole mess of rulings, most of which were very good for the Republicans, but not all. In the end, it really comes down to two things the judge said.
First off, Bridges made a statement that most people appear to have missed. (I’ll have to paraphrase until the transcript comes out, probably next week.) He said, essentially, if the Republicans can prove their allegations as they have stated them, then their election contest will prevail. This is, obviously, quite good news.
Second, the he ruled that he won’t be ordering a special election because he doesn’t have the authority. Some people have said this means “no revote,” which would be pretty deadly, but that’s not exactly true. Before Bridges even made his ruling, the Republican counsel said that the question before the court at that point was not “whether” to have a revote, but “when.” That is to say, would the court be able to order an election immediately, or wait until the next general election in November? The court has essentially said that the soonest there could be another Rossi-Gregoire showdown is in November, because the court’s power doesn’t extend far enough to order a new one immediately. The likely outcome of a successful contest now would be for the election to be nullified, Gregoire booted from office, leaving it vacant, meaning that the Lt. Governor Brad Owen would take over until November. While Republicans are dissappointed with this ruling, it’s hard to be too bummed about a judge admitting that his powers aren’t infinite.
So, looking at those as the two main points to come out of today, the Republicans look pretty good. However, the Seattle Times’ John Postman asserts that something else came out of today:
The good news for Democrats was Bridges’ ruling in Chelan County Superior Court that Republicans must show any illegal votes were cast in favor of Gregoire, and not Republican candidate Dino Rossi. There would have to be enough illegal Gregoire votes to erase her 129-vote victory margin.
Now, I watched a large portion of the judge’s rulings, but not all of them–it’s possible that I could have missed something. But I don’t remember him saying this. In fact, as I noted above, I remember him saying something that would seem to contradict that. As Stefan notes, “It defies common sense that the judge would order the contest to proceed under an impossible standard and without a viable remedy.” The Times article nowhere quotes the judge as saying what it asserts he said, so I’m apt to think that it was wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Postman–who has obviously had a long day. Once the transcripts become available (not until after the weekend), we’ll have a firmer grasp of what the Times is talking about.
Until that time, I maintain my stance noted above: today, the Republicans got the present while the Democrats got the bow.
UPDATE: As noted in the comments and over at Sound Politics, I was right about Postman’s odd reporting yesterday. And, more importantly, I heard the judge correctly regarding Rossi’s allegations:
Bridges said in Chelan County Superior Court that allegations in the lawsuit filed by Republican candidate Dino Rossi and Republican voters, if proved at trial, would be sufficient to overturn the election.
That was the most important ruling yesterday, period.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
February 4th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
thank you!
February 4th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
So how long will it take the GOP to contact the news media people and straighten them out?
I sent an e-mail to NWCN and asked them to get a lawyer to tell them what the judge’s ruling about a “revote” meant. They and the King5 news reports were saying the GOP’s revote idea was “dead in the water.” NWCN had a political philosophy professor on the air, “explaining” that the outcome wouldn’t involve any vote of the citizens — that the court would pick either Rossi or Gregoire as the new governor.
Their reply said my e-mail would be passed to the news guys. Their next report didn’t have the “dead in the water” crap, nor did they claim that there would be no chance for a vote by the citizens to elect a new governor. Maybe I got through to them, or maybe someone else did. (But of course they still didn’t have anyone from the GOP making even a three-second sound bite to balance the sound bite from the Dem guy.)
Surely the GOP leaders know what the judge said — transcript or no transcript.
Don’t the leaders of the GOP know the phone numbers of any news people?
Don’t they understand that it’s hard to correct a mistaken news report after it gets repeated over and over?
Don’t they know that the newspapers will be printing the same crap tomorrow morning if someone doesn’t straighten them out before 11PM tonight?
February 4th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Thank you Timothy- I listened to most of today’s hearings and I agree with how you summed it all up. I felt the judge was very good; short, sweet and to the point!!!! No bs’n around!!! I had to tell friends and family members to not listen to the news at all!!-everyone around me was freakin out because of the MSM!! They make me ill………. I have a good feeling about what is ahead still….. The D’s should be worried!! WE ARE MAKING HISTORY HERE FOLKS!!! NOTHING
February 4th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Timothy, but you have to admit, if what Postman reported is accurate, it doesn’t look promising for Rossi. In fact, it seems to support the interpretation put forth by Lawyer X.
February 4th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
David Goldstein,
Of course the erroneous reporting by The Seattle Times, King5 and NWCN can make it so it doesn’t look promising for Rossi (or for the people who want to know that the person in the governor’s office was duly elected to that office).
That’s a problem: The news media have been and will be telling people things that aren’t true.
Since Postman of The Seattle Times is the only person who seems to have heard such a thing stated by the judge, I doubt he got it right.
Timothy,
Where, oh where are the GOP leaders to set the record straight? The only ruling of the judge that their web site indicates they are mulling over is the one about no special election.
Oh, and NWCN is now saying “dead in its tracks” and still including the Dem’s lawyer saying the GOP is “dead in the water.” Their “analyst” at least budged a little and said the LtGov would be in the governor’s office if the GOP wins the contest — but hasn’t yet said the people would then vote in November 2005 to fill the vacancy created by voiding Gregoire’s certificate of election and setting aside the election of Nov. 2004. So, my e-mail didn’t accomplish anything.
February 4th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Timothy: I generally respect your reporting from a conservative perspective without resorting to outright spin, but I think you’re missing the import of today’s rulings.
Regardless of the accuracy of Postman’s reporting, I think the judge has made it clear that he is going to set a very high standard for awarding the election to Rossi. And well he should! You might think this is an impossible standard. I would agree that it might be impossible for this case, but not in general. The main point is that overturning certified election results is not something to be taken lightly or based on speculation. It’s an extremely unlikely outcome for this contest.
That leaves the remedy of setting aside the election, installing Democrat Brad Owen, and waiting for the next general election. Micajah thinks this is Nov 2005, others think Nov 2006. Achieving even that is likely to carry a heavy burden of proof and is by no means certain.
Contesting this election is going to be quite expensive for the WSRP. Aside from the dollars, there is also the distraction when they should be working on building up candidates and issues for the next election. Are they still going to think it is worth the cost, especially when the best possible outcome gives them so little?
Irresponsible prognostication is what drives the blogosphere (and makes it fun), so here’s my reckless prediction: Barring quick relief from the state Supreme Court, the WSRP will likely fold in the next two weeks. They’ll issue a statement that they are certain they would have prevailed in the long run, but for the good of the state and party, they choose to concentrate their resources on exposing election malfeasance, championing election reform, and offering strong candidates in the next election.
February 5th, 2005 at 12:04 am
Well at least Vance was on the news tonight (Kong6) and they actually let him speak w/o cutting his words off. He ended the spiel by saying that he would much rather be Republican tonight, rather than Democrat after today’s rulings.
I’m with Timothy btw, before anyone comments about this with any *real* degree of certainty, we had better wait for the rulings to be published.
Btw, a question for any legal eagles out there…Could have the Repubs hired an independent “note taker or stenographer” to sit in the court and record things so they could get the rulings tonight?
Just wondering…
Cid
February 5th, 2005 at 12:37 am
The operation was a fantastic success, except the patient is paralyzed from the neck down. There is somme feeling in his toes so if things go exceptionally well he may walk by Nov this year or maybe next year.
February 5th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Cid, yes, they could have their own notetaker. It would probably be permissable to have an audio recording made, but I’m not positive and the judge would have to approve. They certainly could have recorded the live feed, and probably could get the video recordings from the network.
scottd, yes the judge said he would set a high standard. I agree that he should; an election is not something to be tampered with based on allegations and appearances. (This is why I think the R’s case on the difference between ballots and voters would be difficult to win. It’s too easy to attribute this to clerical problems rather than ballot security.)
It is an extremely heavy burden of proof that is solely on the Rs and is by no means certain, as you said. However, I don’t think is an “extremely unlikely” outcome. The Rs have done much of the work necessary already, so I don’t think they will fold without getting to some more adverse rulings. And I also don’t think the best possible outcome “gives them so little.”
If they can make their case of illegal (felons, dead, multiple) and improper (provisionals counted before validation, improper enhancements) votes, it becomes an issue of how many are need to set aside the election. I don’t think 130 is enough, but it also isn’t necessary to prove who they benefitted. If the Rs prove a thousand illegal and improper votes, I think they win the contest.
What does this get them? It removes the former attorney general from the governorship and puts Brad Owen in as acting governor. It gets them a new election (in 2005). And it exposes enough problems with the electoral system in the state that the Ds have to act to clean it up, maybe even before November 2005.
February 5th, 2005 at 7:32 am
I too called NWCN to complain about the very biased reporting and ask why they were not carrying the hearing live. “Well nothing’s been decided” the woman answering the phone said. Really, five motions rules on so far, by my count. “Just a lot of boring legalese”. At the time they were showing a “dating expert” who ran a web site in LA. Now that’s news!
February 5th, 2005 at 8:14 am
Micajah,
You seem to be a very smart guy and I have enjoyed reading your legal analysis on this whole thing. However, you don’t seem to understand the media, NWCN in particular. NWCN has long been the most liberal news organization in the Pacific Northwest. I don’t think they have ever even considered being “Fair and Balanced.” Their news readers seem to have a collective IQ of 52. To put it in perspective, NWCN is to Seattle as CBS News is to the nation. To this day, Dan Rather still thinks The Documents are FAKE but ACCURATE.
The Rossi campaign and every right-thinking person in this state could call NWCN/King 5 until their fingers turn blue, and nothing is going to turn around their ingrained bias to the left and their inability to look at all sides and report things down the middle.
Postman of the Times did NOT make a mistake in his reporting today as you and others have argued. Read it closely: he stated both the Democrat’s interpretation as well as the Republican’s. He never says (that I can see) it was Bridge’s decision that illegal votes must be canvassed to see which candidate they went toward.
What you’ve got to do is look at the headline, which is very, very good: “GOP Election Lawsuit heads to Trial.” The headline is what most people in the state will see. Very few read the PI or watch Nortwest Cable News anyway.
Take a deep breath–this is a complicated matter that needs some digesting. In short time, the public will be educated as to what really happened yesterday. Meanwhile–stop watching NWCN as I have. It can only lead to one thing– heartburn.
February 5th, 2005 at 8:51 am
The burden of proof is high – although somewhat ambiguous.
RCW 29A.68.110 (I don’t know if I can use HTML here so I will give the link as text http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.68.110&fuseaction=section) reads:
“RCW 29A.68.110
Illegal votes — Number of votes affected — Enough to change result.
No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person’s legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.”
Clearly, people are going to be arguing over the meaning of “appears”. It will be a hard fight, but it is not over.
February 5th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Concerned–
Micajah was quoting yesterday’s article on the Times web site by Postman. Postman has changed that portion considerably in today’s article. Micajah’s representation of Postman was accurate based on the early article.
Your point on the headlines is important. I just finished posting a compilation of headlines on Micajah’s blog.
http://crokersack.blogspot.com/2005/02/no-special-election-says-judge.html
Before looking, guess which of these had the more accurate headline: Seattle P-I, Seattle Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Tacoma News Tribune. Betcha can’t guess correctly.
February 5th, 2005 at 9:44 am
For the record, if the standard is to prove that certain illegal votes went for a certain individual, then it is an impossible standard not just in this specific instance but generally as well. Once the ballot is counted there is no longer any way to match ballot to voter. Even asking voters under oath who they voted for would be insufficient because i) partisanship could prompt them to lie, and perjury would be undetectable, and ii) in the case of “dead” voters it is impossible to even know who filled out the ballot unless someone fesses up. I find it difficult to believe that Judge Bridges would require impossible proof from the Rossi team.
February 5th, 2005 at 10:24 am
The provision in RCW 29A.68.110 of subtraction votes from each side makes perfect sense in the situation where it is known how the votes were cast. For example, there was a municipal election where the elections department (King County, I believe) allowed precincts outside the town boundary to vote on the municipal issues. On review, it was clear that those precincts votes were “illegal”, and were subtracted from the certified totals, producing a new result.
However, when the illegal ballots are co-mingled with the valid ballots, it is impossible to say how they were voted. There was a case this past November in Ohio where a school election lost by one vote. It was discovered that an elderly couple, after being told that their absentee ballots hadn’t been received, went to the polls to vote. The poll workers messed up and gave them a regular ballot instead of a provisional. Meanwhile, their absentee ballots were received and counted, allowing them two votes each. The school hauled them into court and with immunity from prosecution for double voting had them testify under oath how they voted. She said “no” and he said “yes”. Subtracting their duplicate votes left the school still losing by one.
Now, was he truthful? If he actually voted “no”, and said “no”, the levy passes. If he lied under oath, how would it ever be proven, and he sustains his desire of “no” on the levy.
Statements of how one voted, even under oath are unreliable evidence. But they may be legal evidence.
February 5th, 2005 at 11:09 am
I’m not sure why anyone cares what the headlines say. Judges don’t rule based on newspaper headlines, especially headlines that misinterpret their own rulings!
I want to clear up one possible misunderstanding. When I said “extremely unlikely”, I was referring to the likelihood of a ruling that Rossi was, in fact, the winner.
The chances of having the election set aside (turning the governorship over to Brad Owen) is less unlikely — although still a long shot IMHO. We’ll see.
My basic question remains: How much money, effort, and political capital is the WSRP going to spend trying to achieve the uncertain outcome of putting Democrat Brad Owen into office? The job of the WSRP is to put Republicans into office. One can make arguments that this is part of a broader strategy, but that’s pretty diffuse
I think clearer heads are ultimately going to see that carrying on with the election contest is an inefficient use of the party’s resources. Hence, my earlier prediction.
On the other hand, my more partisan side hopes they carry on.
February 5th, 2005 at 11:15 am
North Clark County:
Point taken on Postman’s article having changed since yesterday’s web version.
Hmmm. That’s an interesting challenge. I’ve already looked at the TNR, PI, and Seattle Times today, and all were off-point except for the Seattle Times. I’m going to take a wild stab and guess the NYT??? They can be extremely, uh, frustrating -BUT, they also can be a tad more original in their thinking than the WP. I’ll check out your post to see if I “passed” or not.
February 5th, 2005 at 11:20 am
It’s not just my partisan side that hopes they carry on, but it sure makes for better blogging than funding art at water treatment facilities (sorry TG).
I also think that putting Brad Owen into office isn’t too good for the Ds either. When he was in the Senate, they kept running union guys against him. They found him a place as lieutenant governor where he wouldn’t get in their way, much as Tim Sheldon (his replacement in the Senate, I believe) is now.
February 5th, 2005 at 11:24 am
Oh, and why anyone cares what the headlines say, it’s a matter of first impression. The majority of the public will see “Judge says no to revote” and conclude that it’s over. Confusion results when they come back later and see “Judge throws out election” (at least in my dreams).
February 5th, 2005 at 11:40 am
north clark county:
Re: Headlines
To take your argument further…Impressions are important because of polling. If polling wasn’t important, polling wouldn’t be done. It serves an important purpose.
scottd:
Many people are susceptible to “group think” and will change their minds about something they see in a poll just to fit in with the crowd. They will then take those impressions to the polling place and vote for or against somebody based on poll results, which often are based on their first impressions, (headlines) NOT the facts.
It’s a PR game, and vitally important to the political process, whether you like it or not. Good PR is especially important in this state because of our large number of independents. Independents are more susceptible to the headline ruse than hard core dems and Rs, which is why indies swing back and forth so much and the political parties fight for them like crazy.
P.S. I was pleasantly surprised that both the Post and NYT had reasonable headlines today.
February 5th, 2005 at 11:47 am
“Concerned in King County” –
I see you’ve already realized that yesterday’s early web page edition of Postman’s article was quite different from this morning’s version.
The Seattle Times, Friday, February 04, 2005, 05:17 P.M. Pacific:
“The good news for Democrats was Bridges’ ruling in Chelan County Superior Court that Republicans must show any illegal votes were cast in favor of Gregoire, and not Republican candidate Dino Rossi. There would have to be enough illegal Gregoire votes to erase her 129-vote victory margin.”
I realize that King5 and their colleagues at NWCN usually don’t get it right or correct, but I think the only way to combat that sort of bias is to keep at them. Suffering in silence doesn’t work, nor does complaining to someone other than the people who are putting out inaccurate news reports.
Once those inaccuracies are repeated often enough, they become “common knowledge,” so that anyone who says differently is thought to be a fool or a knave.
It seems to me that the GOP needs to do a better job of preventing those inaccurate reports to begin with. For example, it seems obvious that the Democrats’ lawyers made themselves available to the news media and made sure their “spin” got into the first day’s reports. However, I didn’t see any indication that the Republicans did the same. (Somehow, by later last night, the reports were becoming somewhat more accurate, so I suppose something was being done by the GOP.)
February 5th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
From the blog reports and the news reports here is my take on the trial court’s rulings.
If you want a new election before November 2006, you lose. One of the Blogs and the PI article reports that the Judge stated if the election were overturned, any new election could only occur at the next general election at which statewide offices were to be elected which is in November 2006. The blog mentinoed that the judge specifically mentioned the state statute specifying statewide general elections only in even numbered years. So no election in November of 2005 as Micajah has argued.
If you want a chance to invalidate the election then you still have a decent chance.
The judge said proving enough illegal votes would be hard. I take his comments to mean that the Republicans whould have to meet the burden under 29A.68.110 of showing more illegal votes for Gregoire than Rossi. Whether the judge would permit an apportionment of those votes remains an open question. The Republican lawyers claim this is still an option, even though i their briefs they specifically claimed there should be no apportionment. The court also seemed to say according to a blog that the Republicans might have to meet the 29A.68.011(5)(b) hurdle of having to have challenged some of those illegal votes prior to the election.
But the big victory for the Republicans was the judges statement that under the Foulkes case the Republicns could independently contest the election under 29A.68.011 for some unspecified “error”, “neglect of duty” or “wrongul act”. I think this was a terrible decision, if true, and blame the Democrat lawyers who did not even discuss the Foulkes case in their briefs, but chose to relyon the Becker case as having overuled Foulkes. Under this theory, errors which did not invole illegl votes could possibly form the basis for overturning the election without having to show that they benefited Gregoire over Rossi. This could apply to the alleged improper provisional votes and phantom overvotes which may not be illegal votes.
Of course all this speculation is bsed on fragmentary news reports.
Luckily this is just a trial court ruling and the Supreme Court will have to decide.
February 5th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Yes, and that’s why KING5/NWCN thinks we’re fools or knaves. The best we’ll be able to do is let them know they are being monitored and rely on the new media to get out the other viewpoints.
The WSRP suffers from the same problems in combatting inaccurate reporting as the national party does. E.g., Social Security reform. However, I did see reports that lawyers from both sides were spinning the day’s results right after adjournment.
February 5th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Micajah,
I respectfully disagree with you about the quality of the GOP’s response. At 5:38 pm yesterday I received a mass emailing sent by Chris Vance, thereby doing a good job of shoring up the base. Further, I heard other GOP representatives on various television and radio stations.
Maybe PR hadn’t been as good as we all would have liked, but realistically, the GOP did need some time to digest the decision, form their talking points, and get their message out. We should all be glad that Republicans tend to be a little more thoughtful than dems like Jenny “We got everything we wanted” Durkin and Kirsten “GOP wants you to spy on your neighbors” Brost, who have an annoying tendency to open their mouths before thinking.
The lack of accurate PR was a prima facie case of the media *wanting* to report this news negatively for the GOP. For years and years Republicans were “disenfranchised” in newsrooms across the county. Then came talk radio, then FNC, then blogs, and we *finally* have a voice. But, we (conservatives and/or Republicans) still don’t have a fair local channel, leaving a HUGE void in this election mess. (A notable exception: David Postman, who I personally believe is on our side.)
I also disagree that complaining to them will help. It would only be an exercise in futility, my friend. To liberal media, politics is religion. The end justifies the means. For more on this, I suggest that you read Bernie Goldberg’s book, Bias.
Rather than throwing up our hands in frustration, here’s what I suggest (and I’m sure the Rossi campaign has already thought of this.) Monday afternoon, Rossi should call a press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court (a not so subtle backdrop, reinforcing with people that this thing is far from over.) No Chris Vance. No attorneys. Just Dino Rossi, the man, out in front explaining the court decision in simple layman’s terms, and how he plans to proceed now. That is the only to stop the bleeding until the court hearings commence again.
February 5th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
Are you implying Jenny and Kirsten think after they speak? You could have fooled me.
Actually, I’ve always tried to separate “political speech” from “regular speech” or “legal speech”. I don’t too upset at Kirsten’s press releases, nor Paul Berendt’s bloviating. It won’t do a thing to the judges rulings, except to get some people riled up when they perceive the ruling went against them.
February 5th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
“Are you implying Jenny and Kirsten think after they speak? You could have fooled me.”
Touche’!
February 5th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Tim and Micajah
Based on a TNT article, it appears that Judge Bridges DID STATE that the Republicans will have show at trial that the illegal votes benefited Gregoire over Rossi, as provided by RCW 29A.68.110, in order to set aside the election on the basis of illegal votes. So Micajah and Timothy appear to be wrong on that score. I’ve also read reports that the judge also mentioned as an impediment the Howell case in which it was stated if you can’t tell for whom the illegal vote was cast you should count it as legitimate.
But the judge also ruled significantly that illegal votes by felons, mental incompetants, and those who voted twice, did NOT have to be challenged prior to the election as required by 29A68.011(5)(b) , although other illegal votes, presumably including those by DEAD VOTERS would be required to have been challenged. This is a a big victory for the Republicans . The judge apparently bought their argument that the 5(b) challenge provision didn’t apply to any of the illegal vote categories mentioned in section (5)(a) like felons and mental incompetents. I think this will be reversed on appeal but score a partial one for Tim.
Whether the Republicans can attempt to allocate the illegal votes where it is not know how they voted remains unclear, but his mention of the Howell case suggests the answer is no.
The TNT article doesn’t shed any more light on whether the Republicans can set aside the election on some other type of error not involving illegal votes.
The article follows.
“Though Bridges said, “I’m not ruling on the burden of proof,” he made several rulings that could affect Republicans’ ability to make their case.
They have alleged hundreds of specific illegal votes, including 240 cast by felons, 44 cast on behalf of dead people and 16 by people who voted more than once. But Bridges said that – expect for votes by felons, those declared mentally incompetent and people who voted more than once – Republicans must prove the votes were challenged on or before Election Day to be considered illegal.
“Based on the record before the court, however, it is very difficult, if not impossible at this stage, to know” whether the votes were challenged like that, Bridges said.
And, to use the specific illegal votes to overturn the election, Bridges said Republicans will have to trace them to the candidates and show the winner would change after subtracting them.
Republicans have acknowledged the state’s ballot privacy laws would make it difficult, if not impossible, to prove to which candidate illegal votes went.
But Bridges also said Republicans could introduce evidence about errors by election workers. Presumably these would include their allegations that 437 provisional ballots were counted without first verifying signatures. It’s less clear whether those would have to be traced to specific candidates.”
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/4521038p-4243721c.html