Dino Rossi said he had a good day in court last week when a judge ruled that his legal challenge to Gov. Christine Gregoire's election could go to trial.

But maybe he didn't make the most of it, and so yesterday he visited with Republican lawmakers in Olympia and then at his Bellevue headquarters with reporters to declare victory in the latest round in court.

"The case can move forward, and we'll be able to have a trial, we'll be able to present our evidence, and we'll be able to get to the bottom of these problems with this election," Rossi said.

"I was actually ready to pull the plug if the judge said we didn't have the evidence, didn't have enough evidence or wouldn't allow our evidence."

Three days after the hearing before Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges, the two sides are still sparring over what the judge's rulings mean.

Attorneys for Rossi and the Democratic Party said yesterday they will ask the judge for a written order clarifying key points of contention as they prepare for a trial over the November election. The trial date has not been set.

In a series of rulings, Bridges denied Democrats' motions to have the case dismissed on various grounds and said that if Republicans could prove their allegations of illegal votes and errors by election officials, it would be sufficient to have the November election nullified.

But in granting a Democratic motion, he said that even if the allegations are proved to be true, he does not have the power to call for a new election as Rossi has said he has wanted since losing the race to Gregoire.

That left open the question, though, about what the judge would do if he found enough problems to, as the law says, "set aside" the election.

Democrats said the only thing Bridges could do is declare Rossi the winner instead of Gregoire.

"I'm fairly confident that this judge does not believe that he can void this election," said Democratic Party attorney Jenny Durkan. Democrats cheered the ruling because Rossi has said he wouldn't accept the governor's office unless there was a new election.

In his news conference yesterday, Rossi at first left reporters confused about where he stood on that question. If a judge reversed the election outcome and declared him the winner — which the law says the judge could do — Rossi said, "The first thing I'd do as governor is go to the Legislature and find a way to order a new election."

But moments later, after he had left the news conference and his spokeswoman Mary Lane fielded questions about whether that was a softening of his position, Rossi returned to clarify and said he would not accept the office unless he was elected.

If a judge named him governor, he said, he'd quit, which would create a vacancy in the office to be filled later by a special election.

One of Rossi's attorneys, Rob Maguire, said last week that the judge could also nullify the election, remove Gregoire from office and create a vacancy that way.

"Clearly one remedy has been excluded," Joaquin Avila, a visiting professor at Seattle University Law School, said of Bridge's ruling that he can't call for a new election. "But it doesn't necessarily stop the court from invalidating the election."

He said the issue is likely to be appealed to the state Supreme Court, either soon or at the point in the trial where the judge has to decide what he can order.

Assistant Attorney General Jeff Even, who represents Secretary of State Sam Reed in the litigation, said he thinks Democrats are reading too much into the ruling on the new election.

He, too, said Bridges' ruling "leaves open the possibility of setting aside the election without someone else being declared the winner."

If there were a vacancy, Lt. Gov. Brad Owen would be named acting governor until a special election could be called.

Both sides also continue to disagree about what the judge will require Republicans to prove about illegal votes — for example, felons who voted without having had voting rights restored.

Bridges said Republicans must show that any illegal votes would have changed the outcome of the election.

Republicans had argued that it would be enough to show that there were enough problems in the counting and illegal votes that the true outcome — whether Rossi or Gregoire were the legitimate winner — was impossible to know. Rossi kept to that line yesterday.

"I believe we have more than enough evidence, really, to show that we'll never know who actually won this election," he told reporters.

Bridges' ruling appeared to set a higher standard than that.

But does it mean, as Democrats say, that Republicans will have to prove how each felon voted, and who got the votes made under the name of dead people?

The secretary of state's office takes something of a middle-ground approach on this, too.

The judge, Even said, could accept circumstantial evidence to show who got the votes. He points to a 1993 case in California — which has a similar law to Washington's — where there was evidence of wrongdoing by one candidate. Illegal votes in that case were attributed to that candidate, even though it could not be proven who the illegal votes were cast for.

Republicans also have suggested they could disqualify votes on a proportional basis. For example, the number of illegal votes in a precinct could be attributed to each candidate on the same percentage that they got the legal vote.

Avila said that'd be difficult to do and would require expert testimony to prove the link.

"You're talking about statistics. You're talking about trying to imply voting behavior based on how a vote was divided in a given area," he said.

Durkan agreed and said that given that polling showed Rossi did better among male voters, "If these felons are men, do we presume they voted overwhelmingly for Rossi?"

Avila said Bridges had set a difficult legal standard to meet. He said Republicans could subpoena all voters who cast a suspect vote and ask them under oath who they voted for.

But he said there'd be no way to check for sure how they voted, and given that many of the allegations involve felons, the voters would not make good witnesses.

Rossi, a former state senator, started his day yesterday in Olympia. He met separately with House and Senate Republicans to tell his former colleagues that Friday was a good day for his cause.

"The revote issue was not really the meat and potatoes of that decision, but that's what got all the attention," said Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee. "Dino's comment was if he didn't think there was a real shot, he wouldn't be doing this."

Armstrong said that House Republicans stood up and urged Rossi to keep fighting.

Senate Minority Leader Bill Finkbeiner, R-Kirkland, said Rossi got the same reception among Senate colleagues. Rossi told the Republican caucus that much of the media misreported on the hearing and gave too much attention to Bridges' decision saying he could not issue a revote.

Finkbeiner said legislative lawyers have looked at potential options if Rossi wins his case. But they've found nothing definitive about whether a vacancy would be created in the governor's office and how it could be filled.

"It could be just about anything," Finkbeiner said. "It's what the Supreme Court decides it'll be."

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