Shelly Simonds isn't conceding after Virginia House tiebreaker vote

[UCmeNdc]

The Democratic candidate, who lost to Republican incumbent David Yancey, isn't giving up on a chance at Virginia's 94th district seat. The vote was ultimately decided by state election board officials choosing a name out of a ceramic bowl. With this decision, the GOP retains its 51-49 majority.


https://twitter.com/i/moments/948970828871487488

Would you count this ballot?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Wouldn't count the votes for Governor or House of Delegates.

[SCantiGOP]

45. Exactly

No one should be empowered to consider the 'intent' of the voter. Count the races that were properly marked, and throw out those two races.

[Drahthaardogs]

3. That vote is invalid

How her lawyer agreed to it is a travesty

[bluestarone]

4. if true that her lawyer agreed to this (There is a problem)

i agree the vote should be invalid

[George II]

61. That ballot was reinstated by the court, NOT either candidate or election board or any attorneys.

[onenote]

5. What is your basis for claiming her lawyer agreed to it? You should self-delete.

Both sides originally agreed it should not be counted. The repubs reversed themselves and asked the court to count it for their candidate. The Democratic candidate's lawyer opposed that request, but the court ruled in favor of counting it. The Democrats lawyer filed a new suit challenging that decision and lost.

So maybe you should self-delete your post.

[Drahthaardogs]

6. Are you the post- police?

It said the lawyers agreed to the rules beforehand. Double marked ballots should have been tossed automatically.

[onenote]

7. No, I'm not the post-police. But its odd that you wont delete a post that falsely slams Democrats.

The ballot WAS tossed originally. And both the Democrats and repubs agreed to it being tossed. It was only afterwards that the repubs asked that it be counted -- a request that the Democrats objected to, going so far as to file a separate lawsuit.

So the question remains: why are you slamming Democrats with false accusations?

[RandomAccess]

25. I don't see it as a slam at all

So the question becomes: Why are you trying to make trouble??

[onenote]

30. You don't see it as a slam to falsely accuse the Democratic candidate's lawyers

to agreeing to count the disputed ballot when, in fact, at every stage of the process, they argued it was invalid?

[RandomAccess]

40. No, not a slam

An inaccuracy, perhaps, not a slam.

[onenote]

41. And when the poster stands by that claim after its pointed out it is false? What is that?

[RandomAccess]

43. Not capitulating to you. Obviously.

FWIW, I don't see where you proved your "false" assertion. IOW, what is YOUR basis for your claim to the contrary?

Not that I care, frankly. I'm just trying to point out how you're overreacting.

[onenote]

49. Here. You can read the description of the recount process.

The poster you seem to be defending claimed that Simmonds lawyers agreed to count the ballot that cost her the election. That is total bullshit. Her representative during the recount process argued it shouldn't be counted and the republican candidate's representative agreed and it wasn't counted, which is why, initially, it was reported that Simmonds had won. Then the next morning the republican recanted his position and sent a letter to the court that was about to certify the results of the recount raising an objection to that one ballot. There was a hearing at which Simmonds counsel argued that the objection was late and in any event the decision not to count it was the correct one. The three republican judges rejected that argument and counted it. Simmonds lawyers then filed a new lawsuit seeking reconsideration of that decision and the same three judges rejected that request.

By the way, I don't think it is overreacting to call out someone who repeatedly lies about and disparages lawyers who are working hard on behalf of Democratic candidates, lawyers who, by the way, have won three gerrymandering cases at the Supreme Court. It seems odd that someone here would target lawyers who fight on our behalf.

The petition for reconsideration is linked in this Daily Kos article (click on the work "challenging&quot :https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/12/27/1727884/-Virginia-Democrat-challenges-flawed-recount-ruling-that-manufactured-a-tie

and here's an article about the decision denying reconsideration: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/3/1729559/-Virginia-recount-judges-issue-garbage-ruling-defending-their-decision-to-strip-Democrat-of-victory

[RandomAccess]

64. As I said,

I don't really care. My interest is NOT in what you call "the poster I seem to be defending," but simply your behavior over a very non-descript post. It's a meta-discussion, if you will.

I never questioned your claim, just your insistence that the other poster should have been aware of it and deserved your upbraiding because s/he wasn't. I think you flew off the handle with completely insufficient cause, and made accusations against the other poster, also completely without cause.

OTOH:

By the way, I don't think it is overreacting to call out someone who repeatedly lies about and disparages lawyers who are working hard on behalf of Democratic candidates,

Can you show such history for that poster?

[onenote]

65. I can show you all of the posts in this thread

in which he has refused to acknowledge that his express claim that Simmonds lawyers agreed to count the disputed ballot was false. And his later suggestion that I supported Franken being forced out.

And I guess we just disagree about how significant it is when this forum is used to state falsehoods about those who are working on behalf of Democratic candidates.

[Drahthaardogs]

27. First of all,

Neither you nor I know the political registration stays oh her lawyers.

Secondly, THAT ballot should have been tossed but they obviously failed to establish ground rules and looked at each ballot individually which is a stupid fucking thing to do when you deal with Republicans because they cheat.

Third, if you are insinuating I am a troll, I gave been here since 2002 as DenaliDemocrat, WindRiverMan, and my current handle. I was here when they killed Andy, Greywarrior duct taped the duck, Swampmonster graced us with his art, and Kephra kept LBN alive.

[onenote]

29. I"m not insinuating anything. I just wonder why you're standing by a false statement about

the Democratic candidate and her lawyers.

Maybe you don't understand the concept of a recount. You look at all of the ballots. And that ballot was tossed during the recount. The next morning, at the 11th hour, the repubs brought a late challenge to that ballot and the judges decided to count it. The Democrats sued to overturn that decision. But the court refused to reverse itself. Under Virginia law, there is no appeal from that decision.

In short, the Democratic candidate and her attorneys did everything they could and yet you're suggesting it was their fault. Why?

The entire process was described in detail in the lawsuit that the Democratic candidate filed.

[Drahthaardogs]

31. Maybe you don't understand an over vote

They are to be thrown out ALWAYS. Her lawyers fucked up.

[onenote]

32. It was thrown out. And her lawyers argued that was the right decision.

The judges rejected that argument, in a decision that has been described as a "garbage decision" that was flimsy. AT NO POINT IN TIME, EVER, DID HER LAWYERS AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE COUNTED. You're claim to the contrary is unsupported and unsupportable and very odd.

Yet you blame the Democrats lawyers. What should they have done? Held the judges hostage at gunpoint until they made the right decision?

[Drahthaardogs]

33. Are you one of her lawyers?

.

[onenote]

34. No. Just someone offended by a false attack on those lawyers.

And by the use of this forum to spread false, derogatory claims about lawyers fighting on behalf of a Democratic candidate.

[Drahthaardogs]

36. See AL Franken

Nuff said

[onenote]

38. are you posting in the wrong thread?

What in the world does Al Franken have to do with the Virginia recount and your lie about the Democratic candidate's lawyers?

It's becoming curiouser and curiouser. Have to begin to wonder what your agenda is.

[Drahthaardogs]

39. You are a self purported crusader against false statements made about

Democratic candidates. Thus I assumed you might want to start a new thread decrying the travesty that was the railroading of Al Franken.

I am merely disparaging lawyers who obviously did not do their job particularly well since an over vote not only got counted, but literally lost an election and a majority for us.

[onenote]

42. You are not merely disparaging the lawyers, you're lying about them.

In post number 3, you stated that the Democratic candidate's lawyer agreed to count the disputed vote for her opponent.

That is a blatantly false statement that, for reasons that remain unclear, you refuse to acknowledge as, at very least, mistaken. When you stand by a mistaken statement after you know its wrong, that statement becomes a lie.

Now you're trying to pivot to the argument that her lawyers "obviously did not do their job particularly well" because the court, made up of three Republican judges, agreed over the Democrats objections to consider a late-filed claim by the republicans arguing that the vote, which the republican recount official had agreed shouldn't be counted, should now be counted and that same panel of judges subsequently refused to reconsider their decision to count the vote.

Since you think its "obvious" that the lawyers didn't do a good job because they lost, you presumably also think that Al Gore's lawyers didn't do a good job in Bush v. Gore and that there was some compelling argument that they failed to make that would have persuaded the republicans on the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Gore. I think we'd all love to know what that argument was.

And I'd like to know what argument you think Shelly Simonds lawyers should have made that would have altered the outcome of the case. (Presumably you're familiar with the arguments that were made -- you can read the brief online).
(By the way, the law firm representing Simonds in this matter is the same law firm that has won three challenges to gerrymandering at the Supreme Court -- not too shabby).

Again, it's curiouser and curiouser as to why you are attacking the attorneys for Shelly Simonds and, by association, her.

[Drahthaardogs]

44. Yeah, I think Gore's lawyers did a shitty job

I think John Kerry screwed up by not fighting back against the swiftboat lies, and I think that ballot should NEVER have even been considered because it's an over vote, and they are ALWAYS summarily tossed. Her lawyers obviously did not lock that down, because it got resurrected. It shouldn't have even been a possibility.

However, I am curious. Why are you so worried about a lawyer who may not even be registered with a political party for all we know, but you were on the opposite side with Franken?

[onenote]

46. So now you've started to lie about me. I should alert, but I'll give you a chance to explain

How and when was I on the "opposite side with Franken" (assuming you mean that I supported forcing him from office?)

And again, I'd love to hear your expert opinion on how Gore's lawyers could have convinced the Supreme Court to rule in his favor.

As for your assertion that overvotes are "ALWAYS summarily tossed" it's becoming clearer that you haven't a clue about Virginia law. Under Virginia law, ballots marked for two candidates are presumptively treated as invalid overvotes but that conclusion can be challenged during a recount. There are detailed specifications as to when a ballot that is marked for more than one candidate should and should not be counted. Simmonds lawyers presented a very strong case that, under those specifications, the ballot shouldn't have counted. The judges, without giving serious consideration to those arguments, decided that it should be counted.

Maybe I should excuse your lying since it seems to be borne out of your ignorance of the matters you are discussing.

[Drahthaardogs]

50. This is what is wrong with the Democrats

When my grandfather fought at Ludlow, they took up arms. They shut the trains down. They shut the grocery stores down. They FOUGHT! They fought like their lives depended on it...because it did.

I get from you "The lawyers really made a good argument". And you're offended that I say that' weak.. Its not enough. I want to see them declare WAR! Fight like a bobcat in a phone booth. This is what I get. It's what we always get. It's why we always lose. Republicans are meaner, tougher, more organized and willing to fight.

So we had a million woman march. They put on pink hats and marched. Then what? Did they picket? Did they stop spending their money? Did they shut down the city hall? They were PROUD no one really got arrested. Hell, back in the sixties if you didn't get arrested you weren't really trying...

The only group that has actually shown some real moxie in the last few years were the Occupy folks. They died a slow death on the vine.



Sigh.....Whatever...You're right, I'm wrong. Those lawyers did a fucking wonderful job, bigly, best job ever! Great Job! They lost because the mean old Republicans stacked the deck and WE go HIGH when they go Low.

[onenote]

51. Okay then. I see where you're coming from.

Not a particularly rational place but it explains why you attack Democrats.

[Drahthaardogs]

52. Uh huh, except my way, the way my grandfather taught us

WINS!

Your way, makes us feel superior, and we lose.

So tell me again, who is irrational?

And on edit:

You have no idea what the political affiliation of those lawyers were. You don't even know if they are registered with a party. So watch the whole "lies" and "attacking Democrats", unless you have their voter registration card handy.

[onenote]

62. And I don't know whether you're a Democrat

I do know that those lawyers have been fighting against gerrymandering and for the election of Democrats rather than complaining that Democrats are a bunch of losers because they won't take to the streets.

I was upset that Franken was forced out. It would seem like it shouldn't have bothered you. After all, he wasn't going around calling for a general strike or getting himself arrested. Just another sell-out in your mind, i guess.

[Drahthaardogs]

63. Franken was a good Senator

His mistake was being too nice and not wanting to hurt anyone. Be the upstanding Democrat.

I grew up poor the son and grandson of UNION men who went into bowels of hell every day to mine coal. I saw firsthand what Republicans can do. My family was at Ludlow. I have seen strikes where the people went hungry because the corporation was trying to starve us out. I suffered personally at the hands of evil men. I know what it's like to eat deer meat because there was no money for store bought meat.

Here on DU if you told people about it a good portion would castigate me for killing a deer.

Yeah, I'm a Democrat. Yeah, I think we sell out a lot. Yeah, I think we fight over stupid shit that is mostly inconsequential.

[Eliot Rosewater]

66. The enemy is not on this thread, the enemy is in the WH and everywhere else

where they promote hate and racism and division.

[ehrnst]

67. Where did you hear her lawyer "agreed this?"

?

[RhodeIslandOne]

8. I would have to say the voters attempt was for Yancy

Just being honest.

[Tracer]

9. Unfortunately, I agree.

All the other check marks are for Republicans. Why would the voter suddenly change to check the Democratic candidates circle.

[alarimer]

10. I do too

I'd never seen the ballot, only a hand-drawn mockup. This seems pretty clear that they intended to vote R all the way.

[stevenleser]

11. Disagree - The fact that there are weird cross marks for the Republican Governor choice makes it

impossible to determine her intent for the House of delegates vote.

Is there a slash on top of the oval for Simonds to indicate that was her real choice, just like on the oval for Gillespie?

I don't think it is possible to tell. Absent the marks on Gillespie's oval I would agree with you.

[RhodeIslandOne]

13. Had they attempted to vote for anyone else in the guv race....

....I’d agree. But they didn’t, so I’m inclined to ignore it as just some pen slip.

The slash thru her bubble seems more straightforward.

The fact they also seem to be voting Repug otherwise is a giveaway too, but probably not one that can be considered.

[stevenleser]

15. In this case the voter should have made it more clear. I recall seeing a photo of a ballot like this

where the user wrote NO in big capital letters and pointed it to the choice they didn't want.

Either something like that or just get another ballot. Even if it has to be a provisional one.

[pnwmom]

16. But why? The voter also put lines through the vote for Gillespie. Did that not count?

I think the voter's intent is unclear and it shouldn't have counted.

[RhodeIslandOne]

19. But they didnt shade in anyone else either

It’s possible (being it was likely the first vote) they were going to check it with an “x” and realized they had to shade the whole oval.

[pnwmom]

21. That's possible. It's also possible that the single line drawn through the Democrats

indicated that that was the preferred vote.

The voters should have either completely obliterated the wrong candidate's name, or circled the correct candidate's name , or put stars next to it -- or SOMETHING that would have made it a lot clearer than "possible" that he or she preferred the Republican.

[questionseverything]

58. your theory about the slash being there to draw attention to voters preferred intent is possible

not likely but possible

another theory....since the correct thing for a voter to do was ask for another ballot since by the rules this one was ruined...did the counters double check that this wasn't a spoiled ballot presented as a regular ballot?

I know when I have watched other re counts the "how many voted number" is not reconciled with the "how many votes number" every time (new Hampshire,wisconsin)

minn does reconcile the numbers,they have a very good recount system but many states do not

[atreides1]

53. There is a simple fix

You can ask for another ballot if you make a mistake!

[kcr]

54. You say yourself. It's possible. You're speculating.

It's a guess. This ballot was rightfully tossed and should have remained so. The voter should have asked for another ballot or made a better effort to make their intention clear after they screwed up.

[BannonsLiver]

18. Its an overvote. Ballot should have been tossed.

[Cosmocat]

23. It's an over vote ballot

Which means that neither vote counts. This is standard election law to avoid people trying to figure out who people are voting for. That's the reason this ballot wasn't counted to begin with, the Board of Elections had no business selectively pulling this ballot out and Counting this race.

[Drahthaardogs]

28. As I noted before, and essentially called a troll for it

Over votes should automatically be tossed and her lawyers should have made that a condition of the recount. It's standard.

[kcr]

55. You got called out because you made a baseless claim

That's what happens.

[Drahthaardogs]

57. Nah, they're milquetoast

And we lost, again.

[mythology]

35. Agreed. I think the people who are disagreeing are looking at the outcome of the particular vote

and it's impact on not just the race, but the Virginia legislature overall.

[lindysalsagal]

12. Wow! This is quite a story.

[BannonsLiver]

17. It really shouldnt be

The voter chose 2 candidates in the same race which is an overvote which means the ballot should have been disqualified. The reason it wasn’t is because the GOP wouldn’t be able to steal the seat if it was tossed.

[RhodeIslandOne]

20. If thats the law then yes

I’m just looking at it as a laymen and saying what I think the intent was.

[Cosmocat]

24. THIS

nm

[L. Coyote]

14. Depends on how you define "Vote for only one."

[pnwmom]

22. A computer would have automatically tossed that as an overvote.

And the voter's intent is just a guess. There are many things the voter could have done to make it much clearer, but didn't.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. I think when voter intent is absolutely clear the ballot should count.

I don't think the "computer" should be the final arbiter of what a valid vote is or isn't.

A common over-vote mistake is to check the box AND write in the name of the candidate. The computer tosss that ballot as an over vote even though intent is abundantly clear.

[pnwmom]

56. I agree. But the intent of that ballot is anything but clear. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

60. Agreed.

I remember during bush V gore the repigs tried to make "voter intent" into mind reading when in fact it's not mind reading when voter intent is absolutely clear.

[Historic NY]

26. The voter chose her first....

intent???????????????

[bdamomma]

37. no

nt

[Madam Mossfern]

48. Poorly designed ballot

Why didn't they just have party iines?

[WyattKansas]

59. Oval filled in for two candidates in same race with a line in both.

Over vote... So toss out the ballot, or count 1 vote for each candidate.