# 2017 Virginia Gov. race:  Gillespie (R) vs. Northam (D)

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 282

<div class="post-metadata">

**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")

</div>

> [@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  
> \<snip\>  
> 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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2017-virginia-gov-race-gillespie-r-vs-northam-d/788920)._