WENATCHEE — The Wenatchee World had an editorial in its Sunday paper that seemed aimed at anyone in town waiting out the weekend for today's decision in the governor's election lawsuit.

"We do not know how Judge John Bridges will rule Monday," the paper wrote. "Anyone who says they know is, as they say, a liar or a fool or both."

So no predictions.

But Bridges' inscrutable nature in what the World calls "perhaps the most important political trial in the state's history" can seem like an invitation to analysis — almost a taunt to try to glean meaning from his rulings, questions and few comments from the bench.

A review of key pre-trial hearings and the nine-day trial that ended Friday gives a good understanding of Bridges' approach to the case and how he views his role as a judge.

• He thinks it should be difficult to successfully contest an election.

"The reason, of course, is that there are some well-recognized presumptions, if not policy reasons, why elections should not be overturned," Bridges said during a Feb. 4 hearing. "For instance, do we as voters and as constituents of candidates, want to engage in what one judge referred to as seasons of discontent commencing the moment after the polls close on election day?"

Ruling today


TVW public-affairs network will broadcast Bridges' ruling live at 9 a.m.

• He cannot be described as an activist judge.

Bridges said Superior Court judges are not in the business of making law and what they do doesn't have value as a precedent unless the Supreme Court acts.

Last week, he stopped Republicans from asking a witness about a Lincoln County Superior Court case, saying, "I'm inclined to believe that this is not relevant because it is not anything I can rely upon."

• Bridges is deferential to the Legislature and the state Supreme Court.

That was made clear at a May 2 pre-trial hearing. One of the continuing legal debates in the lawsuit has been about the burden of proof Republicans must meet to have the election overturned.

Republicans say it should be sufficient to show that there were enough illegal votes and/or errors by election officials that the real winner of the race is unknown. They say if the total number of illegal votes exceeds Gregoire's 129-vote victory margin the election should be overturned even if they can't say which candidate received the illegal votes by felons, double voters and others.

Bridges, though, has said they must show that Rossi would have won if not for those illegal votes and errors. And he has said that decision was out of his hands.

"The rule urged by petitioners [Republicans] may be a wise one and a tempting choice for the court," Bridges said at the May 2 hearing. "However, the Washington Legislature has ... removed this choice from this Court's discretion" by enacting the election-contest statute that he says spells out the standard.

In pointing out what he said was "somewhat contradictory dicta" in a 1912 Supreme Court decision, Bridges said, "If the Supreme Court wishes to clarify [that decision] then they certainly, as we all know, will have the opportunity to do that."

• Bridges assumes an appeal is inevitable.

Throughout the case Bridges has had an open-door policy for evidence. He has let almost everything in and sustained few objections about questioning of witnesses.

He said he sees his role as trying to develop the broadest possible record for the state Supreme Court. It's only here that Bridges seems willing to push the boundaries of his authority. He told the attorneys in the first week of trial he was "making rulings which I'm sure some of you think are just not supported by any rules of evidence you've ever read."

• Bridges doesn't want the case back.

The judge has expressed no concerns about being overturned on appeal. But he does not want the case remanded for him to hold another trial. That is one reason he errs on the side of allowing evidence and testimony.

"You need to know that I have enjoyed having you folks in front of me immensely," he told the attorneys early in the trial. "But I don't want to see any of you again."

• Bridges assumes there will be more close elections in the future.

Republicans have argued that the characteristics of this election challenge are unique and that Bridges should not worry that what he does now will open the door to an increase in contested elections. Bridges, though, sees it as Democrats argued.

"You need to understand that my focus here is based on the recognition that this is going to happen again, an election like this, because I think a court's ruling needs to be consistent not only with the present but the future," Bridges told the attorneys during the trial.

• His decision will not just be about who won.

Bridges said that best himself during the first week of trial:

"This case most pointedly involves Mr. Rossi and Ms. Gregoire's desire to be the governor of the state of Washington. ... And almost, if not as important, is the desire of their respective constituents to have them be the governor of the state of Washington.

"This case, however, also has another element that is I think as important, and that is what the citizens or residents of the state of Washington expect when there is an election contest filed and what they deserve when an election contest is filed."

• Bridges thinks there were serious problems in King County and not enough done to fix them.

Bridges made this clear in questioning King County elections director Dean Logan about why the county hasn't gotten tougher in taking names and "kicking tush" to clean up the elections division.

"Is there any sense of urgency in King County about fixing some of these problems?" he asked.

• He will be glad when the case is over.

Since the case was filed in January, Bridges has mentioned the workload that it brought him on top of his regular court calendar. He has read thousands of pages of depositions, court cases and statutes — sometimes as his bedtime reading.

As he joked to the attorneys, "I've had this constant headache for six months."

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