OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS - NC & OTHER STATE ELECTIONS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 199
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 
But is there another way for the awful gerrymandering to ever be undone? Winning districts is not possible
 
nycfan said:
Yes, about half of them.

IMG_3585.jpegIMG_3586.jpegIMG_3587.jpeg
Click to expand...
Fair enough, thanks. But do you think it’s fair to say they won the ones that are a little less political in nature? I would assume the Auditor or Agriculture guys aren’t people the Dems fear in the same way they feared some of the others in the higher profile races.
 
My weekly reminder that the Treasurer job is Very Important to State employees (includes 100,00 teachers ) A pub Treasurer will continue be in cahoots with the pub legeislature in chipping away at benefits
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
Fair enough, thanks. But do you think it’s fair to say they won the ones that are a little less political in nature? I would assume the Auditor or Agriculture guys aren’t people the Dems fear in the same way they feared some of the others in the higher profile races.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it is fair to say that the Dems won the key political positions and the Pubs the less visible administrative posts. I was a little surprised Hunt won, TBH — she seemed to run a nearly invisible campaign.

North Carolinians did a whole lot of interesting shifts in completing their ballots this year.
 
It is really odd the people of NC just will not elect a Pub as AG-like I think ever in my life
I thought the Pubs were the party of Law and Order?
 
aGDevil2k said:
But is there another way for the awful gerrymandering to ever be undone? Winning districts is not possible
Click to expand...
If the GOP hadn't packed the federal judiciary and Supreme Court with Trumpers then that might have been a way to eliminate the gerrymandering, but of course that's not possible now. And one of the reasons (among several) that they have worked so hard to pack the federal judiciary since Dubya got elected in 2000 was for precisely this purpose - to allow the most extreme gerrymandering and voter restrictions to remain in place. IMO, the only way that NC Democrats will ever again win a majority of the state legislature will be to retake control of the NC Supreme Court. And given that the GOP will have a 6-1 majority starting in January that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. It's going to take a long time for NC Democrats to win back control of the NC Supreme Court, much less the state legislature. The ugly truth is that the NC GOP will almost certainly retain control of the state legislature into the foreseeable future, maybe right through the 2030s.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
If the GOP hadn't packed the federal judiciary and Supreme Court with Trumpers then that might have been a way to eliminate the gerrymandering, but of course that's not possible now. And one of the reasons (among several) that they have worked so hard to pack the federal judiciary since Dubya got elected in 2000 was for precisely this purpose - to allow the most extreme gerrymandering and voter restrictions to remain in place. IMO, the only way that NC Democrats will ever again win a majority of the state legislature will be to retake control of the NC Supreme Court. And given that the GOP will have a 6-1 majority starting in January that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. It's going to take a long time for NC Democrats to win back control of the NC Supreme Court, much less the state legislature. The ugly truth is that the NC GOP will almost certainly retain control of the state legislature into the foreseeable future, maybe right through the 2030s.
Click to expand...
I was looking at the composition of the Court and 2028 is the earliest Dems can regain the majority. The only seat up for grabs in 2026 is the lone Dem on the court (Anita Earls) so she must defend her seat, and then we have to flip all three Pub seats up for reelection in 2028 to gain a 4-3 majority. If Trump does indeed execute the terrible agenda he has promised, the political climate over the next four years could be conducive to making this possible.
 
GoHeelsweeeehoooo said:
Riggs has pulled ahead in the state supreme court race - really need her to hang on
Click to expand...
Wow, I didn't think she had a chance. I hope this doesn't turn out like the 2020 NC Chief Justice race. Beasley and her GOP opponent were so close they switched leads a few times, but at the end her opponent won by something like 400 votes out of millions cast.
 

Chris Cooper (@chriscooperwcu.bsky.social)

According to a NCSBE release earlier today, 6 counties will complete canvass on Monday. 106 votes separate Allison Riggs and Jefferson Griffin in the NC State Supreme Court election. Here are the vote totals in those counties thus far: Riggs: 307,325 Griffin: 304,067 This one's gonna be close.
bsky.app bsky.app
 
JCTarheel82 said:
I was looking at the composition of the Court and 2028 is the earliest Dems can regain the majority. The only seat up for grabs in 2026 is the lone Dem on the court (Anita Earls) so she must defend her seat, and then we have to flip all three Pub seats up for reelection in 2028 to gain a 4-3 majority. If Trump does indeed execute the terrible agenda he has promised, the political climate over the next four years could be conducive to making this possible.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Earls is running again.
 
This past set of Statewide offices show that if the Dem party would put some add $ forward for these jobs-well we might win some
 
ZenMode said:
[VIDEO] Democratic officials in Pennsylvania county choose to defy state court’s vote count ruling

CNN's Marshall Cohen reports on Democrats in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, choosing to defy a state Supreme Court ruling by validating provisional ballots that were missing a matching signature.

Click to expand...
That's not really what is happening there at all. It's bad reporting. Also, it's not just Bucks County (which, by the way, voted red so they aren't trying to swing the race in favor of Dems).

The state Supreme Court has made a mess of the voting law in PA. A good friend of mine has clerked on that court for a while, and while I can't spill any details, the basic problem is the tension between the legislatures' restrictive voting statutes and the state's constitution, which is very much pro-democracy. And that came to a head earlier this year in the Supreme Court's ruling about undated ballots. That's the "ruling" supposedly being denied.

But in reality, that ruling was not a ruling at all. It was dismissed on procedural grounds -- basically the plaintiffs sued in the wrong court (PA has a complex court system) and thus the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction. The underlying question of whether the ballot-dating requirement is constitutional remains unanswered. Three of the Justices on the Supreme Court wanted to address the question by using something called "King's bench jurisdiction" but there wasn't a majority for that.

So in absence of King's Bench jurisdiction, there are only two ways for the issue to be presented to the Court. First, the county boards can refuse to count the ballots . . . and then in a very close race, one of the candidates will sue and we will get a Florida 2000 situation where the PA Supreme Court could be put in a position to decide the national election. The other way is for county boards to count the ballots, as they are doing, to put the issue in front of the state Supreme Court in a less charged setting. Indeed, those actions are being challenged (I think by the secretary of state) so we will get a decision on this. And having a decision, either way, is better for PA than no decision at all.

That's what this is about. It's not about trying to steal an election. I base my conclusion on 1) having read the relevant opinions; and 2) from my friend who is like an assistant coach, sort of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top