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

[GeorgiaModerate]

What do you think will happen earlier ?

Beto O'Rourke announcing his campaign for President or NC-09 getting a new congressman/woman ?

Beto.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK this is beyond ridiculous.

[Virginiá]

OK this is beyond ridiculous.

It is, but NC-09's situation is really just a victim of circumstances. The NCGOP's years-long battle to seize control of the election boards to prevent Democratic-leaning counties from having any remotely decent early voting plans (and thus same-day registration) came to a head at the exact time the SBOE was actually needed. The court ruled the 3rd or 4th power grab bill unconstitutional month(s) ago and while they stayed it once already, I'm not sure it's wise to keep an unconstitutional board in place to certify an election either. I dunno, it's just a bad situation brought on by the GOP's insane lust for power.

The best thing to do would be to reconstitute the board immediately and let Cooper put as many of the original board members back on, but again, that's not possible afaik due to GOP meddling.

[henster]

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.

[RogueBeaver]

Hoyer repeats that Dems will not seat Harris. Since the House is the ultimate judge of its own membership, a court will laugh at Harris. House Admin can order a new election or theoretically even seat McCready immediately, though Pelosi will not do the latter. See IN-8 1985.

https://twitter.com/JoeBrunoWSOC9/status/1078763120863178752

[NewYorkExpress]

Hoyer repeats that Dems will not seat Harris. Since the House is the ultimate judge of its own membership, a court will laugh at Harris. House Admin can order a new election or theoretically even seat McCready immediately, though Pelosi will not do the latter. See IN-8 1985.

https://twitter.com/JoeBrunoWSOC9/status/1078763120863178752

As a Dem, I want the to seat McCready.

As someone who believes in fair play I want them to seat Pittenger, or leave the seat vacant until 2020.

[BundouYMB]

Hoyer repeats that Dems will not seat Harris. Since the House is the ultimate judge of its own membership, a court will laugh at Harris. House Admin can order a new election or theoretically even seat McCready immediately, though Pelosi will not do the latter. See IN-8 1985.

https://twitter.com/JoeBrunoWSOC9/status/1078763120863178752

As a Dem, I want the to seat McCready.

As someone who believes in fair play I want them to seat Pittenger, or leave the seat vacant until 2020.

Only on Atlas could you find someone so deluded they would think that this seat should either go to a). go the someone who lost in the primary or b). have its constituents deprived of their constitutional right to representation.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Hoyer repeats that Dems will not seat Harris. Since the House is the ultimate judge of its own membership, a court will laugh at Harris. House Admin can order a new election or theoretically even seat McCready immediately, though Pelosi will not do the latter. See IN-8 1985.

https://twitter.com/JoeBrunoWSOC9/status/1078763120863178752

As a Dem, I want the to seat McCready.

As someone who believes in fair play I want them to seat Pittenger, or leave the seat vacant until 2020.

How is leaving the seat vacant until 2020 functionally different from calling a totally new election now (something many of us support, but you have argued against)?

[NewYorkExpress]

Hoyer repeats that Dems will not seat Harris. Since the House is the ultimate judge of its own membership, a court will laugh at Harris. House Admin can order a new election or theoretically even seat McCready immediately, though Pelosi will not do the latter. See IN-8 1985.

https://twitter.com/JoeBrunoWSOC9/status/1078763120863178752

As a Dem, I want the to seat McCready.

As someone who believes in fair play I want them to seat Pittenger, or leave the seat vacant until 2020.

How is leaving the seat vacant until 2020 functionally different from calling a totally new election now (something many of us support, but you have argued against)?

If a new election is called, a new Congressman (who probably would be a Democrat, but not necessarily), would probably be seated sometime in 2019. If the seat is left vacant until after the 2020 elections (which would be the third best way to do things after seating McCready or Pittenger), the new incumbent would be seated with the other freshmen of the 2020 class.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Hoyer repeats that Dems will not seat Harris. Since the House is the ultimate judge of its own membership, a court will laugh at Harris. House Admin can order a new election or theoretically even seat McCready immediately, though Pelosi will not do the latter. See IN-8 1985.

https://twitter.com/JoeBrunoWSOC9/status/1078763120863178752

As a Dem, I want the to seat McCready.

As someone who believes in fair play I want them to seat Pittenger, or leave the seat vacant until 2020.

How is leaving the seat vacant until 2020 functionally different from calling a totally new election now (something many of us support, but you have argued against)?

If a new election is called, a new Congressman (who probably would be a Democrat, but not necessarily), would probably be seated sometime in 2019. If the seat is left vacant until after the 2020 elections (which would be the third best way to do things after seating McCready or Pittenger), the new incumbent would be seated with the other freshmen of the 2020 class.

Yes, obviously there is a time difference.  What I meant was: you are OK with leaving the seat vacant until 2020 -- when the whole election process starts over -- but you are against starting over with a special election now.  These positions seem inconsistent.  Both courses of action start over with new primaries.  Why do you support a new election in 2020 but NOT one in 2019?

[NewYorkExpress]

Hoyer repeats that Dems will not seat Harris. Since the House is the ultimate judge of its own membership, a court will laugh at Harris. House Admin can order a new election or theoretically even seat McCready immediately, though Pelosi will not do the latter. See IN-8 1985.

https://twitter.com/JoeBrunoWSOC9/status/1078763120863178752

As a Dem, I want the to seat McCready.

As someone who believes in fair play I want them to seat Pittenger, or leave the seat vacant until 2020.

How is leaving the seat vacant until 2020 functionally different from calling a totally new election now (something many of us support, but you have argued against)?

If a new election is called, a new Congressman (who probably would be a Democrat, but not necessarily), would probably be seated sometime in 2019. If the seat is left vacant until after the 2020 elections (which would be the third best way to do things after seating McCready or Pittenger), the new incumbent would be seated with the other freshmen of the 2020 class.

Yes, obviously there is a time difference.  What I meant was: you are OK with leaving the seat vacant until 2020 -- when the whole election process starts over -- but you are against starting over with a special election now.  These positions seem inconsistent.  Both courses of action start over with new primaries.  Why do you support a new election in 2020 but NOT one in 2019?

I'm not okay with a new special election. I'd rather just leave the seat vacant until the next general election, if we aren't going to seat McCready/Pittenger.

Yes, that would require a new primary, but that primary would be the one that comes with the general election, not one North Carolina has create out of whole cloth.

[TarHeelDem]

I ****ing hate Republicans.

[Doimper]

Hoyer repeats that Dems will not seat Harris. Since the House is the ultimate judge of its own membership, a court will laugh at Harris. House Admin can order a new election or theoretically even seat McCready immediately, though Pelosi will not do the latter. See IN-8 1985.

https://twitter.com/JoeBrunoWSOC9/status/1078763120863178752

As a Dem, I want the to seat McCready.

As someone who believes in fair play I want them to seat Pittenger, or leave the seat vacant until 2020.

How is leaving the seat vacant until 2020 functionally different from calling a totally new election now (something many of us support, but you have argued against)?

If a new election is called, a new Congressman (who probably would be a Democrat, but not necessarily), would probably be seated sometime in 2019. If the seat is left vacant until after the 2020 elections (which would be the third best way to do things after seating McCready or Pittenger), the new incumbent would be seated with the other freshmen of the 2020 class.

Yes, obviously there is a time difference.  What I meant was: you are OK with leaving the seat vacant until 2020 -- when the whole election process starts over -- but you are against starting over with a special election now.  These positions seem inconsistent.  Both courses of action start over with new primaries.  Why do you support a new election in 2020 but NOT one in 2019?

I'm not okay with a new special election. I'd rather just leave the seat vacant until the next general election, if we aren't going to seat McCready/Pittenger.

Yes, that would require a new primary, but that primary would be the one that comes with the general election, not one North Carolina has create out of whole cloth.

This makes no sense at all. F-cking Atlas.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's not even legal.
https://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=163A-721

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also per federal law:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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.

[DrScholl]

The House needs a certificate of election to admit any members and without one they are well within their own rules not to admit Harris. Judges can't issue certificates of election.

[Tender Branson]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[jimrtex]

Also per federal law:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This only applies if there are more than 100 vacancies.

[jimrtex]

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.

Again, isn't thede SOMETHING of a statute of limitations? There's been  no direct evidence of fraudulent primary ballots (yet), nor did Pittinger raise a challenge after losing ALMOST 6 MONTHS AGO.

Yes, I'd bet the primary was corrupted as well, but thus far nearly all evidence relates to election fraud in the general electio, after Pittinger washd his hands of the matter last summer.

Most of the focus has been on the GE, but hasn’t it been mentioned that the primary numbers in Bladen were very suspicious as well?

A candidate for sheriff received 120 of 121 absentee votes.

[jimrtex]

OK this is beyond ridiculous.

It is, but NC-09's situation is really just a victim of circumstances. The NCGOP's years-long battle to seize control of the election boards to prevent Democratic-leaning counties from having any remotely decent early voting plans (and thus same-day registration) came to a head at the exact time the SBOE was actually needed. The court ruled the 3rd or 4th power grab bill unconstitutional month(s) ago and while they stayed it once already, I'm not sure it's wise to keep an unconstitutional board in place to certify an election either. I dunno, it's just a bad situation brought on by the GOP's insane lust for power.

The best thing to do would be to reconstitute the board immediately and let Cooper put as many of the original board members back on, but again, that's not possible afaik due to GOP meddling.

October 16, 3 weeks before the election and when voting was already going on.

Even a person of minimal intelligence would not want to change the body overseeing an election while the election was going on.

The court stayed its decision until the election was completed (results certified).

Since there were no protests of the election, the NCSBE should have certified the result.

Cooper's board could have still investigated.

[Virginiá]

Even a person of minimal intelligence would not want to change the body overseeing an election while the election was going on.

Wait, am I of minimal intelligence? I was just musing that maybe if a board is not deemed constitutional, how is their ability to certify an election legitimate? Does that not seem problematic? I'm not even talking about whether it's OK in our system, I don't care because that's not the point of my post. I'm just saying, does that kind of situation inspire confidence?

At any rate, like I said, I think the best situation if the current board cannot exist is for Cooper to try to fill the new, constitutional board with as many as the same members. But afaik the new board can't even meet yet.

Lastly, none of this would even be a problem if the NCGOP wasn't so greedy for power and just left the election boards alone instead of constantly trying to scheme their way into a power structure that would let them filibuster early voting plans. So while this all came to a head at a really bad time, it's not innocent either.

[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.

[jimrtex]

BREAKING: N.C. election officials sounded alarm about alleged election fraud to federal prosecutors in January 2017

The investigation was inconclusive, and might have resulted at best some convictions of low level runners.

Remember the campaigners of the Democratic-backed Bladen County Improvement PAC were alleged to have written-in the name of a candidate on dozens of ballots. It turns out that in North Carolina absentee ballots can be tracked back to the voter. So you can check the signature of the witnesses and see that their handwriting matches the written-in name on the ballot.

The witnesses are supposed to observe that the voter marked the ballot, and placed it in the ballot envelope and sealed it. They are to preserve ballot secrecy. That is, they are to observe that the voter voted, not who they voted for.

They serve the same function as election judges at a regular polling place: that is they make sure that the voter is who they say they are; and that the voter marked the ballot themselves. The election judges are not supposed to make suggestions. At best they might remind a voter to vote both sides of a ballot paper.

If the voter needs assistance in marking the ballot, due to visual, language, or motor disabilities, a voter may have an assistant of their choice, or an election official may assist. An assistant is to only act at the direction of the voter (e.g. voter: "Vote for Trump", not assistant: "You want Trump. right?" Even though it is nominally a question, it is more of a suggestion.

When I was voting, I was overhearing a husband being sworn in to assist his wife. The oath told him the actions he could perform. An assistant is supposed to read the entire ballot, unless directed otherwise by the voter. Election officials can observe the assistance.

For an absentee voter, none of these protections are present. The persons who are supposed to be observing that the voter voted, not who he voted for, are making suggestions in the form of a a sample ballot. And in the 2016 election in Bladen County, actually wrote in the name of a write-in candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Monroe went on to say some voters couldn't read or write, or had visual or physical impairments. Some were young voters who didn't know how to vote.

If dozens of ballots were filled in this way, we can assume that she was fudging the truth. Perhaps, by taking the ballot and writing in Franklin Grahams name, before telling the voter that if they wanted to vote for Graham to fill in the bubble.

There were no voter complaints. It was essentially a victimless crime. A black voter in a rural county is not going to lodge a complaint against black political activists.

The NCSBE interviewed several voters.

One voter claimed they signed their ballot and gave it to her sister to mail. She said she didn't know the witnesses, and had no idea how "Franklin Graham" was written in on her ballot.

One voter was said to have avoided eye contact, suggesting to investigators that she was possibly fearful or giving less than candid answers. She claimed that she had left her ballot blank and sealed it in the ballot envelope. She didn't know the witnesses and doesn't know how the ballot was mailed.

If someone thinks it is they who are being investigated, they may make up answers.

Investigator: Is this your signature?
Voter: Yes, it looks like mine.
Investigator: "Do you know Lola Wooten or Wanda Monroe"
Voter (not wanting to be implicated: No.
Investigator: Do you have any idea how their names got on the ballot envelope?
Voter: No idea, I just signed the ballot envelope.
Investigator: Did you mail your ballot.
Voter: No. I have no idea how it got to the county board of elections.
Investigator: Did you write "Franklin Graham" on the ballot?
Voter. No, I left the ballot blank, put it in the envelope and signed it. I have no idea how anything else happened.

Are you going to convict the voter for perjury because she said she did not know Wooten and Monroe, or how they would have got theirs names on her ballot.

Another voter said she did not write-in Franklin Graham and did not know who he was. But she said she filled in her own ballot, and was OK with it. The investigator said she didn't seem to recognize any candidates except one of the candidates for president (Gary Johnson?)

Other voters said that they trusted the campaigners.

Michael Cogdell said he did not know it was illegal for a candidate to witness an absentee ballot, except for an immediate relative. He said the voter was his wife's cousin, and they considered her family.

Barbara Cogdell could not explain why she had signed twice as a witness. She might have been caught up in conversation. She had even less explanation why she had signed Stephen Cogdell, her son as the second witness.

There were other ballots where the signature on the ballot request did not match the absentee ballot. One was apparently signed by the voter's wife. One appears to have been signed by a relative who was a witness. Maybe the wife signed, because her husband wasn't able to. Maybe she signed because he wasn't at home at the time, and knew how he would vote. Maybe he had filled out the ballot, but hadn't signed the ballot envelope. Would you prosecute the wife? Or if the husband was not present, the witnesses, who claimed they witnessed something that happened.

Before most of the runners could be interviewed, the NCSBE was informed that they had retained counsel, and so they weren't interviewed.


The complaints about Dowless could be traced to a pair of workers.

In one case, the mother of a black Democratic candidate for county commissioner complained that a "young Caucasian lady" had tried to get her to apply for an absentee ballot. She claims that they represented they were from  the Bladen County Board of Elections. Since her son had won the Democratic nomination on an outpouring of absentee ballots, it is hypocritical for her to claim that this was wrong.

In another case a voter wanted her absentee ballot back because she wanted to mail it herself. Dowless required the ballot envelopes to brought to him before paying for collection. But the worker's mom was in an auto accident, and the return of the ballots was delayed. The voter voted in person.

In both these first cases, the voter was black. Dowless had told the workers not to get black voters because they tended to vote Democratic.

The third case was the weirdest. The workers were friends with a young man who lived with his parents, but he was working in Ohio. The parents applied for absentee ballots, but then went on vacation. The worker couldn't get the absentee ballots, so they called up another brother who went over to his parents house and left the ballots on the table. The workers then put the blank ballots into the ballot envelopes, and forged signatures. They believed that the blank ballots would not count and the parents would be able to vote in person. The NCSBE was able to confirm that blank ballots were turned in.

Meanwhile the workers contacted the friend in Ohio and applied for an absentee ballot to be sent to their residence. The brother in Ohio texted his birthdate and SSN so he could be registered to vote. When they got the ballot, they texted the friend in Ohio asking who he wanted to vote for. He texted back "I don't think it really makes a difference but [REDACTED] he will be the one to finally start the zombie apocalypse, lol"

They filled out his ballot at his direction and forged a signature.

So the only actually misvoted ballots were executed by workers, apparently without Dowless's knowledge.

[Badger]

Hoyer repeats that Dems will not seat Harris. Since the House is the ultimate judge of its own membership, a court will laugh at Harris. House Admin can order a new election or theoretically even seat McCready immediately, though Pelosi will not do the latter. See IN-8 1985.

https://twitter.com/JoeBrunoWSOC9/status/1078763120863178752

As a Dem, I want the to seat McCready.

As someone who believes in fair play I want them to seat Pittenger, or leave the seat vacant until 2020.

Only on Atlas could you find someone so deluded they would think that this seat should either go to a). go the someone who lost in the primary or b). have its constituents deprived of their constitutional right to representation.

This X 10.

It's taken a while, but this is the final straw for NY Express's consistent level of utterly inane posting to finally earn him a place on the Olikwandi short list of posters I've placed on ignore, not for being aSSholes and/or racists like the others, but someone whose posts simply cause too much risk of brain damage.