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.
So, problem?
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.
Winning by playing withing the rules?! Good heavens. This is an OUTRAGE! :rolleyes:
Why, that doesn’t strike me as a disingenuous way of framing the situation and the phrase “within the rules” at all, no siree.
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.
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.
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?
I’m not sure about “official testimony”, but this article appears neutral.
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.
@LHoD, thanks for the links, I’ll review both of them
It’s in the Constitution that you only have to live in the state. States can’t have more strict qualifications than that.
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.
: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.
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).
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.
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.
Update: She won her appeal.
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:
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.