Washington State Gubenatorial Race Finally Over
Dino Rossi, Republican candidate for Governor of Washington, after winning the November election and the first recount - then losing the second recount to Democrat Christine Gregoire - has been handed what will be his final defeat. Judge John Bridges has ruled that, while almost 2,000 votes were improperly cast (enough to throw the election results out) it couldn't be demonstrated who those improper votes were cast for. He also ruled that there was no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the Dems, something that is hard to believe, given that ballots were just "found" by the time the second recount was started.
Rossi decided that, with the pro-Democrat makeup of the Washington Supreme Court, there is no point in continuing.
The message to the Democrats: as long as you have friendly judges, you might as well do whatever it takes to win. And, to Republicans; pack the courts with your friends, because more elections are heading into the courts. Or, vice-versa. In this case, the election seemed to be so marred with fraud that it could have been ruled null-and-void. I was not sitting through the various trials, nor am I inside the Judge's head; perhaps if I were, then things would have been clearer. However, at least some of the Judge's statements are..suspect. For example;
He starts off okay. There are problems in every election, close or not. But, when you have an election where ballots are "found" in a heavily Democratic area, doesn't that seem a tad suspicious?
Well, that's the problem; what makes an election "clearly invalid?" I, obviously, am of the opinion that the irregularities surrounding this race at least raise the suspicion that this election was invalid.
That said, the court's have ruled and, Rossi was probably right to concede. At some point, these challenges - right or wrong - do more harm to the constituency to be represented than any good they may do in the cause of fairness. While there is the appearance of fraud, there was no "smoking gun." So, at some point, we have to accept the imperfections of our system and the people who participate in it and move on with the business of state. If the Washington voters are really upset about this, they can vote Gregoire out of office.
Finally, in the interests of a gratuitous attack, the Governor's response when she heard the decision? She burst into tears. Must be a friend of Senator Voinovich (R [notionally] OH). Rimshot...thank you...goodbye.
(Sources: Seatlle Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, Bloomberg, Michelle Malkin)
Rossi decided that, with the pro-Democrat makeup of the Washington Supreme Court, there is no point in continuing.
The message to the Democrats: as long as you have friendly judges, you might as well do whatever it takes to win. And, to Republicans; pack the courts with your friends, because more elections are heading into the courts. Or, vice-versa. In this case, the election seemed to be so marred with fraud that it could have been ruled null-and-void. I was not sitting through the various trials, nor am I inside the Judge's head; perhaps if I were, then things would have been clearer. However, at least some of the Judge's statements are..suspect. For example;
"While there is evidence of irregularities, as there appears to be in every election based on the testimony of various county election officials, there is no ... clear and convincing evidence that improper conduct or irregularity procured Ms. Gregoire's election. There is no evidence that ballots were changed, the ballot box stuffed or that lawful votes were removed from either candidate's ballot box."
He starts off okay. There are problems in every election, close or not. But, when you have an election where ballots are "found" in a heavily Democratic area, doesn't that seem a tad suspicious?
"Unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken, their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts."
Well, that's the problem; what makes an election "clearly invalid?" I, obviously, am of the opinion that the irregularities surrounding this race at least raise the suspicion that this election was invalid.
That said, the court's have ruled and, Rossi was probably right to concede. At some point, these challenges - right or wrong - do more harm to the constituency to be represented than any good they may do in the cause of fairness. While there is the appearance of fraud, there was no "smoking gun." So, at some point, we have to accept the imperfections of our system and the people who participate in it and move on with the business of state. If the Washington voters are really upset about this, they can vote Gregoire out of office.
Finally, in the interests of a gratuitous attack, the Governor's response when she heard the decision? She burst into tears. Must be a friend of Senator Voinovich (R [notionally] OH). Rimshot...thank you...goodbye.
(Sources: Seatlle Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, Bloomberg, Michelle Malkin)
posted by Jeff at 6/07/2005 01:17:00 PM
3 Comments:
Fair elections ought to be the one universally bipartisan issue, so it amazes me that anyone opposes careful scrutiny of the process. That said, it's a bad idea that elections wind up in the courts. If we want to keep that from happening, we need to find out what went wrong. This is what smart people do when flaws are revealed in any other process, whether it be building cars, paying bills or trying to keep severed digits out of Frosties. But when it comes to elections, any post-election scrutiny is unfortunately seized as an opportunity for partisan bickering, the losing party alleging unfairness, and the winner citing sour grapes. Ideally, flawed elections are fertile ground for the media to do what they do best, which is search for wrongdoing, incompetence or waste, unfettered by partisan baggage. But in the current climate, where media frequently are targeted for attack -- sometimes fairly, but usually not -- for bias, you can argue there's a chilling effect that devalues such courage.
I haven't read the decision, but it seems to fly in the face of common sense.
Regardless of whether evidence of fraud was found, and regardless of the fact that there was no way to determine to whom the 2,000 improper votes went, if you've got 2,000 votes that shouldn't have counted in a race decided by 126 votes, that seems on its face like a reason to invalidate the election and re-vote.
James,
If legislating from the bench or judicial activism is wrong (and I don't think it is, by the way, and I start my case with Marbury v. Madison), then the court arrived at the correct conclusion here: that is that there is no provision in the law for what you suggest. Judges don't have to make sense. They just have to interpret the law as written. The same is true in the medical marijuana case that the Supremes ruled on yesterday. As humane as it might be to allow the seriously ill to see God through a haze of THC, the law doesn't require humanity (I mean, look at lawyers). The decision may have been a perversion of the Commerce Clause, but the Commerce Clause was turned out like a cheap ho years ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home