Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-17-2018, 09:28 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662

More NC Elections Shenanigans


North Carolina's general assembly has become infamous for its dirty tricks and extremism over the past 8 years. Phil Berger has led the Republicans through this time, and his grip on power seemed so strong that he didn't even face a Democratic rival in the last election cycle.

That's changing. Jennifer Mangrum was a Republican and a third grade teacher* who was outraged by her party's careening voyage to the hard right. She switched her party affiliation and declared her candidacy against Berger.

Berger announced he was up for a principled battle of ideas and declared that he would campaign honorably, and let the best ideas win.

KIDDING! The NCGA announced new district lines, and mysteriously, Mangrum's house was suddenly outside of Berger's district.

Mangrum didn't stop, though. When she and her husband separated, she moved into Berger's new district, renting a house, changing her driver's license, paying local taxes, and so on--doing everything you do when you move.

So THAT was the point where Berger said, "Okay, fair enough; we'll be fighting it out along partisan lines, and we'll let the voters decide."

KIDDING! A Republican activist in Berger's district got recruited by the party to file a challenge to Mangrum's residency, based on little more than gossip ("I heard scuttlebutt that she didn't really stay at that house, but I have no evidence") and supposition ("I bet she's gonna move back in with her husband after the campaign ends, although I have no evidence.")

It went to a hearing--three Republicans and two Democrats--to decide whether the challenge was good. Fortunately, the Republicans on the elections board recognized this as the transparent partisan ploy it was and threw out the challenge.

KIDDING! On a 3-2 vote they upheld the challenge and told Mangrum she couldn't run in the district she lived in, because what if she reconciles with her husband?

She's challenging this decision. I can't see any way she loses her challenge.

KIDDING! North Carolina is supremely fucked by partisan politics, and it's totally plausible to me that Republican minions will continue denying her appeal based on nothing more than a desire to keep Berger happy.

This looks profoundly corrupt to me. Can anyone justify this sort of nonsense?

* yeah yeah, I may feel a little affinity

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 06-17-2018 at 09:28 AM.
  #2  
Old 06-17-2018, 09:56 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
The GOP is waging a procedural war on America. If they can't win on ideas, they'll win by using the rules, is their strategy.
  #3  
Old 06-17-2018, 12:46 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,413
Uh, while I share your opinion of the NC Republican Party LHOD, can you state with no fear of being shown wrong that she didn't "separate" simply to make the move? Was there evidence stronger than that you cite that would tend to show it was a ploy on her part to continue the challenge? My first thought would certainly be that the separation was for show...
  #4  
Old 06-17-2018, 02:26 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Uh, while I share your opinion of the NC Republican Party LHOD, can you state with no fear of being shown wrong that she didn't "separate" simply to make the move? Was there evidence stronger than that you cite that would tend to show it was a ploy on her part to continue the challenge? My first thought would certainly be that the separation was for show...
What difference does it make?

She lived in the district before they gerrymandered her out.
  #5  
Old 06-17-2018, 02:26 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,859
At this rate, she should be preemptive an move next door to Berger. See what they do with THAT.
  #6  
Old 06-17-2018, 03:07 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
They feel when you have a veto proof majority you can do anything you want . Sadly all the Dems hope for now is to reduce it to just a regular majority where vetos might stand up.
  #7  
Old 06-17-2018, 03:24 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Uh, while I share your opinion of the NC Republican Party LHOD, can you state with no fear of being shown wrong that she didn't "separate" simply to make the move?
For now, I'll stipulate that that's the entire reason for her separation, and that she's written emails to her bestie stating that's why she moved. With that stipulation, can you show me where in the law she's ineligible to run in that district?
  #8  
Old 06-17-2018, 04:41 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
For now, I'll stipulate that that's the entire reason for her separation, and that she's written emails to her bestie stating that's why she moved. With that stipulation, can you show me where in the law she's ineligible to run in that district?
I'm not going to look up the legal code behind it, but North Carolina's FAQ on residency, Fact 4 says:

Quote:
A person shall not be considered to have gained a residency in any county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district of North Carolina, into which that person comes for temporary purposes only, without the intention of making that county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district a permanent place of abode.
That would certainly appear to make her intentions and long-term residency plans relevant.
  #9  
Old 06-17-2018, 06:35 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,124
I would, personally, be suspicious and mildly disapproving of someone moving to a district for reasons of political advantage. But suppose her temporary status evolved to a sincere desire for permanent residency? She not allowed to change her mind? And who's going to judge that, based on what evidence?

Someone came to Minnesota to visit and decided to stay, or even run for office, I might question their sanity, but not their sincerity. Probably weren't here for the annual Festival of the Blood Sucking Insects.
  #10  
Old 06-17-2018, 07:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I would, personally, be suspicious and mildly disapproving of someone moving to a district for reasons of political advantage. But suppose her temporary status evolved to a sincere desire for permanent residency? She not allowed to change her mind? And who's going to judge that, based on what evidence?
She did NOT "move to a district for reasons of political advantage." She had been living in that district for years. They moved the district out from under her by political shenanigans.
  #11  
Old 06-17-2018, 09:54 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not going to look up the legal code behind it, but North Carolina's FAQ on residency, Fact 4 says:

That would certainly appear to make her intentions and long-term residency plans relevant.
That wasn't the question. The question was whether she'd separated in order to make the move. Even if she did, absent evidence that she intends the move to be temporary, that's irrelevant.

So let's say she wrote her bestie, "Hey, Joanie! Just so you know, I'm separating from my husband because I really want to beat Berger, and he doesn't want to move with me." That's irrelevant.

If she wrote, "I plan to move back to my old house in December," okay, that calls into question what you quoted.

But if she says, "I fully intend to win this race, which means I'm staying here indefinitely," then read on:
Quote:
f you move away and establish a new residence for an indefinite period, you are no longer eligible to vote in your previous county, even if you believe that you may eventually return to your previous residence.

If a person removes to another state or county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district within North Carolina, with the intention of remaining there an indefinite time and making that state, county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district that person's place of residence, that person shall be considered to have lost that person's place of residence in North Carolina, county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district from which that person has removed, notwithstanding that person may entertain an intention to return at some future time.
That'd count as an indefinite stay, with an intention to make that election district her place of residence. So she'd lose her place of residence in the old district. While this quote doesn't explicitly say she'd thereby gain a place of residence in the new district, I believe the constitutional right to vote implies that.

Her supposed intentions were she to lose are 100% not implicated by this line.
  #12  
Old 06-17-2018, 09:57 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She did NOT "move to a district for reasons of political advantage." She had been living in that district for years. They moved the district out from under her by political shenanigans.
Exactly. She'd had Berger as her rep for years, and she was sick to death of that bullshit. She said she'd run against him. Hey presto: Berger's party redrew district lines to make that impossible!

She moved a short ways such that she was back in the district she'd been in for years, back in the district where she'd spent months and considerable energy preparing for her campaign.

Flip it around. Suppose that the Republican party weren't a bunch of crazy assholes, and that when they redrew district lines, they did so on a fair basis. Suppose that resulted in, oops, Berger suddenly being out of district. If he rented a new house in the district he'd represented for years, who here thinks he'd have been declared ineligible to run?
  #13  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:57 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,413
The fact that the district borders were changed is a whole different kettle of fish. Once those borders were changed, if her move was temporary, designed only to try and facially meet the requirements, then the reviewing elections board is certainly entitled to say, "nope, not gonna allow that."

Unless you have specific citations to indicate that they DON'T have that authority? After all, the burden is on you; you're making the assertion, right?
  #14  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:42 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,502
But what if it was permanent, and designed only to try to facially meet the requirements? Is there any rule against that? I mean, she wouldn't be running if she didn't intend to win, and if she won, she'd have to stay in the district. So the fact that she was moving for the sake of political advantage is actually evidence that it was not intended to be temporary.
  #15  
Old 06-18-2018, 10:07 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,806
Do they question people who register to vote in a district as to their intent on staying there permanently? I rather doubt it. You are free to move to any location you want and don't need to give anyone an estimate of how long you intend to stay. I don't see a legal basis to disallow someone the opportunity to run for office in the district of their residency based on whether we imagine the move to be permanent or temporary. So Republicans pull an underhanded stunt to keep her from running and then complain that a more legitimate tactic is used against them. Sad!
  #16  
Old 06-18-2018, 10:48 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Do they question people who register to vote in a district as to their intent on staying there permanently?
In North Carolina they do. Especially if you're black.

Quote:
It’s important to note that Elizabeth City State University isn’t the only four-year school in Pasquotank County, though it is the only local school whose students’ voting rights have been subjected to legal challenges. Reporting in 2013, Rachel Maddow asked why: “Is it because one school is mostly black and the other one is mostly white? Is it because one school is bigger? Because one school is more conservative?”
Link
  #17  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:39 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
... I don't see a legal basis to disallow someone the opportunity to run for office in the district of their residency based on whether we imagine the move to be permanent or temporary. ...
The legal basis is right here in North Carolina G.S. § 163A-842:

Quote:
(2) A person shall not be considered to have lost that person's residence if that
person leaves home and goes into another state, county, municipality,
precinct, ward, or other election district of this State, for temporary purposes
only, with the intention of returning.
(3) A person shall not be considered to have gained a residence in any county,
municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district of this State, into
which that person comes for temporary purposes only, without the intention
of making that county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district
a permanent place of abode.
(4) If a person removes to another state or county, municipality, precinct, ward,
or other election district within this State, with the intention of making that
state, county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district a
permanent residence, that person shall be considered to have lost residence
in the state, county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district
from which that person has removed.
(5) If a person removes to another state or county, municipality, precinct, ward,
or other election district within this State, with the intention of remaining
there an indefinite time and making that state, county, municipality, precinct,
ward, or other election district that person's place of residence, that person
shall be considered to have lost that person's place of residence in this State,
county, municipality, precinct, ward, or other election district from which
that person has removed, notwithstanding that person may entertain an
intention to return at some future time
Someone's "district of their residency" is determined by whether their move was permanent or temporary.
  #18  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:50 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The legal basis is right here in North Carolina G.S. § 163A-842:



Someone's "district of their residency" is determined by whether their move was permanent or temporary.
And this intent is determined how?
  #19  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:51 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Think you're missing the point there, HD.
.
  #20  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:58 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
And this intent is determined how?
Apparently by an elections board, if I'm understanding the OP correctly.
  #21  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:00 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Apparently by an elections board, if I'm understanding the OP correctly.
And exactly how does the election board know if she intends to reside there permanently? Looks like this board could deny ballot access to any Democrat with a chance to win.
  #22  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:14 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,124
So, problem?
  #23  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:16 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
it is interesting that in NC you don't have to live in the district you run in for Congress. Just have to live in NC. Walter Jones Jr. for a long time lived outside of his district, he might still.
  #24  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:23 PM
Fenris's Avatar
Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 13,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
The GOP is waging a procedural war on America. If they can't win on ideas, they'll win by using the rules, is their strategy.
Winning by playing withing the rules?! Good heavens. This is an OUTRAGE!
  #25  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:31 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,233
Why, that doesn’t strike me as a disingenuous way of framing the situation and the phrase “within the rules” at all, no siree.
  #26  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:56 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
The fact that the district borders were changed is a whole different kettle of fish. Once those borders were changed, if her move was temporary, designed only to try and facially meet the requirements, then the reviewing elections board is certainly entitled to say, "nope, not gonna allow that."

Unless you have specific citations to indicate that they DON'T have that authority? After all, the burden is on you; you're making the assertion, right?
They have the authority--but ambiguities in the law are, in general, interpreted in favor of the defendant, right? In this case, the burden of proof is on the complainant, who claims her move is not permanent.

His evidence:
Zilch.

Her evidence:
She has done everything one can think of to demonstrate that a move is permanent. She surely intends to take the job of representing this district, which would entail living in the district permanently. There is zero evidence that she intends to move elsewhere in December or thereafter. The term "temporary" does not appear to be defined in this statute. One loses residency in another district if one moves from it "indefinitely," which surely describes her situation, since there's no definite end to her living in this district.

Yes, the board decided against her. THAT IS WHAT SHE, AND I, ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT: the decision appears transparently partisan, given that the entire case against her is based on conjecture and speculation.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 06-18-2018 at 12:56 PM.
  #27  
Old 06-18-2018, 01:06 PM
Fenris's Avatar
Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 13,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Why, that doesn’t strike me as a disingenuous way of framing the situation and the phrase “within the rules” at all, no siree.
Then complain to your buddy Bo who used the basic phrase ("they'll win by using the rules") first.

The solution to bad rules is not to (As Bo seems to feel) close your eyes real hard and wish that people would play fair, it's to fix the damned rules.

PS: That's a nice try at sarcasm. Come back when you've had a few more years of practice and learned how to do it right.

Last edited by Fenris; 06-18-2018 at 01:06 PM.
  #28  
Old 06-18-2018, 01:29 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
Then complain to your buddy Bo who used the basic phrase ("they'll win by using the rules") first.

The solution to bad rules is not to (As Bo seems to feel) close your eyes real hard and wish that people would play fair, it's to fix the damned rules.

PS: That's a nice try at sarcasm. Come back when you've had a few more years of practice and learned how to do it right.
You misunderstand. The complaint is that Republicans know the spirit of the rules--ensure government by the people--but are devising and utilizing administrative rules, sometimes by the letter of the rules and sometimes not, to undermine the spirit of the rules.

In this case, because they don't want their speaker to face a real challenge, they're using the letter of the rules (including the fact that they have a majority on elections boards) to prevent the voters from having a real choice.

That's a bullshit maneuver.
  #29  
Old 06-18-2018, 01:32 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
They have the authority--but ambiguities in the law are, in general, interpreted in favor of the defendant, right? In this case, the burden of proof is on the complainant, who claims her move is not permanent.

His evidence:
Zilch.

Her evidence:
She has done everything one can think of to demonstrate that a move is permanent. She surely intends to take the job of representing this district, which would entail living in the district permanently. There is zero evidence that she intends to move elsewhere in December or thereafter. The term "temporary" does not appear to be defined in this statute. One loses residency in another district if one moves from it "indefinitely," which surely describes her situation, since there's no definite end to her living in this district.

Yes, the board decided against her. THAT IS WHAT SHE, AND I, ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT: the decision appears transparently partisan, given that the entire case against her is based on conjecture and speculation.
If one were interested enough to review the evidence for and against her, is there someplace where the official testimony / evidence is available online? Preferably a non- or at least less-partisan source?
  #30  
Old 06-18-2018, 02:39 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
I'm not sure about "official testimony", but this article appears neutral.
  #31  
Old 06-18-2018, 02:53 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Watch this. At least one person voted against her because "I'm not convinced that she and her husband will not get back together."

I don't believe state law considers possible marital reconciliation as part of district determination, nor that such speculation is appropriate for those who govern.
  #32  
Old 06-18-2018, 03:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
@LHoD, thanks for the links, I'll review both of them
  #33  
Old 06-18-2018, 07:59 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
it is interesting that in NC you don't have to live in the district you run in for Congress. Just have to live in NC. Walter Jones Jr. for a long time lived outside of his district, he might still.
It's in the Constitution that you only have to live in the state. States can't have more strict qualifications than that.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 06-18-2018 at 08:00 PM.
  #34  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:46 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
They have the authority--but ambiguities in the law are, in general, interpreted in favor of the defendant, right? In this case, the burden of proof is on the complainant, who claims her move is not permanent.

His evidence:
Zilch.

Her evidence:
She has done everything one can think of to demonstrate that a move is permanent. She surely intends to take the job of representing this district, which would entail living in the district permanently. There is zero evidence that she intends to move elsewhere in December or thereafter. The term "temporary" does not appear to be defined in this statute. One loses residency in another district if one moves from it "indefinitely," which surely describes her situation, since there's no definite end to her living in this district.

Yes, the board decided against her. THAT IS WHAT SHE, AND I, ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT: the decision appears transparently partisan, given that the entire case against her is based on conjecture and speculation.
I seriously doubt that the board decided the case with "zilch" evidence in favor of a determination that her move was temporary, not permanent. That would be easily challengeable in court. Which was why I directed you to offer up the case which was made for the side opposite what you want to have happened. Your unwillingness to do that makes me suspect the validity of your argument here.

Unless you're right about there being no evidence adduced in favor of her move being temporary. In which case, a simple link to a summary of the evidence presented to the Board would make that clear.

ETA: I see there are links provided by you in later postings. I'll look at those.

Last edited by DSYoungEsq; 06-18-2018 at 09:47 PM. Reason: Added info
  #35  
Old 06-18-2018, 10:13 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Your unwillingness to do that makes me suspect the validity of your argument here.
You edited your post, but left this nasty bit of bullshit in there? Classy.

And, y'know, y'all are welcome for the links, but all I did was Google her name and click the "news" link. Took me fifteen seconds. Y'all don't need to thank me too much, as I trust that y'all could've done the same thing in less time than it took to make snarky insinuations about my failure to Google for you.
  #36  
Old 06-19-2018, 11:43 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,413
So the "neutral" article is interesting, because it describes the original complaint, and it describes testimony given on behalf of the respondent, as well as some attempts at cross-examining those witnesses. What is missing is any report of evidence offered beyond that in the complaint on behalf of the complainant.

If, indeed, no further evidence besides that reported was offered, then the evidence is thin, and the complaint appears to have been reasonably controverted. In which case, the decision would be questionable.

The appeal will not be heard de novo, if the reporter of that article is correct. So we may well find out what added evidence existed, if any, because it will certainly be cited by any judge on the reviewing court who wishes to uphold the decision. I find it quite strange that there would be nothing further offered in support of the claim she didn't intend to locate permanently at the time she moved.

As for the clip of the idiot, yeah, he's an idiot. But it would be interesting to hear what the other two who voted to accept the complaint said in support (if anything).
  #37  
Old 06-20-2018, 08:28 AM
crucible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,343
North Carolinians are polarized by first, Race, then, second, by education. Eventually, Democrats will be an overwhelming majority in the USA. Because Republicans are so good at stacking courts and drawing favorable zig zag lines, we may still be ruled by the iron fist of the plantation owner descendants, even when our majority is clear.
  #38  
Old 06-20-2018, 09:31 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
So the "neutral" article is interesting, because it describes the original complaint, and it describes testimony given on behalf of the respondent, as well as some attempts at cross-examining those witnesses. What is missing is any report of evidence offered beyond that in the complaint on behalf of the complainant.
I've read a half-dozen or so articles on this case. The best evidence I can find is that some asshole pretended to want to buy the house that Mangrum was living in, and was told it was still on the market, even though she was living there. The realtor testified that this was in error. (I called that "zilch" evidence because the realtor's testimony, with accompanying documents, more that sufficed to rebut the asshole's gotcha claim.)

For some reason you seem to find it hard to believe that NC Republicans are behaving in a brazenly corrupt manner. I'm not sure what would make anyone doubt that proposition.

If there's more evidence in support of the decision against her, it didn't show up in any of the half-dozen or so articles I've read.
  #39  
Old 07-12-2018, 01:19 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Update: She won her appeal.
Quote:
A Democrat candidate hoping to unseat Senate Leader Phil Berger in the November election earned a victory during an appeal hearing process Thursday morning.
Advertisement

Rockingham County candidate Jen Mangrum was taken off the ballot after a local election board ruled she didn't live in the district she was running to represent.

The North Carolina Board of Elections sided with Mangrum, which will allow her back on the ballot, after a successful appeal of the residency ruling.
I'm pleasantly surprised; I expected her to have to take this to court.

It looks like the decision was 5-4. So far, I'm not finding articles that explain the folks who voted to uphold the lower board's decision; all I find is from someone who voted to overturn it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by State Board Chairman Andy Penry
The facts are not in dispute, we know the facts are not in dispute. . . . And here they all are – they are laid out and my view is that what we have here is unsubstantial evidence to support the conclusion that they made.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-12-2018 at 01:22 PM.
  #40  
Old 07-12-2018, 05:20 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,471
Even if she and her husband reconcile, what's to say he won't move to HER place rather than vice versa?

What a BS move.
  #41  
Old 07-12-2018, 06:00 PM
pohjonen's Avatar
pohjonen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Almost Idaho
Posts: 1,724
I remember when Mitt Romney ran for some office by claiming residence in one of his kids unfinished basements. That was okay, as I recall.
  #42  
Old 07-12-2018, 06:51 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
Even if she and her husband reconcile, what's to say he won't move to HER place rather than vice versa?

What a BS move.
The BS move was the GOP redrawing the lines to exclude her house, which had been in that district for a long time.
  #43  
Old 07-12-2018, 06:59 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,471
That was the first BS move, I was referring to the second.

There were enough of them to go around.
  #44  
Old 07-12-2018, 09:14 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
That was the first BS move, I was referring to the second.

There were enough of them to go around.
So, so many bs moves. One article I read a couple hours ago explained the 5-4 vote. The board has 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 1 independent. All Democrats and the independent voted in favor of Mangrum; all the Republicans voted against.

There was a lot of pushback earlier in this thread because, I think, people just couldn't believe I was representing the situation accurately. Surely, they thought, SURELY there must be a better reason to deny Mangrum's residency; surely even in NC this bald a power play wouldn't fly.

Hope folks are disillusioned. Shit down here is real.
  #45  
Old 07-13-2018, 08:36 AM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,656
I forget how things are there because I'm mostly just flying into RDU and dealing with people with PhDs in the immediate vicinity.
  #46  
Old 07-13-2018, 11:38 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,953
Why does a partisan panel get to decide election criteria? Why doesn't it go straight to the courts?
  #47  
Old 07-14-2018, 12:48 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
So, so many bs moves. One article I read a couple hours ago explained the 5-4 vote. The board has 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 1 independent. All Democrats and the independent voted in favor of Mangrum; all the Republicans voted against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Why does a partisan panel get to decide election criteria? Why doesn't it go straight to the courts?
Any reason to think partisan courts are better than partisan panels?

The higher panel produced the rational result only because the cheaters were outnumbered 5-4, not because it wasn't also partisan. Recall that the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with Florida shenanigans in 2000, prevented further ballot counting by a 5-4 margin, on exact partisan lines. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the SCOTUS "swing vote" much in the news recently, was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and voted for Bush-Cheney in the case that decided the 2000 election.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Quote:
Originally Posted by pohjonen View Post
I remember when Mitt Romney ran for some office by claiming residence in one of his kids unfinished basements. That was okay, as I recall.
And don't forget that in 2000, Dick Cheney suddenly pretended to be a resident of Wyoming even though he lived in Texas, and his only driver's license was from Texas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Amendment XII
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves ...
Let's stipulate that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were both residents of Texas. Even after cheating in Florida, they won the 2000 Presidential election by a scant 2 electoral votes. None of Texas' 32 electoral votes could have been legally cast for both Bush and Cheney (and thus Bush or Cheney could have been elected but not both); in fact they all were.
  #48  
Old 07-25-2018, 05:35 PM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,640
North Carolina's Republican legislature has passed a bill to prohibit a candidate from running with a party affiliation if the candidate was not registered with that party for at least 90 days. The move is apparently intended to prevent Chris Anglin from running for the state supreme court as a Republican. Mr. Anglin only recently changed his registration from Democrat. Republicans are concerned that having two Republicans on the ballot will split the Republican vote while the sole Democrat in the race will consolidate that party's support.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...filiation.html
  #49  
Old 07-25-2018, 05:40 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
I'm no expert but in many cases it's not legal to have a law change something that happened in the past. Ex post facto laws are not allowed. No doubt this will be challenged in court.

The NC GA has a really bad track record of losing in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_pos...#United_States
  #50  
Old 07-25-2018, 05:58 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
North Carolina's Republican legislature has passed a bill to prohibit a candidate from running with a party affiliation if the candidate was not registered with that party for at least 90 days. The move is apparently intended to prevent Chris Anglin from running for the state supreme court as a Republican. Mr. Anglin only recently changed his registration from Democrat. Republicans are concerned that having two Republicans on the ballot will split the Republican vote while the sole Democrat in the race will consolidate that party's support.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...filiation.html
I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand, AFAICT, Anglin was totally engaging in dirty politics. He shows no sign of being an ally of Republicans; he switched to Republican as a way to split the vote and to hand a win to Democrats. And I'm not a fan of dirty politics.

On the other hand, he was only able to do this because Republicans recently changed the supreme court races to make them partisan, in an effort to gain more Republican-friendly judges. They're engaging in dirty politics, and it looks in a way like Anglin neatly returned the serve.

Also, it sounds like their new law is retroactive, which is AFAIK super unconstitutional.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017