NC Supreme Court race - Riggs ahead +734 | NC Supreme Court sends case back to lower court

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodoheel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 264
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Griffin is only trying to disqualify UOCAVA ballots in heavily Democratic counties, ignoring ballots from Republican areas, a ProPublica review of the contested ballots found. A data analysis by independent journalist Bryan Anderson found that Democratic ballots were disproportionately targeted, with Democrats being almost five times as likely as Republicans to have their ballots questioned by Griffin, though there are roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans in North Carolina.

So transparent and shameful. Pubs are constantly trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters. This is what actual election interference/subversion looks like.
 
bridgetender said:
MAGA principles are win at all cost. Cheating is for the greater good in their mind since they've been convinced by a con man that anything that isn't MAGA is awful.
Click to expand...
With the exception that if you get caught cheating, as the Reverend Harris did in 2018, you are penalized and have wait, as Reverend Harris did for SIX years, until 2024 to get elected into Congress. Normally Reverend Harris Harris could have run again much quicker, but it was his own son, an Asst. US Attorney for Eastern NC, who testified against him. If a MAGA can't control his own spawn, the the penalty is lenghtened.
 
Y'all have some really stupid Supreme Court justices down there. I'm trying to decide whether Berger or Newby is stupider, but I think Newby has the inside track. He actually put his name to this:

"On the night of the election, petitioner led his opponent by almost 10,000 votes. Over the course of the next several days, his lead slowly dwindled, and he now trails his opponent by 734 votes out of the 5,540,090 total votes cast. That is a highly unusual course of events. It is understandable that petitioner and many North Carolina voters are questioning how this could happen."

First, it is not highly unusual. It's common. In fact, in many states, it's expected. Any time there is both geographic variation in vote counting and political leaning (which NC has plenty of), this result is highly likely to happen in a close election -- many times on election night, multiple times.

The idea that it is hard to understand "how this could happen" is just one of the most ignorant and laughable things I've read from a court in a while. Oh, who am I kidding. It's standard Trump judge fare. But 10 years ago, it would have met that criteria.
 
superrific said:
Y'all have some really stupid Supreme Court justices down there. I'm trying to decide whether Berger or Newby is stupider, but I think Newby has the inside track. He actually put his name to this:

"On the night of the election, petitioner led his opponent by almost 10,000 votes. Over the course of the next several days, his lead slowly dwindled, and he now trails his opponent by 734 votes out of the 5,540,090 total votes cast. That is a highly unusual course of events. It is understandable that petitioner and many North Carolina voters are questioning how this could happen."

First, it is not highly unusual. It's common. In fact, in many states, it's expected. Any time there is both geographic variation in vote counting and political leaning (which NC has plenty of), this result is highly likely to happen in a close election -- many times on election night, multiple times.

The idea that it is hard to understand "how this could happen" is just one of the most ignorant and laughable things I've read from a court in a while. Oh, who am I kidding. It's standard Trump judge fare. But 10 years ago, it would have met that criteria.
Click to expand...
Newby and Berger are unbelievably awful judges. They are a total disgrace.
 
Something I don't understand from the opinion and have not understood about this case, what remedy is available to Griffin if they throw out the disputed votes?

I am assuming there is no way to know who those people voted for because actual votes are not tied to specific voters for privacy reasons. Assuming I am right about that, is the remedy a new election? Is it possible for Griffin to just be declared the winner without a new election?
 
superrific said:
Y'all have some really stupid Supreme Court justices down there. I'm trying to decide whether Berger or Newby is stupider, but I think Newby has the inside track. He actually put his name to this:

"On the night of the election, petitioner led his opponent by almost 10,000 votes. Over the course of the next several days, his lead slowly dwindled, and he now trails his opponent by 734 votes out of the 5,540,090 total votes cast. That is a highly unusual course of events. It is understandable that petitioner and many North Carolina voters are questioning how this could happen."

First, it is not highly unusual. It's common. In fact, in many states, it's expected. Any time there is both geographic variation in vote counting and political leaning (which NC has plenty of), this result is highly likely to happen in a close election -- many times on election night, multiple times.

The idea that it is hard to understand "how this could happen" is just one of the most ignorant and laughable things I've read from a court in a while. Oh, who am I kidding. It's standard Trump judge fare. But 10 years ago, it would have met that criteria.
Click to expand...
They might be dumber than bricks; I don’t know.

They’re at least as partisan of political hacks as Alito and Thomas and whatshername, Trump’s judge in Florida.

If you don’t know it, “Justice” Berger is Senate Majority Leader Phil Berger’s son. He’s a right-wing politician acting as a judge.
 
Calheel said:
Something I don't understand from the opinion and have not understood about this case, what remedy is available to Griffin if they throw out the disputed votes?

I am assuming there is no way to know who those people voted for because actual votes are not tied to specific voters for privacy reasons. Assuming I am right about that, is the remedy a new election? Is it possible for Griffin to just be declared the winner without a new election?
Click to expand...
I do think it can be determined who the people who submitted mail-in ballots voted for.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I do think it can be determined who the people who submitted mail-in ballots voted for.
Click to expand...
How?

In most states, once the envelope is confirmed as valid, the workers separate the ballot from the envelope for privacy reasons (same reason there is a booth around you when you vote in person). So unless NC does it differently, there would not be a name associated with an actual ballot.
 
Calheel said:
How?

In most states, once the envelope is confirmed as valid, the workers separate the ballot from the envelope for privacy reasons (same reason there is a booth around you when you vote in person). So unless NC does it differently, there would not be a name associated with an actual ballot.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I was incorrect. I have no idea how they would be able to change the outcome.
 
Calheel said:
How?

In most states, once the envelope is confirmed as valid, the workers separate the ballot from the envelope for privacy reasons (same reason there is a booth around you when you vote in person). So unless NC does it differently, there would not be a name associated with an actual ballot.
Click to expand...
I have been wondering the exact same thing for a while. I just figured that the BOE still had ballots preserved or something of the like -- things that would be destroyed after the election was over but held onto until final certification. I didn't consider that a great explanation, but there had to be some reason why that consideration doesn't just end the case. There is no statutory authority I'm aware of -- from limited research -- to permit the court to order a new election.
 
superrific said:
I have been wondering the exact same thing for a while. I just figured that the BOE still had ballots preserved or something of the like -- things that would be destroyed after the election was over but held onto until final certification. I didn't consider that a great explanation, but there had to be some reason why that consideration doesn't just end the case. There is no statutory authority I'm aware of -- from limited research -- to permit the court to order a new election.
Click to expand...
My guess is Griffin wants the courts to find that this election cannot be certified, which basically means that seat is vacant. Kind of like if someone is elected but then dies before being sworn in. That would trigger a special election I think, and the Pubs are willing to take their chances with that. In other words, the courts could force a new election without actually ordering one.
 
superrific said:
Y'all have some really stupid Supreme Court justices down there. I'm trying to decide whether Berger or Newby is stupider, but I think Newby has the inside track. He actually put his name to this:

"On the night of the election, petitioner led his opponent by almost 10,000 votes. Over the course of the next several days, his lead slowly dwindled, and he now trails his opponent by 734 votes out of the 5,540,090 total votes cast. That is a highly unusual course of events. It is understandable that petitioner and many North Carolina voters are questioning how this could happen."

First, it is not highly unusual. It's common. In fact, in many states, it's expected. Any time there is both geographic variation in vote counting and political leaning (which NC has plenty of), this result is highly likely to happen in a close election -- many times on election night, multiple times.

The idea that it is hard to understand "how this could happen" is just one of the most ignorant and laughable things I've read from a court in a while. Oh, who am I kidding. It's standard Trump judge fare. But 10 years ago, it would have met that criteria.
Click to expand...
It's not stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top