This is Thursday, May 26th, 2005. Welcome to today's edition of the LIVE Trial Diary.
As many of you are aware, the trial in the lawsuit filed by Dino Rossi and the Washington State GOP to throw out the election of Gov. Christine Gregoire began on Monday.
As I keep reminding you, Pacific NW Portal has all the information you need to brief yourself on the trial. It is updated daily with the latest information - we have an index of news stories, blogs, etc.
I will provide updates from the Chelan County courthouse as often as I can from this diary. I am not actually there, but I am watching the trial.
Yesterday we heard testimony from King County mail ballot supervisor Nicole Way. The GOP is hoping that Way's testimony will be the cornerstone in their case. We also heard from Clark Bensen, the GOP's first "factual" witness, who is taking us into the realm of the "proportional deduction" methodology.
Once again, updates will be posted here. I'll also post links to other relevant sites throughout the day.
You can watch the feeds here, courtesy of TVW. Hopefully, they will not have another power outage today at their Olympia retransmission facility.
[8:35 AM] Court has reconvened. David Burman, an attorney for the Democrats, has begun cross-examining the GOP's factual witness, Clark Bensen.
[8:40 AM] David Burman is asking Bensen about the numbers and how he came up with them. Burman is asking Bensen about his "analysis" of the data that the GOP is using to argue its case.
[8:50 AM] Now Burman is asking Bensen if he looked at crediting discrepancies...also, about how Bensen got his information and what he did if data didn't match. Bensen was a go-between for the information and the expert witnesses, he says...Burman mentions that a company (ASI, maybe) has processed the depositions...
[9:00 AM] They're talking about the undervote now....Bensen admits he started working on proportional deduction before the expert witnesses were even part of the case. However, he maintains that it wasn't his idea and he was asked by counsel (GOP legal team)...
[9:10 AM] They're talking about how the data was handled now...apparently the company the GOP used for processing has several Republican clients...They're now discussing Bensen's relationship with the expert witnesses. Apparently, Bensen has worked in other cases before...redistricting cases. They're now talking about the felon list.
[9:15 AM] Bensen says he's just working off the spreadsheet that King County provided him....Bensen is now done. Looks like the first GOP witness is up...a political science professor from CalTech....
[9:20 AM] The professor specializes in American politics, elections, and statistical data. He has published a book on redistricting before, now he's going over his accolades...including a fellowship from the National Science Foundation...The professor's name is Katz, I believe...Mark Braden is the GOP lawyer asking him questions.
[9:20 AM] Burman objects. This is the beginning of the Frye Hearing. The Frye Hearing will be a legal test to determine whether that the science the expert witnesses basing their case on is accepted, sound, and reliable. Burman is explaining to Katz how the Frye Hearing is going to work and the process he'll be using for asking questions of Katz...Katz says he has been deposed. The Times: "Katz's testimony will lead to what is known as a Frye hearing, where Democrats will challenge the methodology and the analysis he has done."
[9:25 AM] Burman is now asking Katz questtions...he's reading a few sentences from a document and asking Katz if he wrote them...Katz says yes. Burman "Living in a neighborhood does not cause them to vote the same way...." ...Katz is replying.
[9:40 AM] Katz is worried about giving answers to a legal question...Burman is being a little haughty here..."Please answer MY question..." What they are talking about is whether the underlying science behind proportional deduction is sound/reliable. Braden appears to be objecting to one of Burman's questions.
[9:50 AM] My prior update got wiped out. Burman asked Katz about samples...then he asked Katz a question that he wouldn't answer, so Burman retracted it. Then things really started heating up when Burman angrily complained that the witness wasn't looking at him. Braden's a little shocked...Katz admits he has a tendency to look around the room when he talks...Judge asks everyone to play nice.
[10:00 AM] Burman is reading over some material and before that, he was asking Katz questions. What he's trying to do here is challenge Katz's techniques and methodology. Now Burman is done reading. Katz asks if he is going to ask a question, but Burman explains that he doesn't have to....The Times explains this whole hearing a bit more clearly than I have:
Democratic attorney David Burman is not challenging Katz' credentials or experience. Instead, he is asking about the science used in Katz's "proportional deduction" analysis.
Burman has asked a series of questions about what additional information could be used to determine how felons voted other than the geographic analysis Republicans want to use.
Democrats say it'd be more accurate to use age, gender, occupation or other demographic information to predict how felons might have voted in the election. Republicans want to analyze illegal votes based on the overall vote in precincts where the illegal votes were cast.
[10:06 AM] Burman is asking Katz about the compilation of the data. He's asking if demographic information was included rather than just geographic information (geographic would be precinct voting patterns, demographics would be age, gender, etc.)
[10:08 AM] Court has recessed for a fifteen minute morning break.
[10:24 AM] Court has reconvened. Another expert witness, Christopher Adolph, has taken the stand for the Democrats. He's a political scientist - works at the University of Washington. Burman is asking Adolph questions about his background. The Times: Christopher Adolph is an assistant professor of political science and part of the Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences at the University of Washington.
[10:30 AM] They've now moved on to demographic information vs. geographic information. They're discussing what social scientists look for when they're analyzing information and making inferences. Adolph is talking about the need for a census.
[10:40 AM] Adolph is blowing big holes in the "proportional deduction" methodology. He's just finished explaining an analogy: the American League and the Mariners batted a .270 average last year, but Ichiro Suzuki batted .372. Using "proportional deduction", Adolph says, you're assuming that Ichiro batted .270.
[10:50 AM] Kablam! Adolph is making it very clear why "proportional deduction" should not be used in this court case. He's explaining how applying demographic statistics to the vote makes it different than merely relying on geographical data....relying on the geographical data commits the "ecological fallacy", he says, because it treats felons the same as every other voter. He's very confident, clear, and smooth in his presentation. The Democrats picked a great expert witness.....this is great. It is VERY satisfying to see the GOP's legal methods sliced, diced, and shredded.
[10:54 AM] Burman is done questioning Adolph. Braden will now cross-examine for the GOP, it appears. Exhibit 759 is being admitted as evidence. Braden is asking if Adolph has ever testified in court before as an expert witness. Adolph says he has not.
[11:00 AM] Braden is trying to grill Adolph, but Adolph seems to be doing a good job holding up against the questions. Braden is posing hyoptheticals, and Adolph is replying to those questions, smiling the entire time.
[11:05 AM] Braden has just insulted Adolph, comparing him to Katz...Burman prior had objected to Braden's questioning of Adolph, saying it was irrelevant...Judge overrules Burman, but says he doesn't entirely agree with Braden...
[11:10 AM] More hypotheticals from Braden. Braden is really challenging Adolph here...Adolph has really blown away some of Braden's questions by changing the frame when he answers. This exchange here reminds me of political debate and framing. Braden's truly acting like a real Republican political hack.
[11:12 AM] Braden's done. Burman is back to hopefully put Braden is his place. It's followup time.
[11:15 AM] Well, Burman is assisting Adolph in delivering rebuttal to Braden's arguments when he was up during cross examinations. For instance, only 11% of felons in Washington are African-American, while it's 33% in other states....according to the Uggan-Manza study that's being used for the case. The point basically is that you can't use all these "averages" because the conclusions you'd make would be flawed.
[11:18 AM] Adolph is done. Professor Mark Handcock is now taking the stand. He has a Ph.D in statistics from the U of Chicago. He currently works at the University of Washington. Another exhibit is now being admitted. Handcock says he wouldn't disagree with anything Adolph said....Handcock said Adolph did "an excellent job"....
[11:30 AM] Handcock is using the analogy of a coin toss to explain the principle of insufficient reason. The analogy is that the coin is a ballot - heads is Gregoire, tails is Rossi, for example. He's making the point that legal voters, essentially, are not the same as illegal voters. Burman is done asking Handcock questions. It's Braden's turn to cross examine.
[11:40 AM] Braden is cross examining Handcock. They're going pretty slowly. Braden does not appear to be making any headway. He's proposing more hypotheticals.
[11:50 AM] Now, Braden is really being hypothetical...he didn't get Handcock's answer to his hypothetical question, and is rephrasing slowly. But Burman has objected...and now Handcock is making an explanation. ...Handcock has finished, and now Ahearne (representing Secretary of State) has pointed out a mistake by Braden...Braden is doing more explaining, and now Burman is making more arguments. Judge agrees with Burman...Braden agrees to backtrack and rephrase. Handcock has answered again, but Braden is still not satisified...so he is rephrasing the question yet again...
[12:00 PM] Burman is back up for followup now. He's blowing a few holes in Braden's arguments...Handcock is explaining why you can't use the GOP expert's methods to form a conclusion based on sound science. They're now going back over Handcock's background with a fine comb. He clearly has a lot of expertise....
[12:06 PM] Braden's up for some followup. He doesn't take long...Burman is finished now, so court is recessing for lunch.
[12:07 PM] Court is in recess until 1:30 PM.
Find today's afternoon coverage here.