Shelly Simonds was elected by one vote, fair and square, pursuant to Virginia Law

[ehrnst]

Shelly Simonds was elected by one vote, fair and square, pursuant to Virginia Law, following the express dictates of Virginia Code Section 24.2-802.

Republicans present on the day of the recount signed a statement "affirming that the result was accurate" and "there were no ballots on which the parties disagreed." The Republican Leadership even graciously issued a concession statement congratulating "Delegate-elect Simonds".

If the next day, the Virginia Court had simply followed the deadlines set out in the Virginia Code (requiring objections be made at the conclusion of the recount of "each precinct" ), Simonds would have been certified as the winner. And she should have been.

The Court did not do this. The Court decided not to follow these laws and procedure set out in the Virginia Code. Yet it has not to my knowledge given a reason, either written or oral, to explain its deviation from the law. If the Court is re-writing the Virginia Law and upending the recount procedure now and forevermore, it should spell out clearly what authority it believes it has to do this.

Furthermore: if the Court is judicially revising Virginia law to hold that deadlines in Virginia Code are invalid for Republicans (and it must provide a reason for this extraordinary action!), it cannot then turn and enforce these same Code deadlines for Democrats. That would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Court has two choices:
1) Reconsider its decision and uphold the deadlines in the Virginia Code as written (preferred); or

2) Rewrite the Virginia Code to ignore the deadlines but also provide that Democrats shall have every right to recontest uncontested ballots as Republicans were allowed to do (after giving no notice to Democrats).

In sum, if there is to be more than one "redetermination" in express violation of Code, the Court must provide equal justice to both parties. A court cannot allow Republicans to ignore the deadlines in the Virginia Code and then insist Democrats follow the same deadlines it allowed the Republicans to ignore. That would be a violation of the US Constitution.

http://www.vahousedems.org/press/breaking-recount-rules-david-yancey-grinch-who-stole-election

And about the judge that tossed out the win:

Judge who tossed out Virginia delegate candidate’s one-vote win was supported by her GOP opponent: report

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/judge-who-tossed-out-virginia-delegate-candidates-one-vote-win-was-supported-by-her-gop-opponent-report/#.Wj2PK3XqTew.facebook

[pangaia]

1. Correction...

"Furthermore: if the Court is judicially revising Virginia law to hold that deadlines in Virginia Code are invalid for Republicans (and it must provide a reason for this extraordinary action!), it cannot then turn and enforce these same Code deadlines for Democrats."

Oh yes they can, and so can every other court once the fascists have taken control of them.
And that could very well be what is coming.. in fact it has already started...

[SeaDoo77]

8. Laws Mean Nothing To Republicans

Make sure every American knows it.

Maybe they may bother to vote.

[CrispyQ]

2. They can't win without cheating.

Kick.

[elleng]

4. Right, and they continue to do so.

So shall it ever be.

[Scurrilous]

3. K&R

[dchill]

5. K&R.

[Historic NY]

6. What do they tell you any spurious marking makes a ballot

null and void. Here there are two marking the ballot would not have counted electronically. We just had a tie here on a Judge, the absentee ballot was marked with the name written in when it was clearly stated to check the box. This should be considered a false vote - ballot correction

[Loki Liesmith]

7. God this s stupid argument

The ballot challenge was legitimate and the intention was clear.

[mobeau69]

9. Agree except it wasn't 100% clear. Ir was about 99% clear.

Which of the two marks for HOD was the same as the other marks on the ballot and which one was different? We were lucky to get it thrown out and not given to the puke, imo.

[DallasNE]

10. But there is no clear intent

The ballot is an over vote and must be disallowed. Both parties agreed to this. Did they even seek to locate the individual that cast that ballot?
To me that line says to ignore that Mark rather than use that Mark. That is what is so ridiculous about the court claim of clear intent. An equal claim could be made that the clear intent was a vote for the Democrat. Both would be wrong. This was an over vote, period.

[onenote]

12. That is not Virginia law.

Virginia recounts are governed by published guidelines that specify that where a ballot is marked for two candidates, and there is additional marking either indicating an intent for the vote to be cast for one of the two (e.g., one of the two names checked also is circled) or to not vote for one of them (e.g., there is a strike-through on one of the checks), the vote counts.

[dansolo]

13. The name should have the strike-through.

The guidelines don't allow for striking through the bubble. And further, there was a strike through mark for another race (governor). You could argue that the intent of the strike through the bubble was an indication of preference. That would mean that the vote should have gone to the Democrat. The intent is not at all clear, and it should have been thrown out.

[DallasNE]

15. All States Have Clear Intent Language

Apparently Virginia goes into more depth by providing additional guidelines. But like we both said, a line through would be a vote for the other candidate - the Democrat making it a 2 vote win. The line does not strike all of the way - only extending out of the top right. There is also the custody of the ballot - was it always secure or could that Mark have been added after the ballot was cast. There is just no way that ballot should count.

[onenote]

17. wrong

The guidelines do allow for striking through the bubble and treating it as an indication that the voter did not want to vote for that candidate.


And how votes are cast in another race are irrelevant to determining the voter's intent in another race.

I think the result sucks but I have absolutely no doubt folks here would be screaming bloody murder if strike through was on the republican candidate and the ballot was disallowed rather than counted for the Democrat.

[DallasNE]

16. Rawstory has Photo Of Whole Ballot

It shows. 2 things and they point in different directions. 1. They voted Republian on all of the other partisan races. 2. For Governor they both filled in the circle and made an "x" for the Republican meaning the extra marking was for the candidate and following that would mean for the Democrat in the Delegate race. I still say there is not enough for clear intent to be established. In fact, it is not even close. Besides, one of the Judges was sponsored for appointment by the Republican making for a clear conflict of interest so this stinks all around of corruption.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

11. Shouldn't Ms. Simonds take this issue to a higher court? n/t

.............

[msongs]

14. here I thought repubs hated judges overturning law lol. nt