Democrat Takes 10-Vote Lead in WA Governor Race

Two major developments in the apparently neverending Washington state governor's race happened on Wednesday. As the second recount wound down, with 38 of 39 counties reporting -- all but the heavily Democratic-leaning King County -- Republican Dino Rossi extended his lead from 42 votes to 49. Then, the state Supreme Court ruled that its December 14 decision which disallowed including new ballots in the hand recount did not preclude county canvassing boards from including new ballots, which paves the way for 735 previously rejected ballots in King County to be processed. Then, King County announced that its hand recount (not including the 735) swung toward Democrat Christine Gregoire by 59 votes, giving her a 10-vote lead statewide (1,373,051 to 1,373,041). More court challenges are likely to follow.

Comments

Pudge, we need more information

[jamie]

Pudge, you write:

"the state Supreme Court ruled that its December 14 decision which disallowed including new ballots in the hand recount did not preclude county canvassing boards from including new ballots"

This seems to imply with a note of sarcasm that the state Supreme Court is ruling against itself. I haven't been following your state's results as closely as you have, but this does not seem true to me. From my skimming of the link you gave to the Dec. 14 decision, I see that decision was regarding whether the Supreme Court could order the Secretary of State to order counties to re-check previously rejected ballots. That the Supreme Court refused to order this to be done does not in any way mean it, as you write, "disallowed" it from being done. This seems to me a fairly trivial point.

From the decision you linked to:

...various electors and the Washington State Democratic Central Committee seek an order directing Secretary of State Sam Reed to promulgate "uniform standards" ... that ensure that all ballots rejected in previous counts are fully canvassed so that the hand recount produces as complete and accurate a tabulation as possible...

...we must reject petitioners' arguments.

...this court cannot order the Secretary to establish standards for the recanvassing of ballots previously rejected in this election. And petitioners' call for uniform signature-checking standards (seemingly beyond the statutory requirement that the signature on an absentee ballot be the same as the signature in voter registration files) is beyond the relief that can be afforded in this action.

And the Supreme Court goes on to address precisely the contradiction I think you're raising, in its second decision, making itself quite clear:

In our decision in that case, issued December 14, 2004, we held that under Washington's recount statute, "ballots are to be `retabulated' only if they have been previously counted or tallied, subject to the provisions of RCW 29A.60.210." (Emphasis added.) The quoted language, referencing the "recanvassing" statute, RCW 29A.60.210, acknowledges that under proper circumstances a canvassing board may decide that ballots should be recanvassed before certification of a recount. Indeed, the Secretary of State's Director of Elections, Nick Handy, has provided this court with a detailed declaration explaining how other counties have already employed RCW 29A.60.210 to count votes from ballots not counted in the original returns for this election. Our prior opinion did not hold that the recanvassing statute may not be employed by canvassing boards during a recount.

(My emphasis.)

The first decision seems quite clearly limited in its scope, in such a way that there is no contradiction in the second. The Seattle Times story you link to agrees with me on this. If you disagree, you owe it to our readers either to disclose that your disagreement is your opinion, or to explain clearly and factually what parts of the two decisions contradict each other. As I say, you've been studying this a lot longer and more carefully than I have, so maybe I'm all wrong on this. I'd like to see what you have to say about it -- in detail, not just implied in part of one sentence.

My suspicion is that "the Washington Supreme Court contradicted itself, so Gregoire's election is illegitimate" may shortly become part of the GOP's talking points, so this is no small matter.

Re:Don't read the news much?

[pudge]

You don't follow the news much either, do you? The election workers followed the same procedure they had in the primary. This was part of the way they did things, it was not a simple mistake.

And the Republicans were arguing to follow the previous Supreme Court decision that stated that the hand recount was to be a retabulation, not a reconsideration of previously rejected ballots. That the canvassing board had already rejected these ballots is not in question. The only question is whether the Supreme Court sill preserved all the discretion to the county canvassing boards, and they affirmed yesterday that they did.

Note that there's only one case so far in this entire affair where a judge has ruled to change the law, and that was in King County, where Judge Lam violated federal law by compelling the county to provide lists of provisional voters and their personal information to the Democrats.

I note that they don't think people who've had their legal votes rejected should be able to have some sort of redress

You note a lie. Goody for you!

How about this, ever legal vote should count.

No one ever disputed that. You're just showing your own abject ignorance by contending otherwise. The question is what constitutes a legal vote, not whether legal votes should count.

And legality shouldn't be determined by the convience of the counter, or the would-be victor seeking to preserve a margin, but by whether the voter did the minimum that was necessary to register their vote in good faith.

No. It should be determined by the law. That's what "legal" means. And Washington law does not recognize "the minimum that was necessary to register their vote in good faith" as its standard.

For example, the law states, "A ballot is invalid and no votes on that ballot may be counted if it is found folded together with another ballot or it is marked so as to identify the voter." Even if the voter registered his vote in good faith, it is invalid under those conditions. Sorry. That's the law, and the law is what determines legality.

I would submit that anyone who suggest anything short of that test, is a fucking coward, a freind to tyrants, and a foe of freedom, deserving of only the inequities they would foist on others.

I submit that anyone who suggests anything different from the law as that test is an anarchist or a moron. You're spouting unintelligent rhetoric that sounds good to people who don't know any better (which may include yourself).