# More NC Elections Shenanigans **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 17, 2018, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256 "2018-06-17T13:28:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/21 "2018-06-18T16:00:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/22 "2018-06-18T16:14:09Z")
So, problem? ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/23 "2018-06-18T16:16:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/24 "2018-06-18T16:23:38Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/25 "2018-06-18T16:31:58Z")
Why, that doesn’t strike me as a disingenuous way of framing the situation and the phrase “within the rules” at all, no siree. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/26 "2018-06-18T16:56:02Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/27 "2018-06-18T17:06:12Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/28 "2018-06-18T17:29:34Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/29 "2018-06-18T17:32:27Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/30 "2018-06-18T18:39:34Z")
I’m not sure about “official testimony”, but [this article appears neutral](http://www.greensboro.com/rockingham_now/democratic-challenger-disqualified-from-race-against-berger-set-to-appeal/article_3659c16c-603e-11e8-80bf-9b38d19426a7.html). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/31 "2018-06-18T18:53:05Z")
[Watch this](https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article213286179.html). 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. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/32 "2018-06-18T19:02:10Z")
@LHoD, thanks for the links, I’ll review both of them ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/33 "2018-06-18T23:59:57Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/34 "2018-06-19T01:46:30Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/35 "2018-06-19T02:13:41Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Your unwillingness to do that makes me suspect the validity of your argument here. :dubious: 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. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2018, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/36 "2018-06-20T03:43:49Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2018, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/37 "2018-06-20T12:28:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2018, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/38 "2018-06-20T13:31:05Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2018, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/39 "2018-07-12T17:19:26Z")
Update: [She won her appeal.](http://www.wxii12.com/article/candidate-says-ineligibility-ruling-helped-campaign/22096747) > [@](#): > > 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: > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2018, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256/40 "2018-07-12T21:20:00Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-nc-elections-shenanigans/816256.md?page=3)