Posted on 02/18/2005 12:53:07 PM PST by Publius
A Wenatchee judge signed an order Friday confirming that the legal challenge to the governor's election will move forward in Chelan County Superior Court.
But Judge John E. Bridges said it's not going to move too fast.
The state Republican Party had suggested an April 4 trial date. Bridges said he won't set a trial date until both sides have finished their discovery, the legal term for fact-finding. He didn't get to the question of what, exactly, the Republicans will have to prove at trial.
Bridges' order confirmed his ruling at a Feb. 4 hearing. Bridges denied the Democrats' motion to move the election challenge to the Legislature or the Supreme Court. He granted the Democrats' motion to take a "revote" off the table as an option if the Republicans win. And he denied Democrats' motions to dismiss the case because they believe the Republicans don't have enough proof.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi and the state GOP are challenging Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire's election, saying her 129-vote margin of victory was tainted by so many errors and illegal votes that the courts should throw out the results. They sued Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican. The state Democratic Party intervened in the case.
Bridges' signed the Republican's proposed order, which stated which motions were denied and which were granted, and included the transcript of the judge's ruling on Feb. 4.
Democrats had submitted a much more ambitious, 19-page proposed order. They wanted the judge to clarify that in order to win their case, the Republicans will have to prove how each illegal voter actually voted.
The judge said he wasn't going to go there on Friday, but mentioned that Democrats should file a pretrial motion on that question of what the burden of proof should be.
"The Democrats got totally shut down," Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane said. "They keep trying to delay or limit our case and they keep failing."
But David McDonald, who's overseeing the Democrats' legal team, said he believes Republicans still face an uphill battle to prove their case.
"They're looking for a way not to have to prove their case," McDonald said.
Ping.
No trial date until both parties finish their discovery.
So the dems can take four years to do this? How about ten years?
There has to be a time limit.
Yeah, sounds like an invitation to the Dems to drag this out however they can until the case is moot.
Knowing Bridges, he won't put up with those kinds of tactics. If they stall, he will go ahead and slap them down with a date.
The longer this gets dragged out the worse.
When do the Wheels of Justice EVER move fast?
This is not meant to seem a silly question..Assume hypothetically, and happily, that some time in the future, the GOP wins the case, there is a new election, and the GOP wins that as well..EWhat happens to everything that Gregoire did while she was in office..since she wasn't really elected? Does it all just disappear..since she wasn't really elected, anything she signs/does is therefore illegal?
While I'm sure the Democrats would like to drag this out until November 2008, this judge won't let them. Discovery will move at a proper pace, and if it moves too slowly, the judge will act.
It's usually 6 months, but may be extended by order of the court. It's discretionary with the trial court, but most trial courts have "docket lists" with a count of all cases that have not come up on a trial calendar for a period of x days or have had motions pending for x days (usually 60 or 90). Some judges just don't care, but most judges have a healthy horror of showing up on the "Dreaded Sixty Day List". Judge I worked for fresh out of law school sure did - he told us that we were NOT going to have a case on that list, no matter what, even if we had to work nights and weekends and threaten to boil the lawyers in oil.
We never did appear on the List, and so far as I know he never had to boil a lawyer.
(We need more of those sort!)
And what's your standard discovery period in WA?
Look to the judge on this one.
There are rules for discovery and I would hope that a timeline for discovery is required.
Still I think the dems can decide to interview every felon, every double-voter etc. and they can schedule depositions at the convenience of those deposed.
This could indeed get ridiculously long, and that would leave more time for coverup.
Same question as in Post No. 11 to you. I have never been anywhere near Washington State, whether in a legal or any other capacity . . . I'm just curious.
Boiled lawyer is too tough and stringy. Lawyer is much better roasted.
A little more info on Friday's ruling.
The judge, however, is well known for his independence and integrity. He runs a tight courtroom. During the big hearing, a reporter for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer took a cell phone call in court, and the judge fined him and threw him out.
"He granted the Democrats' motion to take a "revote" off the table as an option if the Republicans win."
UM...THIS IS THE WHOLE REASON THE GOP SUED.
WHY ISN'T THIS A HUGE ROSSI LOSS???
It sure seems to be one to me.
There is no way the judge would rule in favor of us, no matter how massive the fraud, that Rossi was the actual winner after the trial starts in May or whenever it actually begins.
If you were in a position of power to 'potentially' boil any lawyer in anything, then I am sure the nation would envy you and consider you abundantly blessed.
As a matter of fact I see that as a possible revenue stream for out-of-work or slow-work lawyers, selling tickets to the public, offering themselves in humiliation such as water douching or targets for pie throwing or some such thing. Could be a big hit at the Puyallup Fair and other locales.
But I remain vigilant and stubborn.
I am used to disappointment however. Past repub losses are always present in my memory, all the way back to Nixon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.