Of course, if the democrat sues the board of elections, then they are a sore loser. If the Judge determines that the ballot was invalid, then he is an activist judge.
With my own two eyes, I can see that that ballot should not be counted. Determining whether it was a strike through mark or a clarifying mark is completely subjective. There is no objective way to determine what the will of the voter was on that ballot. It is up to whoever judge the ballot to make that determination, which is not how it is supposed to work, it is supposed to be up to the voter to determine where their vote goes.
Add to that the fact that it is not certain that that ballot had not already been counted, and the question of legitimacy is a bit less absolute than you like to believe.
Tell me honestly, what would your reaction be if the dems sued the board of elections? Considering the OP considers silently walking out of the room to be a sore loser, what would actually defending yourself in court be called?
And note that he’s also not calling the Republican a sore loser for bringing in the invalid ballot to be double-counted in the first place. Because of course that’s perfectly legitimate.
For a statehouse seat? My reaction would be “good luck, and let me know when you guys over there in VA have settled on a winner”. It sounds like they have now.
That depends on the law itself. If Virginia election law disqualifies a ballot for irregularities, then it’s a clear-cut case, and the ballot should be disqualified. However, I’ll assume here that the judges know the law and have applied it properly.
The problem is that we don’t have the voter to verify what his/her will was. To be fair, my interpretation of the ballot would be in favor of the Republican, that the vote for Simonds was struck through.
And the very questionable way in which the tiebreaker was carried out.
Well, yeah for a statehouse seat, as that is what this whole thread has been about. Your responses in this thread have indicated that you have more feelings about the matter than a simple “good luck”.
You are saying that you would be supportive of the democrats suing the board of elections, and if a judge tossed that ballot out, then you would be supportive of that ruling as well?
And, well, this is precedent setting, as well, so what about when it is not about a statehouse seat, what about when it is for US congress or senate? would you still be as cavalier?
Election judges, not judicial judges.
I don’t doubt that they know the law, but I don’t know that they applied it properly.
Then would you, as a judge, also interpret that the voter in question did not mean to vote for the governor?
Definitely agreed there. I did a magic show for a talent contest in 3rd grade. The skills I had there would have been more than enough to ensure that I had picked the “right” canister.
There is no way to tell, the draw could have been random and fair, or it could have been a very small amount of sleight of hand in order to determine the winner.
Voter ID or not, if I were a virginian in this district, I would have no confidence in the vote due to the actions of those who are supposed to safeguard it.
I don’t think I’d use the word “supportive”. More like “indifferent”. Or perhaps “accepting”. It seems like a waste of time and money to sue over such small potatoes, but YMMV.
What precedent was set here? That we bicker over narrow election results? That’s not new.
Not really small potatoes. I mean, to you, half a country away and unaffected by laws passed in virginia, sure.
But it is no small potatoes to flip a state’s congressional delegation, and that is the stakes here. 8.4 Million people live in virginia, and the direction that that state takes all of those people was determined by these events.
It seems fair to ensure that they are on the up and up.
The precedent is in how the “tie” and subsequent drawing played out, and any responses that lawmakers may have to those events.
I think as far as bickering goes, that precedent was set long ago, we will bicker about narrow election results, we will bicker over wide election results, we will bicker over what we can bicker about, that’s unrelated to the precedent that is being set in actual government by actual legislators and their actors right this very moment.
I’m pretty sure you meant “flip a state’s legislature”, not congressional delegation. I agree, it should be “on the up and up”. It appears to have been. Absent something more substantive than wild conjecture to the contrary, I’m likely to continue holding that opinion.
What was precedent-setting here? The procedure (draw lots) was established a long time ago. They apparently drew lots to settle another tie race in Virginia in 1971.
No, it does not. You are confused about some basic facts. I will try to help you now:
Virginia’s congressional delegation has been 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats since January 2017. Regardless of the outcome of the statehouse races in November 2017, Virginia’s congressional delegation will continue to be 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats until 2019 (barring resignation, incapacitation, or death of one / more of the representatives).
You are correct, I misspoke, I did mean the state legislature. Though, as Elv1s points out, that does have an impact on redistricting. There may be another election between now and then, but incumbency has weight. Having this seat filled by and R between now and then means that is more likely that it will be and R then.
A number of things. The way the recount was done was poorly implemented. That the republican could issue challenges, but the democrat couldn’t was a bit odd, to me. Then there was the ballot itself, which for reasons I have stated a few times on this thread, I do not think should have been counted. Then there is the fact that the republican head of the board of elections was the one to draw the lots, with only other republican members of the BOE to observe. I watched that draw, and it would have been easy for me to have manipulated that draw to pick whichever I wanted to pick.
This is the first I’ve heard of this. What do you mean? The Republicans did issue a challenge, but were they the only ones that “could”? Was the Democrat barred from appealing to the judicial panel for some reason? Could you please explain what you mean here in a bit more detail?
I watched the draw too, and this sentence seems obviously incorrect. First off, the Dem candidate herself was there to observe. That’s how we got this thread started, because she kind of stormed out afterwards. And the room had lots of people and cameras in it. You don’t really mean that the only people allowed to observe were “other republican members of the BOE” do you? Could you clarify here too?
As it happens, I was aware of the more widely-used meaning of “questionable,” but since it didn’t actually apply to the lot-drawing procedure, I thought perhaps you were using the word in a weird but accurate way, as opposed a correct use to make an incorrect assertion.
This particular challenge was issued after the time when challenges were allowed. If the Democrat had known that the rules were being changed in the middle of the election, then they could have challenged more ballots, too, but they weren’t told that that was an option.
I’d ask for a cite here too, but I figure that the explanation from the first claim may answer this one too. But to the extent that this does not happen, I’m reserving the right to ask you for a cite on this claim also.