Congressional Special Election (last call! unstickied after NY-27 final results)

[brucejoel99]

🚨🚨🚨 Hoyer says House should consider refusing to seat Harris amid election-fraud investigation 🚨🚨🚨

[brucejoel99]

It's been reported from knowledgeable sources in NC that if the NCSBE calls a new election, it will be a general election with the same candidates (Harris, McCready, and the Libertarian).

Yep (indeed, in the case of the NCSBE ordering an election re-run, Harris could only be replaced w/ another GOP candidate if he moves out of state). However, if it ends up being the House itself who refuses to seat Harris, then a whole new election is ordered at that point & everything starts over w/ filing, a primary if needed, & then a general.

[brucejoel99]

Called it:

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1070102416828325896

Virginia, what would the bill H 1117 do?

Not Virginia, but HB 1117 would revert the state & county election boards back to where they started before the past nearly 2 years of legislative & judicial maneuvering regarding the boards. The potential change back to 3-member county boards comes after an October decision by a 3-judge panel in Wake County that ruled the current makeup that was implemented in December 2016 is unconstitutional (the court left the current 9-member board in place until Dec. 12th while the election investigation is underway) & after NC voters declined to give lawmakers power over the elections board through a constitutional amendment.

Basically, the bill would have the county election boards revert back to 3 members. Out of those 3-member county boards, 2 of the members will have members from the Governor's party. The state board would go from the current 9-member configuration of 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats & 1 independent voter to 5 members, with 3 from the Governor's party.

In particular, the bill would once again split the agency under the oversight of two boards. The 5-member board, controlled by the Governor, would handle only the administration of elections. As has been the practice in the past, the Governor would appoint 3 members of his own party & 2 members of the other major party from lists of candidates recommended by the respective party leaders. A 2nd, 8-member bipartisan board would handle ethics, campaign finance & lobbying, w/ 1/2 the board appointed by the Governor & the other 1/2 by state lawmakers.

At the county level, the 4-member bipartisan boards instituted by lawmakers but scuttled by the courts would return to their traditional 3-member format, w/ the state board appointing the members and the Governor's party having a 2-1 majority. However, the law would still require Republicans on each county board to serve as chair in election years.

The bill would also repeal the long-standing law that state political investigations are handled by the Wake County District Attorney's Office, moving those investigations instead to the prosecutorial district in which the candidate resides.

The proposal would also repeal 6 boards & commissions whose structures were found unconstitutional by judges last month: the State Building Commission, the Child Care Commission, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund Board of Trustees, the state Parks & Recreation Authority, the Private Protective Services Board, & the Rural Infrastructure Authority.

And in what appears to be a rebuke, the measure would repeal the Constitutional Amendment Publication Commission, the 3-member panel charged w/ writing descriptions of proposed constitutional amendments for voter information materials. The 2 Democrats on the commission this year, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall & Attorney General Josh Stein, were outspoken on their opinion that state lawmakers wrote deceptive ballot descriptions of the 6 proposed amendments in the the November election. 4 of the 6 were approved.

However, the bill is likely to change in its next version after having been heard in the House Elections committee.

[brucejoel99]

Because you don't just end a major voting service like absentee voting at the first sign of trouble. Although when it comes to elections, I guess that is a very typical blue avatar response, many of whom never wanted early/absentee voting to begin with.

In North Carolina perhaps 2-3% of voters vote absentee. It is hardly a major voting service.

Try again to provide a reason.

3% of 3,000,000 voters is 100,000 voters, hardly a non-major amount of voters.

Try again to provide a reason.

[brucejoel99]

The fact that there is an undecided house race, so long after the election, would really bother me, if not for the fact that it will probably lead to one of the worst types of social conservatives of modern times not being seated. The first Al Franken senate race must have been hell.

How about a Senate race that took 20 months to resolve?  Some of us here are old enough to remember this one: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Closest_election_in_Senate_history.htm.

10 months, not 20.

[brucejoel99]

After all of this the GOP is still trying to rig, changing the law to force a new primary after all of this. I have no idea why Dems on the NCSBE are sitting by and allowing them a chance to win this seat after trying to steal it. Order new elections before the GOP overrides Cooper's veto.

Funnily enough, the best response to this statement of yours is another response to another statement of yours (pasted below) for which you haven't yet been able to "grow a pair" & respond back to (maybe b/c you realize that it's wrong of you to only oppose a new primary, however tainted the previous one was, for solely partisan reasons but you're too scared to admit you're wrong so you've instead doubled down on your wrongness, perhaps?).

The Dems on the NCSBE need to grow a pair and order a new election before the GOP passes their new bill forcing a new primary. The evidence is overwhelming there is no reason to drag this out further.

Why would you want that, other than partisan reasons?  Since the primary looks to have been equally tainted by absentee fraud, starting over with a new primary would be the fairest thing to the voters of the district.

Look, I get it; I'm a liberal Democrat, & I want this to be our 41st pickup just as much as the next Democrat. But Harris stole the primary just as surely as he stole the general. He had no right to the nomination. If you'd allow one fraud to stand but not the other, then not only would that be ridiculous, but it'd be just plain wrong too.

Harris belongs in jail & democracy demands a full, clean re-vote. If that would necessitate that the current law be changed, then so be it, but hey, that's what the legislative system is there for, & both the government & our democracy as a whole will be better off for having that law in place.

[brucejoel99]

After all of this the GOP is still trying to rig, changing the law to force a new primary after all of this. I have no idea why Dems on the NCSBE are sitting by and allowing them a chance to win this seat after trying to steal it. Order new elections before the GOP overrides Cooper's veto.

Funnily enough, the best response to this statement of yours is another response to another statement of yours (pasted below) for which you haven't yet been able to "grow a pair" & respond back to (maybe b/c you realize that it's wrong of you to only oppose a new primary, however tainted the previous one was, for solely partisan reasons but you're too scared to admit you're wrong so you've instead doubled down on your wrongness, perhaps?).

The Dems on the NCSBE need to grow a pair and order a new election before the GOP passes their new bill forcing a new primary. The evidence is overwhelming there is no reason to drag this out further.

Why would you want that, other than partisan reasons?  Since the primary looks to have been equally tainted by absentee fraud, starting over with a new primary would be the fairest thing to the voters of the district.

Look, I get it; I'm a liberal Democrat, & I want this to be our 41st pickup just as much as the next Democrat. But Harris stole the primary just as surely as he stole the general. He had no right to the nomination. If you'd allow one fraud to stand but not the other, then not only would that be ridiculous, but it'd be just plain wrong too.

Harris belongs in jail & democracy demands a full, clean re-vote. If that would necessitate that the current law be changed, then so be it, but hey, that's what the legislative system is there for, & both the government & our democracy as a whole will be better off for having that law in place.

My computer is being worked on all day today, and I can't effectively cut and paste on my phone. However, please look at my post several above yours as to why I seriously seriously question whether or not Pittinger has any legitimate basis to challenge the primary.

 In a nutshell, there have been indications somewhere in this megathread that he knew damn well what was going on in Bladen County, and surely he and his campaign noticed the Absurd absentee ballot numbers in Harris's favor. And yet, he chose to waive any challenge. The reasons for him not doing so in the face of blatant fraud are unknown, but I can't come up with any other reasonable hypothesis other than he was given a combination of carrot and stick to shut up about it if you wanted help with his post Congressional employment prospects. Or in any rate he played the loyal party man for whatever reason. Regardless, it's irrelevant because this was known to him and he waved it six some months ago when an investigation could have been conducted while said evidence was still fresh.

I'm sorry. Yes, I have little doubt that Harris stole the primary election the same way he attempted to steal the general election. But this seems entirely like the NC GOP modus operandi of twisting every rule and amending every regulation and statute to maintain political power at all costs. Sorry Congressman. You snooze, you lose. Just because McCready effectively challenged fraudulent election returns when you chose, repeat chose not to do so six months ago doesn't give you or the GOP another bite at the Apple.

So how am I wrong here? I think my argument completely comports with the letter and the spirit of the law and doesn't rely on partisan politics for its conclusion. Genuinely interested in your take.

B/c the letter & spirit of the law as it exists in the status quo is wrong if it would allow the primary election fraud to stand but not the general election fraud. I'm sorry you probably expected a longer answer but it's just that simple. Election fraud is election fraud is election fraud, & election fraud (& the perpetuation & further enabling of it by allowing it to stand even when it's plainly clear that it took place) is wrong, regardless of whether the electoral victim refused to challenge such fraud, b/c it's not about Pittenger, it's about the people of NC-09 & their democracy.

If we care about their democracy, our democracy, then we should support a full, clean re-vote, regardless of its partisan implications for whichever side & even if Pittenger (for whatever unsubstantiated & speculative reason) chose not to. As I said earlier, if such a full, clean re-vote would necessitate that the current law be changed, then so be it, b/c that's what the legislative system is there for, among other things, to fix broken laws, & both the government & our democracy as a whole will be better off if they did so.

[brucejoel99]

The SBOE dropped the ball here, I fully expect some right wing hack judge to declare Harris the duly elected winner after Dems refuse to seat him. I'm not sure what additional evidence they were waiting for it to be enough to order new election, according to the old statute reasonable doubt was enough.

The House is the judge of the qualifications of its own members, so even the rightest of right wing hack judges couldn't do squat.

[brucejoel99]

As a Democrat, I neither want Harris (R), nor McCready (D) nor the defeated primary-Republican to be seated. I want NC-09 to remain vacant and a new special primary and general election to be held, which determines a winner.

And I want a tough prison sentence for the Republican guys who collected absentee ballots on their own and destroyed some of them, a hefty financial penalty of several millions to the state GOP, which is paid to the state to reform the state election system and a law that prevents such election fraud in the future.

(normal, sane)

I have no idea what NYE is rambling about.

This; all of this.

[brucejoel99]

Now that the new congress is sworn in and the seat is vacant, what's stopping there from being a regular special election? This should be the procedure, right? Independent of the ongoing investigation.

The House will give the state government a chance to certify a winner before they decide whether or not to seat that person.

All that should matter is that there's currently a vacancy, right? House vacancies are resolved by special election, regardless as to why the seat is vacant. The house can't choose to not seat him because they haven't been handed a certificate.

Not precisely. The House recognizes the existence of a vacancy when a seat is filled and then becomes unfilled.  In this case, we simply have an election that has not concluded. You can't call a special election because there's already an election taking place - it simply has not concluded. NC could certify Harris right now if it so chose, but it so far has not done so, and certification is required to seat a member, except in cases where there is no question over who was elected, which is obviously not the case here.

In order to call a new election, either the house would have to take a separate and deliberate action of declaring the seat to be vacant (which would invite partisan criticisms), or NC must officially declare the election null and void. So far, neither has happened. Once either does, a special is called.

While this is indeed the case, when it comes to contested election cases in the House of Representatives, if/when a Harris certificate were to be presented to the House, McCready can contest the result in the House, which, as the final arbiter, may make the conclusive determination of a claim to the seat. In this scenario, the House may refer the question of the right to the House seat to the Committee on House Administration for it to investigate & report to the full House for disposition. After the investigation, the committee would issue a report & file a resolution concerning the disposition of the case, to be approved by the full House. The committee may recommend, & the House may approve by a simple majority vote, a decision affirming the right of Harris to the seat, may seat McCready, or find that neither party is entitled to be finally seated & declare a vacancy, resulting in a special election.

While a vacancy declared post-House investigation would likely still invite partisan criticisms, not least from the NC GOP, it would definitely invite *less* partisan criticism than would the House simply choosing to (without an investigation) declare the seat vacant as soon as Harris presented a certificate.