WA Supreme Court Says "Count 'Em"

[blzrul]

Count those votes

 

I guess Bush v. Gore was not considered applicable case law.

 

First, newly-discovered votes WERE counted by elections boards in other counties in WA; and many of them were for the GOP candidate (and not challenged by the Dems);

 

Second, these votes not illegal or flawed, they were set aside because a computer error said they might be invalid and thus were never inspected - not opened or looked at.

 

For people who freak out over hand recounts, think of it this way. You get your bank statement and you're missing $5,000. You gonna call the automated teller and leave a message? You gonna send an email? Of course not. You want a human being to get on the phone with you and look at your account and figure out what happened.

 

Which is the same premise behind the manual recount.

 

I don't know how it's going to go, no-one does. Currently WITHOUT those votes the Dem is winning by 8 votes. She has stated that she'll be bound by the results of the recount no matter how it comes out. It could well be that these vote tip in the GOP favor. We shall see. But at least we shall know for sure who won, whether or not we like it.

 

And here's a little more from the PI:

 

"Harry Korrell, a lawyer for the Republican Party, countered that state law does not grant King County the right to add new ballots to the recount seven weeks after the election. Korrell said counting those votes would cause irreparable harm, but justices questioned who would be hurt.

 

"You're looking at it from the point of view of the winner or the loser - shouldn't we be looking at it from the point of view of the voter?" asked Justice Susan Owens.

 

The lawsuit was brought by King County, the state Democratic Party and the office of Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican."

[UConn James]

Great quote in the red.

 

By the Rep. lawyers take on the issue, someone could walk into the voting station, steal the box of paper ballots, drive off with them, and if not caught that day they won't count. There's no difference b/w this scenario and some jackoff WA polling place worker either being irretrievably stupid or illegally tampering with/"misplacing" the ballots.

 

Count every vote that was cast by a legitimate voter. Whoever gets the most votes wins. That's how this works. But it's kind of sad when you have to realize that this kind of stupid crap happens everywhere and we never hear about it.

[blzrul]

Great quote in the red.

 

By the Rep. lawyers take on the issue, someone could walk into the voting station, steal the box of paper ballots, drive off with them, and if not caught that day they won't count. There's no difference b/w this scenario and some jackoff WA polling place worker either being irretrievably stupid or illegally tampering with/"misplacing" the ballots.

 

Count every vote that was cast by a legitimate voter. Whoever gets the most votes wins. That's how this works. But it's kind of sad when you have to realize that this kind of stupid crap happens everywhere and we never hear about it.

174334[/snapback]

What's funny about this is that they were able to identify each voter associated with the ballots in question - their names were published in the paper! And these people were of course contacted by the press and were livid that because a computer said their signatures weren't on file, their votes were set aside!

 

And it's also interesting - and pleasing - that the Republican Secretary of State joined the lawsuit and has been quoted as saying that all valid votes should be counted, period. One does not often see such nonpartisanship.

 

And of course the quote in red about "harm"? That was the basis for Bush v. Gore, that counting the votes would harm Bush.

[Alaska Darin]

And of course the quote in red about "harm"?  That was the basis for Bush v. Gore, that counting the votes would harm Bush.

174366[/snapback]

No it wasn't but don't let that get in the way of a good story.

[blzrul]

One of the primary questions in the lawsuit filed by Bush and Cheney was whether "standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?" The argument, aside from what constitutes a "standard" (the argument that the FL SC ruling essentially set election law) was that harm was done to Bush and Cheney and that the ruling would cause them harm therefore.

 

You can read all about it at www.oyez.org or of course go to the SCOTUS itself.

[_BiB_]

You forgot to add that it was a judgement predominantly specific to Seattle, heavily democrat. I don't personally care, really don't, don't have a dog in the fight, but this is a manipulative effort. The republicans will counter. I'm very uncomfortable with any election going into the courts. Didn't have this phenom at this degree before algore.

 

You rabid Dem folks sure have done a lot to assist the process. Why not follow the Colorado model? Lot's of conservative republicans voted dem on the local/state ticket, and vice versa? Let the chips fall. The only time you are in the least concerned with outcomes is when a democrat might lose. People are never disinfranchised when they vote republican. They're just stupid. Everyone knows they meant to press D. Looks so much like an R.

[Alaska Darin]

One of the primary questions in the lawsuit filed by Bush and Cheney was whether "standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?"  The argument, aside from what constitutes a "standard" (the argument that the FL SC ruling essentially set election law) was that harm was done to Bush and Cheney and that the ruling would cause them harm therefore.

 

You can read all about it at www.oyez.org or of course go to the SCOTUS itself.

174552[/snapback]

"Bush v. Gore said that the 14th Amendment right to equal protection requires uniform and not "arbitrary or disparate"-- standards to assure the equal and fair treatment of voters' intent."

 

"The plaintiffs requested relief would result in the very granting of greater voter strength of one group over another which the Supreme Court found violated the one-man, one vote principle which is the basis of our representative government."

[blzrul]

You forgot to add that it was a judgement predominantly specific to Seattle, heavily democrat. I don't personally care, really don't, don't have a dog in the fight, but this is a manipulative effort. The republicans will counter. I'm very uncomfortable with any election going into the courts. Didn't have this phenom at this degree before algore.

 

You rabid Dem folks sure have done a lot to assist the process. Why not follow the Colorado model? Lot's of conservative republicans voted dem on the local/state ticket, and vice versa? Let the chips fall. The only time you are in the least concerned with outcomes is when a democrat might lose. People are never disinfranchised when they vote republican. They're just stupid. Everyone knows they meant to press D. Looks so much like an R.

174617[/snapback]

And what YOU forgot to add is that votes which weren't originally counted in the first tally OR the machine recount in OTHER counties, NOT DEMOCRATIC, were added to the tally by their elections boards. In fact after the machine recount Rossi's lead was 42, and with all counties BUT King reporting he GAINED votes.

 

Oh dear. But wait! The Democrat did not file a lawsuit to bar the votes that were found and added to THOSE tallies. Neither did the GOP.

 

Of course the ISSUE is that THESE 700 votes are in a Democratic-leaning county. The GOP did NOT file a lawsuit against counting those OTHER votes.

 

But, no matter what. The hand recount is DONE and King County will certify the Dem as a winner by TEN VOTES WITHOUT THE 700.

 

Oh dear, facts again. Get out the iodine.

[_BiB_]

And what YOU forgot to add is that votes which weren't originally counted in the first tally OR the machine recount in OTHER counties, NOT DEMOCRATIC, were added to the tally by their elections boards.  In fact after the machine recount Rossi's lead was 42, and with all counties BUT King reporting he GAINED votes.

 

Oh dear.  But wait!  The Democrat did not file a lawsuit to bar the votes that were found and added to THOSE tallies.  Neither did the GOP.

 

Of course the ISSUE is that THESE 700 votes are in a Democratic-leaning county.  The GOP did NOT file a lawsuit against counting those OTHER votes.

 

But, no matter what.  The hand recount is DONE and King County will certify the Dem as a winner by TEN VOTES WITHOUT THE 700.

 

Oh dear, facts again.  Get out the iodine.

174777[/snapback]

 

Take a Xanax. A blue one.

[Alaska Darin]

From OYEZ:

 

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5).

 

Nothing whatsoever to do with harming the candidates. Like I said: Nice story.

[blzrul]

From OYEZ:

 

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5).

 

Nothing whatsoever to do with harming the candidates.  Like I said:  Nice story.

185738[/snapback]

Unfair to whom?

 

And the result? Harm.

[KD in CA]

Unfair to whom?

 

And the result?  Harm.

185901[/snapback]

 

Unfair to the process, and thus to the citizenry. Stop viewing the situation from the perspective of who you wanted to win.

 

 

As for Washington, looks like the 'found votes' will carry the day. The call for a new election is absurd. I'd rather the Dems steal it than admit that we can't do better than the Ukraine.

[blzrul]

Unfair to the process, and thus to the citizenry.  Stop viewing the situation from the perspective of who you wanted to win.

As for Washington, looks like the 'found votes' will carry the day.  The call for a new election is absurd.  I'd rather the Dems steal it than admit that we can't do better than the Ukraine.

186017[/snapback]

Stealing an election, my my, what harsh words. Here try this

 

"Get Over It".

[DC Tom]

Stealing an election, my my, what harsh words.  Here try this

 

"Get Over It".

186019[/snapback]

 

Regardless...why not another recount? Seriously...why are they stopping now?

[KRC]

Regardless...why not another recount?  Seriously...why are they stopping now?

186043[/snapback]

 

I thought the rule was "recount until you get the desired result, then do everything you can to stop additional recounts."

[erynthered]

Stealing an election, my my, what harsh words.  Here try this

 

"Get Over It".

186019[/snapback]

 

 

How ironic.

Post of the year.

 

 

I cant stop laughing.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

You should have seen Rossi on the fair and balanced Fascist News Network... HELP ME, FOX NEWS, YOU'RE MY ONLY HOPE!! WAAAAH!

 

This precedent was all started back in 2000, and the Republican Harris gave you the election. Now, things work against you... losing by miniscule numbers HURTS, DOESN'T IT??

[KD in CA]

This precedent was all started back in 2000, and the Republican Harris gave you the election. Now, things work against you... losing by miniscule numbers HURTS, DOESN'T IT??

186140[/snapback]

 

 

The only precedent started in 2000 was the Dems turning our election process into a legal quagmire rather than accept the decision of the voters (even after a legal recount).

 

Hurts? I suppose it does for people who live in Washington, but fortunately I am not KD in WA, so I could care less. But it’s kinda funny to see you guys get all worked up like this is your big revenge for Bush-Gore.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

The only precedent started in 2000 was the Dems turning our election process into a legal quagmire rather than accept the decision of the voters (even after a legal recount).

 

Hurts?  I suppose it does for people who live in Washington, but fortunately I am not KD in WA, so I could care less.   But it’s kinda funny to see you guys get all worked up like this is your big revenge for Bush-Gore.

186212[/snapback]

 

I didn't get 'worked up'.. I just found it funny that:

 

1. Republicans blew their 'holier than thou' attitude when they jumped on the votes in Ohio, and were ready to send their lawyers and their whole team of rabid dogs to contest the results had Ohio gome Dem.

 

2. Rossi has to run to Fox News to 'get his message out', and cry about how he's going to contest, blah blah blah...

 

Politicians are politicians.. one side is no better than the other, so Republicans ought to stop pretending that they are different.. it's laughable!!

 

Big revenge???? We don't NEED revenge; Iraq takes care of everything for us... it's like watching the Three Stooges when they tried to run Moronika!

 

At the tone, it will be 3 o clock Babylonia watch time!

 

I know who Moe and Larry are, but who's Curly??

[Alaska Darin]

Big revenge???? We don't NEED revenge; Iraq takes care of everything for us... it's like watching the Three Stooges when they tried to run Moronika! 

186269[/snapback]

Which explains the ease with which your side won the election. Quaint little dream world you're living in.