# 2017 Virginia Gov. race: Gillespie (R) vs. Northam (D) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 14, 2017, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920 "2017-06-14T02:52:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/281 "2017-12-22T14:54:49Z")
The real problem, IMHO, is that Wednesday’s hearing was conducted in a manner that lopsidedly favored the Republicans. Per post 257, above, the court was to rule on the validity of all questioned ballots and votes - of which there were none - and then certify the results of the election based on the count after its ruling. When Simonds’ team showed up on Wednesday morning, they weren’t prepared for anything except a straightforward rubber-stamping of the results of Tuesday’s recount. Since there were not questioned ballots for the court to rule on, there were no unresolved issues. When the court allowed Yancey’s (the Republican’s) team to submit this letter explaining why one of his officials didn’t question a ballot, but realized later that he should have, and reopened the issue of that one ballot: 1. It created a situation where Yancey’s team was prepared to argue that the ballot should be counted for Yancey, but where Simonds’ team was not prepared to argue to the contrary. Only one side, Yancey’s team, came in with reason to expect the possibility of that argument. 2. It created a situation where only Yancey’s team had the opportunity to reopen the discussion over ballots that it felt deserved another look. Were there ballots that Simonds’ team might have brought up as well? They didn’t expect that there would be either the need or the possibility, until the rules were changed on them. At a minimum, the court should have given them a day to ask the court to reconsider ballots of their choosing. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/282 "2017-12-22T15:18:59Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Apparently, only the Republican candidate [was allowed to submit ballots](http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-newport-news-simonds-reaction-20171221-story.html)for review. I didn’t realize that they actually came up with one on Wednesday. And the judge brushed it off, huh? What a kangaroo court. Simonds should petition the State Board of Elections for a do-over of Wednesday’s hearing, preferably with different judges. And I’m dubious about this notion that the hearing can’t be appealed. In the [thread about who was really the acting deputy director of the CFPB](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=843009), **Ravenman** [made the point](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20626908&postcount=36) that > [@Who is the acting deputy director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-acting-deputy-director-of-the-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/802805/36): > > In reading laws, there’s a few basic rules for interpreting what laws mean. The first and most important is that we should presume that Congress means what it says and says what it means when writing a law > \ > Following a close second in importance is that if two laws can be read to give full effect to each law, one should attempt to interpret both laws to give full effect to each statute. Here you have Sec.24.2-802, where parts A through G of that section describe in detail the procedure that the court will adhere to as it supervises and certifies the recount. Then part H says, “The recount proceeding shall be final and not subject to appeal.” If we interpret part H to mean that the court can make up its own procedures, willy-nilly, and the results aren’t subject to appeal, then Parts A through G are meaningless. As Captain Jack Sparrow might say, they’re really just guidelines. But then the legislature didn’t mean what it said. So is there a way to interpret Part H so that Parts A through G mean what they say, but Part H does too? Well sure, if it’s interpreted to mean that _when the court follows the procedures laid out in Parts A through G_, then the result can’t be appealed. But if the court departs from the procedures in Parts A through G, then those departures and their fruit can be appealed. IANAL, of course, so I’d be interested in the SDMB legal eagles’ take on that logic. Needless to say, if I’ve made a hash of **Ravenman** ’s logic, the fault is mine, not his. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/283 "2017-12-22T15:25:57Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > It now contains a picture of the actual ballot. I’d say that was a relatively clear R vote, with correction of mistaken D vote, but I’m sure others have different opinions. If I were told that the ballot had to be counted, and I had to decide which candidate was chosen, I’d agree. But I think that “correction” is so minimal that it could be an accident, and my inclination would be to discard the ballot. Had the guy crossed it out (with an “X”) or otherwise clearly indicated his choice, I’d agree to count it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/284 "2017-12-22T16:12:40Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This appears to be the relevant part to me, from page 8: > > (8) Any ballot that has any mark, as above, in the target area or candidate area for one candidate, and on which other marks in the target areas or candidate areas for any other candidates have been partially erased, scratched out, or otherwise obliterated, shall be counted as a vote for the candidate for which the mark was not erased, scratched out, or otherwise obliterated, provided no other candidate is similarly marked. The examples they give with this section, however, are models of clarity compared to the ballot in question. I’m with **John Mace** on this one: if I absolutely **had** to count this ballot for one candidate or the other, I’d say Yancey. But I think it’s a real stretch to try to divine the voter’s intent from that one additional mark. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/285 "2017-12-22T16:37:33Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’m with **John Mace** on this one… A Christmas miracle if ever there was one. Just kidding. I’m happy to agree with you on lots of things, even if we disagree on others! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/286 "2017-12-22T16:54:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > A Christmas miracle if ever there was one. 😃 > [@](#): > > Just kidding. I knew that! > [@](#): > > I’m happy to agree with you on lots of things, even if we disagree on others! I And even when we disagree, what you have to say is worth reading and responding to. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/287 "2017-12-22T20:03:25Z")
_Igualmente, amigo_. As we say in California! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/288 "2017-12-26T23:12:05Z")
Update on VA-94: the State Board of Elections (what, not the Commonwealth Board of Elections?) has postponed tomorrow’s drawing to determine the winner of that race, pending the outcome of Simonds’ petition for reconsideration of its decision last week. No cite, I’m posting from an unfamiliar tablet. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/289 "2017-12-26T23:23:54Z")
[I got yer back, **RT**](https://wtop.com/virginia/2017/12/tied-va-house-race-dems-ask-recount-court-redo-declare-simonds-winner/). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/290 "2017-12-28T20:09:01Z")
She basically had to do this. There was no way to really be sure that this was the disputed ballot. This could very well have been a ballot that was already counted in Yancey’s favor. This recount is unlikely to result in a win for Yancey but could result in a win for Simmonds. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/291 "2017-12-29T18:31:42Z")
[Yancey now cites the law as the reason why the drawing should take place ASAP](https://apnews.com/462fb0ca7e3d4f8f8a3ba558fbed1fcc/Virginia-GOP-pushes-to-declare-winner-in-disputed-House-race): > [@](#): > > Lawyers for Republican Del. David Yancey urged state elections officials to schedule a random drawing of the winner’s name no later than Jan. 9, the day before the legislature reconvenes. > In court documents, Yancey’s lawyers argued that a three-judge recount court has already reviewed a single disputed ballot and found it was cast for Yancey, declaring the Nov. 7 election a tie. > > “The Court’s ruling is final and not subject to appeal,” Yancey’s attorneys wrote. “Any further delay simply deprives the people of its representative in the House of Delegates.” No, seriously, they’ve gone on the offensive: > [@](#): > > “Democrats have sought to delay and obstruct at every turn,” said GOP House Leader Kirk Cox. > > “They’ve sought to litigate their way to victory.” :dubious: “Pot, this is kettle.” What are the odds this tactic will succeed? Anyone seeing it on one of those political betting sites? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2017, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/292 "2017-12-29T23:23:43Z")
1. A petition for reconsideration isn’t an appeal. The latter is a petition to a higher court; a petition for reconsideration is to the same court. 2. I’m still dubious about the decision being unappealable in cases where the court failed to follow the procedure outlined in the law. The court isn’t above the law. Will Yancey’ s tactic work? I doubt it. The SBE will wait on the response of the court to the petition for reconsideration. If the court on reconsideration roles for Simonds, no drawing is needed. If it reaffirms its original ruling, the SBE will hold a drawing ASAP. But judges don’t like it when other actors try to pressure them. If anything, it’ll backfire and leave them less well disposed towards Yancey. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/293 "2018-01-03T19:14:50Z")
[The court denied Simonds’ petition for reconsideration.](http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-politics-94th-district-race-20180103-story.html)[Drawing tomorrow in Richmond at 11am](https://twitter.com/jamesalcorn/status/948617280166027264) to decide the winner, assuming the weather cooperates. ETA: [The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot will livestream the drawing.](https://twitter.com/JWPascale/status/948633489817120770) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/294 "2018-01-03T23:59:39Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [The court denied Simonds’ petition for reconsideration.](http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-politics-94th-district-race-20180103-story.html)[Drawing tomorrow in Richmond at 11am](https://twitter.com/jamesalcorn/status/948617280166027264) to decide the winner, assuming the weather cooperates. > > ETA: [The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot will livestream the drawing.](https://twitter.com/JWPascale/status/948633489817120770) How is there no court above this one to appeal to? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/295 "2018-01-04T00:50:47Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > How is there no court above this one to appeal to? Not every judicial decision has to be appealable. This is not to say that there are no judicial remedies possible. For example, it might be possible to file a petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing constitutional issues. ---
**Author:** ![RadioWave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/91b2a8/32.png) [@RadioWave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadioWave)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/296 "2018-01-04T16:01:39Z")
The live stream (link above) is going on now… The Republican candidate (Yancey) didn’t even bother to show up. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/297 "2018-01-04T16:05:01Z")
> [@RadioWave](#): > > The live stream (link above) is going on now… The Republican candidate (Yancey) didn’t even bother to show up. That should be a forfeit. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/298 "2018-01-04T16:17:56Z")
Yancey won. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/299 "2018-01-04T16:30:58Z")
Expect Fox to declare this a “mandate.” ---
**Author:** ![psychobunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@psychobunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychobunny)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2018, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920/300 "2018-01-04T18:33:29Z")
Well that sucks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920.md?page=16)