Posted on 06/30/2014 4:50:41 AM PDT by don-o
Volunteers working for tea party challenger Chris McDaniel in Mississippi say they have already found 20 percent of the invalid double-votes they need to cancel Sen. Thad Cochran’s business-funded runoff victory.
“We’re finished with Hinds County, and we’re up to 1,500” invalid votes, said Noel Fritsch, Daniel’s press aide.
That’s critical because McDaniel can force another runoff if he can find more invalid votes than Cochran’s roughly 7,000-vote margin-of-victory on June 24. Votes are invalidated if voters cast ballots in both the Democrats’ June 3 primary and the GOP’s run-off on June 24.
However, McDaniel can also force another election even if he can’t find 7,000 invalid ballots, said Fritsch.
“We don’t have to prove that we have 7,000 [invalid] votes…. all there needs to be is enough doubt about the election, and we’re confident about that,” he said.
That “cancel by doubt” strategy gives the McDaniel campaign an incentive to collect evidence about possible vote-buying and other potentially unethical behavior by Cochran’s campaign.
So far, there are many reports about shady outreach to Democratic voters supposedly undertaken by Cochran and his allies, particularly done by relatives of former Gov. Haley Barbour.
For example, The Daily Caller reported that Henry Barbour, the head of the Mississippi Conservatives PAC and the nephew of Haley Barbour, paid Democratic operative Mitzi Bickers “to make paid calls to potential Cochran supporters.” Those calls may have spurred many loyal Democrats to cast invalid votes.
In the search for improper votes, GOP officials who are affiliated with Cochran’s campaign are trying to block McDaniel’s search for invalidated votes that are recorded in the poll books, Fritsch said.
snip
However, 19,000 absentee voters cast ballots in the GOP run-off, and many of those votes may be improper, say McDaniel’s allies.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Just because it was easy to do doesn't make it right.
You are mistaken. I voted in the primary and there was a place for write in on the ballot.
He doesn’t have to prove who they voted for.
McDaniel’s campaign has already announced that he will be a write-in if he does not prevail in challenging the primary election.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our info on MS not allowing Write-ins has come from people on here who live in MS. If what you say is true, that’s awesome. Can you document where the McDaniel Campaign has announced that he will run as a Write-in if necessary? We’ve seen nothing like that on here. Seems to me that if that was the case, it would have been all over Free Republic. Please provide some documentation to verify your statement. Thanks.
> What slime has McDaniels left behind?
Wasn’t he haveing an affair with his campaign manager’s wife?
Maybe I’m confusing it with a different story.
I don’t know if that news appeared on this thread before you brought it up, but there is a separate thread on the report.
“Thanks for the link. I just sent the following e-mail”
Thanks for letting me know. So few people take the time to let their thoughts be known that it doesn’t take many to get somebody’s attention.
No, I’m talking about the ones that refer to him as McDaniels. Not the one that says McDaniel’s allies, the ones that call him McDaniels.
I may have bad information.
gbscott - do you have any idea where the idea that Mississippi does not allow write ins comes from? Is there a difference between a primary (allowed) and the general (not allowed)?
This puzzles me, because I have heard this from several different sources.
Hi Catherine,
Nope.
Cantor got too close to the “hot money” — and got burnt!
I hope Dr. Brat gets all the support he needs to win.
Please Posts #97 and #100.
Wasn’t he haveing an affair with his campaign manager’s wife?
_____________________________________________________________
HELL NO! Chris McDaniel is married to a former “Miss Mississippi”. Why have a hot dog when you have Prime Rib at home? You need to get your facts straight before you go popping off.
BTW, you have McDaniel confused with Congressman Vance McAllister from Louisiana.
> BTW, you have McDaniel confused with Congressman Vance
> McAllister from Louisiana.
Apparently I do!
Thanks for the correction.
Id check the entire Delta
And focus on Oxford and Hattiesburg for obvious reasons
Wish media would be more accurate with their reporting!!
That’s not proof. It’s assumption.
The Office of US Senator is a federal office and hence governed by federal law. Although states are permitted to write laws governing ballot access, they often write bad laws in this as is the case for Mississippi. Mississippi has no state compelling interest to bar McDaniel from filing as an independent or to bar voters from writing him in.
* US SUPREME COURT Norman v. Reed 1992
The right of citizens to create and develop new political parties derives from the First and Fourteenth Amendments and advances the constitutional interest of like-minded voters to gather in pursuit of common political ends, thus enlarging all voters’ opportunities to express their own political preferences. See, e.g., Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialists Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 . Therefore, a State may limit new parties’ access to the ballot only to the extent that a sufficiently weighty state interest justifies the restriction. Any severe restriction must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.
* US SUPREME COURT Anderson v. Celebrezze 1983
The Ohio filing deadline not only burdens the associational rights of independent voters and candidates, it also places a significant state-imposed restriction on a nationwide electoral process. A burden that falls unequally on independent candidates or on new or small political parties impinges, by its very nature, on associational choices protected by the First Amendment, and discriminates against those candidates and voters whose political preferences lie outside the existing political parties.
********************
Although in Burdick a ban on write-in voting was upheld it was made clear that such bans are valid only in the context that the state’s ballot access is constitutional in all other respects.
In the case of Mississippi, Cochran has ‘unclean hands’ by his violation of both state and federal law, and his opponent is an established and viable political candidate having garnered more than Cochran with close to 50% and more of the republican party voters. These facts belie the presumption of fair elections and allow federal courts to apply close scrutiny.
McDaniel can seek an immediate injunction on several counts barring Mississippi from banning his right to an independent candidacy and banning voters from being counted in a write-on his behalf.
Mississippi’s ballot laws are egregiously unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the context of allowing violation of law to restrict access. Thad Cochran is not permitted to violate state and federal law to fraudulently win a federal office and have his state apply ballot access restrictions to his victim, else the state would be implicit in the crime. Moreover, it is the burden of the state to prove its ballot access restrictions in the face of clear violation of law. The injunction will be granted immediately based on the clarity of the evidence of these election violations and for protection of state election integrity.
Mississippi can have its day in court but not at the expense of statistically significant numbers of Mississippians losing the right to elect their candidate of choice. In order to avert the effects of a federal injunction the state has options; 1) is to offer mediation between the two republican candidates to reach an agreement going forward and 2) refuse to certify the election results and order a new election. To do otherwise puts the state at risk of a federal injunction and ensuing and expanding oversight by a federal court over state election affairs for years to come.
The players in Mississippi elections have shown their blatant corruption. They were shortsighted in ignoring federal voting statutes that can come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Oh.
Just going by your past record of jumping in to defend Cantor against criticism.
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.