Posted on 02/06/2005 3:11:46 AM PST by Prospero
The 2004 election cycle was the first time in North Carolina history that State election officials counted out-of-precinct provisional ballots," Wainwright wrote. "To permit unlawful votes to be counted along with lawful ballots in contested elections effectively `disenfranchises' those voters who cast legal ballots."
The decision also cited numerous state statutes and election regulations specifically requiring voters to cast their ballots only in the precincts where they reside. Election officials are also instructed by law and regulations to assist voters in casting legal ballots.
"It is indeed unfortunate that the statutorily unauthorized actions of the State Board of Elections denied thousands of citizens the right to vote on election day," Wainwright wrote. "This Court is without power to rectify the Board's unilateral decision to instruct voters to cast provisional ballots in a manner not authorized by State law."
(Excerpt) Read more at ncsenategop.com ...
NC Ping worthy?
bump
This State is in BIG trouble! The Dems are in charge & are learning new tricks everyday that will help them hold onto their power. Of course, the large number of politioally ignorant "yellow dog" democratic voters don't help.
I'm watching NC Dems slide in California "issues" into their so-called policies to "lift up" North Carolinians. It's hogwash. WAnna see the economic and social decline of a state? NC Dems are taking NCers there.. bit by bit.. same chimera, same masquerade.
ALSO: Watch this week for the vote tally as these 11,310 votes are removed from the Education race and let's just see how manyof them are DEM votes. That will be very interesting.
ALSO: Watch the General Assembly now as they hang-wring over election law. WATCH CAREFULLY to see if they opt to change the law to give more power to the (DEM Controlled) elections board -- power that could ignore the law in certain circumstances. This could be a dangerous time since the DEMs control the legislative power.
well if this is true, then why doesn't the State Attorney General of that state file charges against the Dems for voter fraud...sounds reasonable to me...
I hear this term used alot.
Can somebody tell me what a "yellow dog Democrat" it?
Sorry for being so ign'ant. ;-)
Bones
Nice to know that Southern RATS are so much more conservative than Republicans.
They'd vote Democrat even if their candidate was a yellow dog, literally.
Doesn't that refer to the votes cast by a yellow dog in a certain state?
(And someone's cat voting as well?)
A yellow dog democrat is is a voter who'd vote for a yellow dog if it was on the dem ticket. They primarily vote dem because it's traditional for them and their family, totally ignoring issues.
They're not koolaid drinkers; they're just ignorant.
"A yellow dog democrat is is a voter who'd vote for a yellow dog if it was on the dem ticket. They primarily vote dem because it's traditional for them and their family, totally ignoring issues."
Ah, I get it. "I was raised a Democrat and I'll go to my grave a Democrat" (regardless of what is going on in America or the world)
Gotcha.. thanks.
Bones
There is a story that goes around about a lifelong Republican; on his death bed, he changed his voter registration to Democrat because he wanted one of THEM to die, not a Republican. :-)
There's still some of "I'm a Democrat because my daddy was a Democrat, because his daddy was a Democrat, because his daddy was a Democrat, because his daddy was a Democrat, because Lincoln was a Republican."
"Defendants contend, along with defendant-intervenor Atkinson and respondent Parks, that plaintiffs' failure to challenge the counting of out-of-precinct provisional ballots before the 2 November 2004 election renders plaintiffs' action untimely and precludes this Court from determining whether the State Board erred by counting those ballots. Defendants allege that plaintiffs knew or should have known the State Board would countout-of-precinct provisional ballots, but nonetheless chose to await the outcome of the election before challenging the results. The facts do not support defendants' allegations.
"The 2004 election cycle was the first time in North Carolina history that State election officials counted out-of-precinct provisional ballots. Before the 2004 general election, plaintiff James wrote the State Board of Elections and specifically asked whether the Board planned to count such ballots. The Board's general counsel responded that 'North Carolina law is clear on this issue. We have and will continue to enforce and administer the provisions as to provisional voting as set out in North Carolina law.' The response of the Board's general counsel failed to indicate that the State Board of Elections would count out-of-precinct provisional ballots. This response, coupled with the absence of any clear statutory or regulatory directive that such action would be taken, failed to provide plaintiffs with adequate notice that election officials would count the 11,310 ballots now at issue. Plaintiffs' action was timely filed."
The NC Dems on the Board of Elections have considerable cheek. Before the election, they tell the Republican candidates that they would follow the past practice of not counting out of precinct ballots, but try to count those ballots and complain that the Republicans should have brought suit before the election asking that the court not allow what the Dems said they were not going to do. I suppose that Republicans should have been on notice that Democrats are liars and that their word is good for nothing.
For the 'Rats, I guess that it is just too much to ask them to show up at the right place ONCE every two years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.