Washington Vote Fraud Upheld

Power Line has a link to Michelle Malkin's coverage of the judge's decision to uphold the Democrats' left of the governorship of the state of Washington. Rocket Man has a good point about the curious standard of proof employed by the judge:

Apparently the main thrust of the judges's ruling was that, while there was evidence of 1,678 illegal votes cast--which I think is around ten times Gregoire's margin of victory--there was no evidence as to who got the illegal votes, so the Republicans failed in their burden of proof.

Of course, if that's the standard, election challenges are futile, since I can't see how there would ever be a record of which candidate a particular voter (real or nonexistent) voted for.

I haven't researched the law, but I have to think the judge has used an erroneous standard here. If that standard is the law in Washington, why would the GOP pay a lawyer to file a case that is impossible to win? And what idiots would consider that an appropriate standard? There is a big difference between a legislature trying to craft a remedy for vote fraud in the future (they don't know who might need the relief) and a judge looking for reasons to protect his friends after the fact.