Washington Judge Rejects Expert Evidence Offered by Republicans in Challenge to Outcome of Governor's Election
As the Seattle Times and numerous other press outlets are reporting, Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges has ruled against a Republican challenge to the outcome of last fall's gubernatorial election in Washington State. Democrat Christine Gregoire had been certified as the winner after a manual recount gave her a victory margin of just 129 votes, and now she gets to keep the job. (See our posts of 5/27/05 and 6/4/05.)
The Republican challenge revolved around several hundred illegal ballots cast by felons and other unqualified voters (including 19 dead persons). The Republican experts had urged a retabulation of the outcome based on a method of "proportionate deduction," under which votes by felons would be subtracted from each candidate's total at the precinct level, in proportions determined by the respective candidates' overall tallies in the relevant precinct. That is, if a candidate won 60% of the vote in a precinct, 60% of the felons' votes in that precinct would be deducted from his or her total, and the remaining votes by felons in that precinct would be subtracted from the total for the other candidate.
Judge Bridges's ruling rested on multiple grounds, including the general absence of any evidence that the illegal voters even cast a vote in the gubernatorial contest. But the judge did not hesitate to confront the validity of the Republican petitioners' expert evidence head-on. He explicitly excluded their testimony under Frye, holding that it neither rested on a generally accepted scientific technique nor a proper application of any such technique. He ruled that the experts' methodology was flawed because their data sample was not random, but was disproportionately populated by felon voters in precincts carried by Gov. Gregoire. In addition, he held that that the experts' core assumption -- viz., that felons' voting patterns in a given precinct would mirror those for the electorate in that precinct as a whole -- was not scientifically valid, and indeed was an example of the ecological fallacy.
He also found that even if the "proportionate reduction" method were legitimate, its proper application would have resulted in a victory for Gov. Gregoire.
Judge Bridges read his opinion aloud. You can listen to an archived 52-minute webcast here. His discussion of expert testimony begins about thirty minutes into the webcast.
The Republican challenge revolved around several hundred illegal ballots cast by felons and other unqualified voters (including 19 dead persons). The Republican experts had urged a retabulation of the outcome based on a method of "proportionate deduction," under which votes by felons would be subtracted from each candidate's total at the precinct level, in proportions determined by the respective candidates' overall tallies in the relevant precinct. That is, if a candidate won 60% of the vote in a precinct, 60% of the felons' votes in that precinct would be deducted from his or her total, and the remaining votes by felons in that precinct would be subtracted from the total for the other candidate.
Judge Bridges's ruling rested on multiple grounds, including the general absence of any evidence that the illegal voters even cast a vote in the gubernatorial contest. But the judge did not hesitate to confront the validity of the Republican petitioners' expert evidence head-on. He explicitly excluded their testimony under Frye, holding that it neither rested on a generally accepted scientific technique nor a proper application of any such technique. He ruled that the experts' methodology was flawed because their data sample was not random, but was disproportionately populated by felon voters in precincts carried by Gov. Gregoire. In addition, he held that that the experts' core assumption -- viz., that felons' voting patterns in a given precinct would mirror those for the electorate in that precinct as a whole -- was not scientifically valid, and indeed was an example of the ecological fallacy.
He also found that even if the "proportionate reduction" method were legitimate, its proper application would have resulted in a victory for Gov. Gregoire.
Judge Bridges read his opinion aloud. You can listen to an archived 52-minute webcast here. His discussion of expert testimony begins about thirty minutes into the webcast.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home