I was wrong. The WA Supreme Court decision today proves that they are activist after all.

Relying on a reading of the law other than what the statutes say and what the legislature intended, the court issued its opinion - reversing the Pierce County Superior Court - after hearing oral argument this morning beginning at 9:30 AM Pacific time. The text of the opinion is here.

Local news channels are reporting that Gregoire is ahead by ten votes in the recount without counting the new ballots.

You're seeing it in the light of day folks. This is how the Democrats steal elections. Shark is reporting that King County will certify Gregoire +47, Rossi -12, all by 'correction' apparently by the Canvassing Board - want to take bets that the corrections were 2-1 votes by the Board?

Here's my comment to Sharks's post:

What's weird about it is that in that large a sample to have one candidate go significantly positive in the count and one go significantly negative shows clear counting bias. (Except for Adams which is an extremely small sample), there is no county except Grant (which is a 69% Rossi county) reporting count numbers with opposite mathematical signs.

In fact, in no county where there is more than 30,000 votes for either candidate is there a negative result - except for King County where they apparently took 12 votes from Rossi.

FOUL!

More later.

UPDATE: Powerline and Michelle Malkin are continuing to keep tabs as well.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83455816469e200d8346ab9e269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference: WA Governor's Race: Activist Supremes After All:

I smell rats everywhere...

And for Baghdad Bob Berendt to say "God" (I put that in quotation marks because that's why he said) had a hand in this - okay Gregoire is for what exactly:

a) Aborting babies
b) Bullying whistleblowers
c) Closing schools (as in Marysville by not upholding the law)

Now tell me, is that truly God-like?

Posted by: Josef at Dec 22, 2004 6:24:08 PM

In support of your activist comments.

If you see the tape of the arguments before the court one of the Justices (Barbara Madson, I think), asked the R's attorney, how what he asked the court to order would be "good public policy". So, was she thinking she needed to make “good public policy”, or interpret the law which is the public policy put in place by the legislature? It looked to me like she was thinking like an activist to try to set public policy.

Posted by: Gordy at Dec 22, 2004 10:45:58 PM

Well, Gordy: I've always admired Justice Madsen. Not that I agree with today's unanimous ruling per se. But this is where we lost:

"Respondents would have us narrowly construe “an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns” to mean only an arithmetic error disclosed on the face of the returns. But this is contrary to Doyle, which speaks in terms of “incorrect” returns and returns at odds with other evidence. Moreover, since the statute permits recanvassing, it is instructive to remember that canvassing involves “examining ballots or groups of ballots, subtotals, and cumulative totals in order to determine the official returns,” RCW 29A.04.013. Here, certain ballots were coded as having “no signature on file” without having been fully examined to properly place them in that category. In that sense they were never fully canvassed, and the seeming error in placing them in any category has become evident to the King County Canvassing Board. Under Doyle this is just the sort of apparent discrepancy or inconsistency that the board can correct through recanvassing"
Pages 5-6 of the ruling.

That said, I want to reenter into the record what I posted on my blog as to what she e-mailed me about public records: "There is a tendency on the part of some government employees and elected officials, to want to protect "their" institution, forgetting to whom the institution really belongs. I strongly believe that the public needs to see what we do, so we can change course if that is the will of the people" (http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/2004/10/another-case-for-dino-and-rmk-mine.html)

She dissented against the recent rulings to close down public access to public documents. Not necessarily a bad guy, eh?

Posted by: Josef at Dec 23, 2004 12:08:19 AM

Great post - I fully agree with your sentiments and have posted my own.

Any word on the status of the verification of the uncounted ballot signatures?

EMCEE: Last I heard, they were in the process and expected to report today. It seems like such verification would take longer had they just begun it after the Supreme's opinion yesterday.

Posted by: Ironman at Dec 23, 2004 9:36:05 AM