WENATCHEE — Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges said yesterday that speeding up the collection of evidence in the governor's election lawsuit could lead to chaos and injustice as Republicans try to get Gov. Christine Gregoire tossed from office.

In the first major day of court action in the case, Bridges denied a Republican request to expedite the schedule for collecting evidence and taking depositions. Attorneys representing some of the 39 counties named in the suit told Bridges that the requests have been overwhelming, particularly in small counties. One even accused Republicans of attempted extortion, saying the party offered to cut back its information request in exchange for the county agreeing not to fight some issues in court.

Bridges cited the old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, but said there is a corollary, "And that is, justice hurried is also justice denied."

The accelerated schedule, he said, would have meant "expedited chaos."

Bridges also denied the Democratic Party's request that all discovery — the court-ordered process of compiling evidence — be suspended until major legal and jurisdictional questions can be answered, including whether the Legislature, and not the court, is the right place to decide the election dispute.

But the judge wants those questions answered soon. He issued a tight deadline for filing briefs and said he will hear arguments that could lead to dismissal of the case at a hearing Feb. 4.

The case was filed Jan. 7 by Republican candidate Dino Rossi and Republicans who say errors and potential fraud mean the true outcome of the election is unknown. They want Gov. Christine Gregoire removed from office and a new election held.

The suit named all 39 counties, their election directors and Secretary of State Sam Reed. Democrats and Libertarians petitioned to join the suit, too, to protect their gubernatorial candidates.

Yesterday, about 16 attorneys arrived at an auditorium across the street from the Chelan County Courthouse for the first major hearing in the case. Another 18, representing counties and county auditors, participated by telephone.

Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges

Republicans said they needed subpoena power and the expedited schedule to get all the information they need from the counties to show enough errors to warrant the election being nullified.

"We simply want to put the facts before the court; let the truth come out," said attorney Rob Maguire. "It's hard to dispute that there is a cloud over the legitimacy of these election results."

Democrats, though, opposed any court-sanctioned discovery, saying Republicans should have found their evidence before filing the lawsuit.

Democrats' attorney Jenny Durkan said Republicans were asking court permission to "rummage through the cemeteries and retirement homes looking for deceased people and people vacationing in Phoenix half the year" who voted in the election.

"It is their burden to come forward with demonstrable proof that this election should be set aside."

Attorneys for some counties and county auditors said yesterday they could not have complied with the speeded-up discovery process.

Ferry County Prosecutor James von Sauer said to comply with the Republican requests for information would have required the auditor to do nothing else.

"As a county, are we obligated to quit serving the public in order to respond? ... This is really a serious matter for the small counties."

Republicans have already made deals with 10 counties that greatly reduce the amount of information they are required to turn over, said Harry Korrell, one of the attorneys representing Rossi and Republicans.

Republicans offered to narrow their subpoenas, not seek attorneys' fees and drop the counties as parties in the suit — but not the counties' auditors.

In exchange, the counties would have to quickly turn over the information and agree, if Bridges rules the election should be thrown out, not to oppose Rossi's call for a new election.

Republicans also would agree to say the auditors "tried to do this in a fair and honest way and any mistakes were inadvertent," Korrell said. He said the deal was originally proposed by an attorney representing one of the small counties.

But attorney Greg Banks, representing Island County, said Republicans were "extorting stipulations out of the counties" and that it was unfair to ask for more evidence from "counties that didn't knuckle under to this."

Bridges ruled on the evidence issues immediately after the last lawyer spoke. That's what he's known for — a good-natured but orderly hearing with quick resolution. He joked a little and spent time explaining his ruling.

The schedule set yesterday will have the judge soon ruling on the last large hurdles to a full-scale trial of the 2004 governor's election.

Those issues, raised by Democrats, are:

• Should the Legislature, and not the courts, decide the case, given that the state constitution says contested elections for governor and other statewide offices "shall be decided by the Legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law"?

Republicans say there is a specific contested-election law laying out a court proceeding, and that is the way "determined by law" to settle these disputes.

• If a court is the proper place, should the case have been filed with the state Supreme Court?

Jeff Even, the assistant attorney general representing the secretary of state, said it is the state's position that the superior court is the proper place.

• Would the allegations by Republicans be covered by the election contest law?

Bridges told the attorneys to pay special attention to what constitutes an "illegal vote," which the law says is one piece of evidence that could lead to an election being nullified. For example, Republicans and Democrats disagreed yesterday about the importance of felons who voted illegally. Republicans see that as a clear illegal vote, but Democrats say it's a voter-registration issue and would have had to be challenged prior to the election.

• If Bridges does nullify the election, does state law or the constitution allow for a judge to call for a new election?

David Postman: 360-943-9882 or dpostman@seattletimes.com