WENATCHEE — A Republican attorney grilled the state elections director on cross-examination yesterday in a move designed to show the Secretary of State's Office is "masquerading as being neutral" in the governor's election lawsuit.

Attorney Dale Foreman, in some of the toughest exchanges of the trial, said elections director Nick Handy was cheerleading for county auditors and secretly siding with Democrats. Foreman showed an e-mail in which Handy said early this year that he wanted to "severely undermine the confidence of the court" in key Republican arguments.

Republicans allege illegal votes, errors and fraud by election officials marred the election that ended with Democrat Christine Gregoire winning the governor's office by 129 votes.

Republicans pushed hard yesterday on Handy, who said he was neutral, because they say Judge John Bridges relies too heavily on guidance from attorneys for Handy's boss, Secretary of State Sam Reed.

They want to shake Bridges' confidence in Reed's legal team.

Foreman said after court recessed that Bridges looks to attorneys Thomas Ahearne and Jeff Even "because he thinks they're neutral. I wanted to turn that around and say 'You're not neutral.' We thought it was time to call a spade a spade."

Foreman said he assumes the secretary of state's attorneys will side with Democrats at the trial's end, asking Bridges to let the election stand. Ahearne yesterday said the office has been neutral and has not made a decision about whether it will take a position at the end of the trial, which is expected Friday.

"They want to support the status quo while masquerading as neutral," Foreman said.

There's no question the Secretary of State's Office has been influential with Bridges. The judge often looks to Ahearne in particular for guidance and has acknowledged that from the bench.

Ahearne and Even have presented arguments on both sides of the case, though. On Friday, Ahearne argued against a Democratic motion to dismiss the case, citing the importance of developing a full record of evidence for an expected appeal. When Bridges ruled against the motion, he mentioned Ahearne's argument.

Reed's lawyers also have backed Republicans on key decisions about felon voters and the use of circumstantial evidence to estimate how many illegal votes each candidate got.

The Secretary of State's Office has played an unusual role throughout the postelection dispute. Even before this case, Reed, a Republican, had been sued by each of the political parties over election-related issues. And earlier this year, Republicans were unhappy with a series of decisions by Reed, with some high-level supporters of Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi accusing him of being disloyal.

"Considering how many motions we have sided with the Republicans on, I think it'd be rather amazing to characterize us as taking the Democrats' side," said Even, an assistant attorney general.

Democratic Party attorney Jenny Durkan said Foreman was aiming to get Bridges to reconsider one decision by trying to "convince the court it was somehow tricked into making that ruling." That decision, backed by the secretary of state, dealt with voter crediting, the process for recording whether voters cast ballots in a given election.

The election lawsuit was filed in January by Rossi, Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance and other Republicans. They named Reed, the state's chief election official, as a respondent. Democrats then intervened as respondents to defend Gregoire's election.

Handy testified yesterday as a witness for the Democrats. They wanted him to help establish that problems in the election were mistakes, not fraud, and are a part of any close vote.

Handy volunteered that he thought the most serious mistake of the election was the decision by King County election supervisors to submit a falsified mail-ballot report to the state. The supervisors, Nicole Way and her boss Garth Fell, fabricated one number on the report when a series of numbers didn't reconcile properly. "I think that was one of the most serious mistakes made in the election," Handy said.

But even then he wasn't as critical as Reed, who had earlier called it "appalling."

Under questioning by Durkan, Handy said he disagreed with that characterization.

"What I saw were for the most part inadvertent mistakes and errors by human beings who are working their hearts out to deliver a fair and impartial" election, Handy said.

That is the essence of the Democrats' defense of the election.

The heart of Foreman's questioning was about a January e-mail Handy sent to Ahearne, a Seattle attorney on contract as one of the secretary of state's attorneys in the case.

In the e-mail, Handy disputed Republican claims that discrepancies in voter crediting were evidence of a serious problem:

"I expect this will be a major issue raised by the Republicans as they have built their entire public affairs campaign ("Every Vote Should Have a Voter") around this theme and have worked it hard. If we can successfully demonstrate that this is an unfounded claim, I would hope that this would severely undermine the confidence of the court in the other R claims," Handy wrote.

In a testy exchange with Foreman, Handy said he believed Republicans were "manipulating information" to undermine public confidence in the election.

"You're neutral?" Foreman asked Handy.

When Handy repeated that he was, Foreman barked, "How can you say that? You are under oath."

Durkan objected to Foreman's questions, and the judge upheld the objection.

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