Statement by Alabama GOVERNOR-ELECT BOB RILEY (my title - Pound Sand Seigelman!)

Montgomery Advertiser Online ^ | 8 Nov 2002 | Bob Riley

[commish]

"On election night, when Don Siegelman thought he was ahead by 2,500 votes, he declared victory. He said, 'How sweet it is.'" He didn't say it was so close that we needed a recount. He didn't say there was uncertainty.

[InterceptPoint]

But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close

Sorry but it is only the right thing to do if our side lost. We won and we should't give them an inch. If things were reversed the Dems wouldn't even consider what is the "right thing to do". This is politics. Winning is what counts and we are winning.

[BARLF]

Owlgore:There is no controlling legal authority.

[THE Aardvark]

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm
I hope that works.

[SamAdams76]

Your points are well taken. When an election is this close, it is very difficult, in fact, impossible, to come to a resolution that will satisfy both sides.

That's why - and I'm really cruisin' for a bruisin' now - that I like the way things are set up in Louisiana with their runoffs. If a candidate fails to achieve 50% of the vote, they have a run-off between the top two winners. In this case, Riley and Siegleman would have a run-off eliminating the Libertarian (and other third party candidates) and one of the candidates would be assured of getting 50% of the vote and a clear victory. In the Alabama case, there is virtually no doubt that Riley would win the runoff because most of those who voted Libertarian would come around to Riley.

I really like this system, I gotta tell you. Bill Clinton never received 50% of the vote either in 1992 or 1996. Imagine how things would have turned out in 1992 had there been a run-off between just Clinton and Bush with no Ross Perot (or anybody else). I just don't see Clinton winning in this situation.

[zook]

But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close.

Or, they could follow the law.

[Choozer]

My argument was simply against using "the right thing to do" as reasoning. That is precisely the reasoning the New Jersey Supreme Court used and it's maddening.

I have read Siegelman's attorney's objections to the attorney general, and he made no persuasive argument that the law allows for a recount, nor did he make a compelling argument suggesting fraud had been committed. In fact, I haven't read about any such allegations (unless I've missed them).

If Riley were the one on the short end, I would base my judgment on the same points: Is there a compelling argument to suggest fraud? Is there a compelling argument that the law calls for a recount?

Has anyone here read anything of substance from the Siegelman camp that would actually raise an argument for their side?

[Choozer]

Good point about the Clinton-Bush sans Perot runoff.

[apackof2]

Just as Al Gore did in Florida two years ago

I love this part! GO BOB GO!!

[alancarp]

[concerned about politics]

``The bottom line is it's a Republican conspiracy at its worst.''

Uh huh. Riiiight. A Hillary VRWC.

(BTW- Both Hillary and the rapist campained for Mc Call in NY like there was no tomarrow. He lost in a landslide. It was a crushing defeat. A slaughter!)

[concerned about politics]

Riley has proceeded as if he is governor-elect, even appointing a transition team chairman.

He's suffering from the Nile. :-)

[lstanle]

"But a recount is the right thing to do when it is this close."

It would seem that if the state of Alabama wanted to have a recount when an election is this close that their election laws would reflect that desire.. The right thing to do is obey the law. IMO

[vaudine]

Do you understand "rule of law"? It is against Alabama law to have a statewide recount because the threshold set forth has not been met. I live in AL and I do not want another Florida, NJ, or MN (where the court changed the absentee ballot law). Just because one candidate whines is no reason to open the door for limitless voter fraud.
I for one am sick, sick, sick of the whining and conniving of Dems. The legislature wrote the election laws as is their mission. The court cannot set these laws aside unless they can be declared unconstitional. A lot of people do not seem to understand that the FL SC overstepped itself in overriding the election laws of FL. The only reason the US SC stepped in was that it was a federal/presidential election and the selected recount disenfranchised MORE voters than the Dems claimed NOT recounting would do.

Long live the rule of law, and hello Governor Riley!

Vaudine

[SamAdams76]

I did some quick research on this and came up with the following two scenarios that would allow for a recount (I know that many articles posted here allow for three but these are the only two reasons I could find).

He (Siegleman) files an election contest with the Legislature and shows that illegal ballots were counted or legal ballots weren't counted and they would change the results. The new Legislature would consider an election contest in January.

He (Siegleman) gets a judge to order a limited recount in a county after finding that a voting machine or precinct did not make a report on election night.

My source for the above is from this webpage from Al.com, apparently a website that collects newspaper article from various Alabama newspapers. So it would appear that Siegleman does not have much of a leg to stand on, unless there are other scenarios in the Alabama law that would allow for a recount. I've been trying like heck to find the actual laws but I just can't find them anywhere and I'm not going to waste my entire Friday night looking for them. If anybody can post the specific laws here (and not just offer a generic link that takes you to the entire set of laws), I would greatly appreciate it.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[Pryor said the governor's petitions aren't sufficient to unseal the ballots and other election records. He said Siegelman could get the ballots opened under only two scenarios:

--He files an election contest with the Legislature and shows that illegal ballots were counted or legal ballots weren't counted and they would change the results. The new Legislature would consider an election contest in January. ]

I have marveled at the audacity of the dims since November 2000. That they have a massive nation-wide vote rigging machine in place goes without saying (how many times do we hear about allegations of Republican vote fraud?). But, what amazes me is that they seem willing to demand recounts based upon charges of vote fraud, when in fact the reason for the recount is to commit vote fraud! They are so brazen nowadays that they think that they can get away with ballot tampering after essentially making the same charge of the opposition. Simply astonishing.

[Siegelman's attorney, Joe Espy, disagreed with Pryor's interpretation and said a recount is needed to settle the issue in voters' minds.

``Whatever happened, happened. Let's just count the votes,'' he said.]

Let's just count the votes. Where have I heard THAT before!

I recall an article I read during the election-2000 fiasco, by an ex-dimo operative, wherein he disclosed how thew dims fraudulently win close elections nation-wide. Basically, he said that if registration fraud is insufficient to deliver the election, but it is close -- i.e. within say a few thousand votes -- they will always demand a recount to create an opportunity to "handle" the ballots. In so doing, they can generally eliminate enough votes for the opposition (i.e. by double punching/marking) and create enough votesfor their candidate (by a number of means, including introducing new ballots) to turn the election. He actually bragged about having been personally involved in stealing a NUMBER of high-profile national races over the years.

Alabama's law is well reasoned. The 'pubs need to embark on a nation wide campaign to end vote fraud by the dims. That's all.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

IOW these votes were counted and verified 4 times.

Yes. But to the dims, this matters not. In any close race they will raise hell for two reasons:

1) Force a recount so that their operatives get a chance to "handle" the ballots, leading to a win for their candidate.

2) Having failed at (1) above, they at least have an issue to demogouge the Republicans, and to leverage their quest to "remedy" the law, thus making it easier to cheat the next time. Or the next after that.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Thanks. :O)

[cyndi]

Hope this helps. It is from Title 17, Chapter 15 of the Alabama Code.

Section 17-15-1
Grounds of contest.
The election of any person declared elected to the office of Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, Public Service Commissioner, senator or representative in the Legislature, justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the courts of appeals, judge of the circuit court or district court or to any office which is filled by the vote of a single county, or to the office of constable may be contested by any person who was at the time of either of the said elections a qualified elector for any of the following causes:

(1) Malconduct, fraud or corruption on the part of any inspector, clerk, marker, returning officer, board of supervisors or other person.

(2) When the person whose election to office is contested was not eligible thereto at the time of such election.

(3) On account of illegal votes.

(4) On account of the rejection of legal votes.

(5) Offers to bribe, bribery, intimidation or other malconduct calculated to prevent a fair, free and full exercise of the elective franchise.

(Code 1896, §1667; Code 1907, §455; Code 1923, §545; Code 1940, T. 17, §231.)


Section 17-15-50 Statement — Filing; bond.
When any elector shall choose to contest any election for the office of Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, justices of the Supreme Court or judges of the courts of appeals, he must, within 10 days after the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall have opened the returns and proclaimed the result of the election for Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer and Attorney General, as provided in this chapter, file with the Speaker of the House of Representatives a written statement of the grounds of such contest and a bond with good and sufficient sureties payable to the State of Alabama and conditioned for the payment of such costs as may accrue upon such contest in the event such contest shall result in favor of the contestee. Such bond must be in the sum of $5,000.00 and must be subject to the approval of the Speaker of the House, and such bond, when it shall be approved, shall be filed and recorded in the office of the Secretary of State.
(Code 1896, §1672; Code 1907, §478; Code 1923, §568; Code 1940, T. 17, §254.

[SamAdams76]

Thank you, that was most helpful. I'm not a lawyer but it seems pretty clear to me that Siegleman cannot contest the results unless one of the conditions set forth is met. None of those conditions appear to justify contesting the results because the election was close.

[FollowingTheGrace]

I like the way things are set up in Louisiana with their runoffs. If a candidate fails to achieve 50% of the vote, they have a run-off between the top two winners...I really like this system, I gotta tell you. Bill Clinton never received 50% of the vote either in 1992 or 1996. Imagine how things would have turned out in 1992 had there been a run-off between just Clinton and Bush with no Ross Perot (or anybody else). I just don't see Clinton winning in this situation.

Under this system, Al Gore might have taken FL in 2000 because there was a Green candidate who had more votes than the margin of victory...then again there was Buchanan. Anyway, the 3rd party thing can cut both ways.