Should there be a revote?

[Wakie]

I'm willing to let the GOP have a revote in WA Gubernatorial race if we can have a revote in the OH Presidential race.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, due to the King county NOT following the law, the unverified ballots are not only unverified, but unverifiable.

Second, more specific lists of illegal votes are on their way.

Oh, and BTW, from the official King county website:

The county has stressed that it is still reconciling this list with its vote total in the governor's race. This list shows 895,660 votes counted, and there were 899,199 votes certified by the county in the governor's race. County officials are researching the difference of 3,539 as they work to reconcile computer records with poll books and other election records

The voters are potentially verifiable.  Let's see what happens after the reconcilliation.

On a second point, a revote is not permitted under the state constitution, from everything that I've heard.

With respect to the first point, the King county officials have admitted that many of the ballots are unverfiable!

With respect to the second point, while the constitution does NOT specifically provide for a revote, where sufficent irregularities are found, the Supreme Court has the right to order a revote.

[J. J.]

First, due to the King county NOT following the law, the unverified ballots are not only unverified, but unverifiable.

Second, more specific lists of illegal votes are on their way.

Oh, and BTW, from the official King county website:

The county has stressed that it is still reconciling this list with its vote total in the governor's race. This list shows 895,660 votes counted, and there were 899,199 votes certified by the county in the governor's race. County officials are researching the difference of 3,539 as they work to reconcile computer records with poll books and other election records

The voters are potentially verifiable.  Let's see what happens after the reconcilliation.

On a second point, a revote is not permitted under the state constitution, from everything that I've heard.

With respect to the first point, the King county officials have admitted that many of the ballots are unverfiable!

With respect to the second point, while the constitution does NOT specifically provide for a revote, where sufficent irregularities are found, the Supreme Court has the right to order a revote.

With respect to the first point, they have not finished the reconcilliation yet.  The only think that can do is separate the ballots.

What are you using as you (state) constitutional basis for the second point?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, the King county administration has admitted that ballots were counted which cannot be attributed to a source.

Second, the Supreme Court could order a revote under either state constitution of federal constitution provisions.

Re state constitution, see Article I, Section 1, and Article VI, sections 1 (residency) and section 3 (felons).

[J. J.]

First, the King county administration has admitted that ballots were counted which cannot be attributed to a source.

Second, the Supreme Court could order a revote under either state constitution of federal constitution provisions.

CARLHAYDEN, here is what you said about 16 hours ago:

The county has stressed that it is still reconciling this list with its vote total in the governor's race. This list shows 895,660 votes counted, and there were 899,199 votes certified by the county in the governor's race. County officials are researching the difference of 3,539 as they work to reconcile computer records with poll books and other election records

They are by you own admission researching the difference.  Before anybody even suggests a problem, let's see if that reconcilliation takes place.

Second, there are no federal constitutional provisions for a re-vote.  In two cases, the Federal courts have invalidated an election based on fraud (Phila, State Senate and Miami, Mayor); they did not order a revote.  What are you using for your claim that they can.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, the King county administration has admitted that ballots were counted which cannot be attributed to a source.

Second, the Supreme Court could order a revote under either state constitution of federal constitution provisions.

CARLHAYDEN, here is what you said about 16 hours ago:

The county has stressed that it is still reconciling this list with its vote total in the governor's race. This list shows 895,660 votes counted, and there were 899,199 votes certified by the county in the governor's race. County officials are researching the difference of 3,539 as they work to reconcile computer records with poll books and other election records

They are by you own admission researching the difference.  Before anybody even suggests a problem, let's see if that reconcilliation takes place.

Second, there are no federal constitutional provisions for a re-vote.  In two cases, the Federal courts have invalidated an election based on fraud (Phila, State Senate and Miami, Mayor); they did not order a revote.  What are you using for your claim that they can.

First of all JJ, while the King county administration has stated that they are still researching the votes, they have also admitted that they expect that they will not be able to account for about 1,500 votes.

Second, read you own point two, and then contrast it with my previous post.  The contest is going to the Washington Supreme Court, where the plaintiffs can alledge violations of both federal and state law.  The difference between the cases you cited and the case in point is not only that it will be decided in a state court, but that legislative history since those cases has given the court a background for butressing a federal constitutional claim.

[J. J.]

First, the King county administration has admitted that ballots were counted which cannot be attributed to a source.

Second, the Supreme Court could order a revote under either state constitution of federal constitution provisions.

CARLHAYDEN, here is what you said about 16 hours ago:

The county has stressed that it is still reconciling this list with its vote total in the governor's race. This list shows 895,660 votes counted, and there were 899,199 votes certified by the county in the governor's race. County officials are researching the difference of 3,539 as they work to reconcile computer records with poll books and other election records

They are by you own admission researching the difference.  Before anybody even suggests a problem, let's see if that reconcilliation takes place.

Second, there are no federal constitutional provisions for a re-vote.  In two cases, the Federal courts have invalidated an election based on fraud (Phila, State Senate and Miami, Mayor); they did not order a revote.  What are you using for your claim that they can.

First of all JJ, while the King county administration has stated that they are still researching the votes, they have also admitted that they expect that they will not be able to account for about 1,500 votes.

Second, read you own point two, and then contrast it with my previous post.  The contest is going to the Washington Supreme Court, where the plaintiffs can alledge violations of both federal and state law.  The difference between the cases you cited and the case in point is not only that it will be decided in a state court, but that legislative history since those cases has given the court a background for butressing a federal constitutional claim.

Again, there is a difference between expecting and reaching the conclusion.

And again, you claim there should be revote.  You also claim there is no state constitutional basis.  There is no federal constitutional basis.  What do you claim as your basis?

[CARLHAYDEN]

JJ, first let me state that I have access to information which I am presently honor bound not to divulge which will be crucial in this matter.  I hope I will be able to release this soon.

Second, you seem to misunderstand my previous statement vis a vis state authority for a revote.  I specifically listed provisions in the state constitution which can be used to invalidate the election.  While I did acknowledge that there is no article/section of the constitution entitled 'revote,' the court will have an interesting problem if it is shown that illegal votes were counted, which due to the counting method cannot be seperated from the count, which are in excess of the 'margin of victory.'  Will they simply acknowledge the fact and then say, 'the results stand'?  Given the provision of Article I, Section 1, I suspect they will invalidate the election and order a new election based on that provision.

Third, with respect to the federal constituional/statutory basis for challenge, again I am unable at this time to release that information, but I did give you a few hints.  I suspect that the state constitutional challenge will be sufficent and there is question as to whether to invoke the federal challenge (there are several clauses which apply here, among them 'equal protection').

[J. J.]

While the equal protection clause has been used in the two cases cited, it has not led to a "re-vote."

I'll be happy to wait until the information is "divulged," but until then, you havve whole bunch of nothing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

While I waiting for permission to release the information to which I alluded, I thought you might be interested in the following opinion:

“Where appropriate, [the court’s powers] include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect.” Foulkes v. Hays, 85 Wn.2d 629, 633 (1975).

[J. J.]

Okay, you have demonstrated that a revote could be ordered in this case (and I'm assuming that this is a Washington case):

"Where appropriate, these necessary and proper powers would include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect."

I'm not convinced that you are at the stage of "no other remedy."  I'm very skeptical of this.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, the problem is that King county comingled non-eligible votes with eligible votes such that the non-eligible votes cannot be simply removed from the votes.

If King county HAD followed the process set forth by the state then it would be possible to simply remove the non-eligible votes, have a revised count, and declare a winner.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Okay, you have demonstrated that a revote could be ordered in this case (and I'm assuming that this is a Washington case):

"Where appropriate, these necessary and proper powers would include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect."

I'm not convinced that you are at the stage of "no other remedy."  I'm very skeptical of this.

A coule of brief excerpts from the Wall Street Journal:

In Washington state, the errors by election officials have been compared to the antics of Inspector Clouseau, only clumsier. At least 1,200 more votes were counted in Seattle's King County than the number of individual voters who can be accounted for.

More than 300 military personnel who were sent their absentee ballots too late to return them have signed affidavits saying they intended to vote for Mr. Rossi.

Some 1 out of 20 ballots in King County that officials felt were marked unclearly were "enhanced" with Wite-Out or pens so that some had their original markings obliterated.

Most disturbing is the revelation last week by King County officials that at least 348 unverified provisional ballots were fed directly into vote-counting machines. "Did it happen? Yes

[J. J.]

Okay, you have demonstrated that a revote could be ordered in this case (and I'm assuming that this is a Washington case):

"Where appropriate, these necessary and proper powers would include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect."

I'm not convinced that you are at the stage of "no other remedy."  I'm very skeptical of this.

A coule of brief excerpts from the Wall Street Journal:

In Washington state, the errors by election officials have been compared to the antics of Inspector Clouseau, only clumsier. At least 1,200 more votes were counted in Seattle's King County than the number of individual voters who can be accounted for.

More than 300 military personnel who were sent their absentee ballots too late to return them have signed affidavits saying they intended to vote for Mr. Rossi.

Not really an issue.  People who voted too late don't get their votes counted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What it all the "enhanced" show votes for Rossi?  You also might be able to verify the original votes.  It is possible to remove wite-out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you determine if the voters that cast them were or were not legitimate votes.  If they were legal voters, this isn't an issue.  I'm not impressed.  You are still not showing either grounds for a revote or evidence that Rossi won.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Okay, you have demonstrated that a revote could be ordered in this case (and I'm assuming that this is a Washington case):

"Where appropriate, these necessary and proper powers would include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect."

I'm not convinced that you are at the stage of "no other remedy."  I'm very skeptical of this.

A coule of brief excerpts from the Wall Street Journal:

In Washington state, the errors by election officials have been compared to the antics of Inspector Clouseau, only clumsier. At least 1,200 more votes were counted in Seattle's King County than the number of individual voters who can be accounted for.

More than 300 military personnel who were sent their absentee ballots too late to return them have signed affidavits saying they intended to vote for Mr. Rossi.

Not really an issue.  People who voted too late don't get their votes counted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What it all the "enhanced" show votes for Rossi?  You also might be able to verify the original votes.  It is possible to remove wite-out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you determine if the voters that cast them were or were not legitimate votes.  If they were legal voters, this isn't an issue.  I'm not impressed.  You are still not showing either grounds for a revote or evidence that Rossi won.

With respect to the first point, federal law requires that military ballots be mailed out in a timely fashion.

All the other states were in compliance.  Washington was NOT.   

Second, altering ballots in prohibited by law!  Geez, I thought you knew that!

Third, since it impossible to prove who the persons where who supposedly cast the ballots, it is impossible to either verify whether they were eligible voters, much less how their vote was cast.  Elections officials have a positive duty under law to follow established procedures which are (in part) designed to prevent ineligible voters from casting ballots.  This is pretty elementary.

[J. J.]

With respect to the first point, federal law requires that military ballots be mailed out in a timely fashion.

All the other states were in compliance.  Washington was NOT.   

Second, altering ballots in prohibited by law!  Geez, I thought you knew that!

Third, since it impossible to prove who the persons where who supposedly cast the ballots, it is impossible to either verify whether they were eligible voters, much less how their vote was cast.  Elections officials have a positive duty under law to follow established procedures which are (in part) designed to prevent ineligible voters from casting ballots.  This is pretty elementary.

First, military ballots do operate under different rules, but WA was not the only state.  WI had similar problems.  In PA a suit was filed and the Governor caved in.  It looks like they missed the deadline here, but that happens.

Second, we are not talking about if the act is illegal.  We are talking about if the vote is invalid because of the illegal act.  Can the effects of alteration be removed to reveal the intent of the voter.  If so, I see no problem.

It is not impossible to prove if the provisional ballots were cast by legitimate voters.  The don't have provisional ballots laying around at the post office; they are given out and signed for by the provisional voter.  It becomes a question of how many ballots were cast by people that were an illegal voters.  That answer could be zero, but the number could be established.

[CARLHAYDEN]

More information (from Sound Politics):

It's all slipping away from the King County elections department, and you read about it here first, thanks to ace Sound Politics data-miner Stefan Sharkansky. The latest crushing revelation of institutional incompetence is the admission, reported to newspaper readers here in today's Seattle Times, that the department's Friday Jan. 7 estimate of 1,217 more gubernatorial votes than voters in King County was about 600 shy of the revised figure. Even then, county Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens can only guess that the number of unnacounted for votes is "somewhere around 1,800."

Democrat Christine Gregoire's victory margin was 129 votes, and King County, of course, was where she "won" the election.

The "around 1,800" does not include the estimated 348 provisional ballots fed directly into the voting machines without inspection for legitimacy. That in itself is grounds for a new election.

What's really revealing to me in today's Times story is this (paraphrased by the paper) statement from Huennekens' boss, county Election Director Dean Logan:

...Logan, said Friday many of the unexplained ballots probably were cast by registered voters who failed to sign in when they went to polling places.
Or many of those (now 2,148 and counting) ballots were cast by people who were not legitimately registered, and we can't really know if they were now, can we? It seems we are at a real fork in the road here, Mr. Logan; Ms. Gregoire; and State Supreme Court justices.

We can keep making lame excuses for the failure of safeguards to ensure the legitimacy of this election, excuses for failures of the type that in the private sector would result in termination of those responsible.

Or we can have a new vote for Governor, with some basic, court-ordered (?) safeguards in place to prevent the sloppiness and unaccountability that plagued the Nov. 2 vote. In so doing, we start down the road to credibile, 21st Century elections in Washington State.

[J. J.]

They should attempt to account for them prior to any action.

[The Duke]

Yes.  And if Mrs. Gregoire won the first time, why wouldn't she win again?  Oh right, she's been tarnished by the fact that everyone in the state thinks she stole the election.

[Nym90]

Yes. And if Mrs. Gregoire won the first time, why wouldn't she win again? Oh right, she's been tarnished by the fact that everyone in the state thinks she stole the election.

Why should there be a revote? Even if there was corruption or fraud, the fradulent votes should simply be thrown out. A revote is ridiculous in any circumstances.

In any event, I don't see any real proof of fraud. My motto in these matters is to never chalk something up to evil when it can easily be explained by incompetence. The votes should have all been counted the first time, and a lot of people need to be fired for not having done so.

[J. J.]

Yes. And if Mrs. Gregoire won the first time, why wouldn't she win again? Oh right, she's been tarnished by the fact that everyone in the state thinks she stole the election.

Why should there be a revote? Even if there was corruption or fraud, the fradulent votes should simply be thrown out. A revote is ridiculous in any circumstances.

In any event, I don't see any real proof of fraud. My motto in these matters is to never chalk something up to evil when it can easily be explained by incompetence. The votes should have all been counted the first time, and a lot of people need to be fired for not having done so.

I have general agreement with Nym.  There is however another factor.  From the court decisions that CARL posted, it seems that WA permits a revote.  I am not happy about that, but that is the law.

If there is evidence that there were enough illegal votes, as defined by the caselaw, to have affected the result, and there is no method for factoring that out, a revote might be necessary.  I favor using every legal method to factor out those votes prior to any revote.  That process should continue.

[Andrew]

In any event, I don't see any real proof of fraud. My motto in these matters is to never chalk something up to evil when it can easily be explained by incompetence. The votes should have all been counted the first time, and a lot of people need to be fired for not having done so.

Setting aside for a moment the issue of whether or not there are enough irregularities to put the result in doubt, and also the issue of whether or not a revote is the appropriate remedy--

--it doesn't matter whether fraud or incompetence is to blame.  All that matters is whether the irregularities exist.

[J. J.]

The question is, has the vote count been so badly managed that it is totally irreparable.  I am far from convinced that this the case.

Much has been made of the counting of some provisional ballots.  Okay, they should have been verified first, but why can't, if there is a list of who used them, the voters be verified now?  If they all turn out to be illegal ballots, yes, a remedy might be needed.

[Andrew]

Were all of the provisional votes fed through the machines, or just some of them?

If all of them in a particular precinct or precincts were fed through, they should be able to figure out how many were ineligible.  But if only some of them were, they might be out of luck.

[Nym90]

In any event, I don't see any real proof of fraud. My motto in these matters is to never chalk something up to evil when it can easily be explained by incompetence. The votes should have all been counted the first time, and a lot of people need to be fired for not having done so.

Setting aside for a moment the issue of whether or not there are enough irregularities to put the result in doubt, and also the issue of whether or not a revote is the appropriate remedy--

--it doesn't matter whether fraud or incompetence is to blame. All that matters is whether the irregularities exist.

I agree with this in principle, but in this case, the incompetence is that not all of the votes were counted in King County in the initial count. Those votes should have been counted the first time, and they weren't. But in the subsequent recount, the votes were tallied properly, hence Gregoire pulled ahead. So these "extra" votes for Gregoire were "produced" by the fact that they should have been there all along, but incompetence initially prevented them from being included. The problem has now been fixed.