Thursday, August 16, 2012


WHAT HAPPENS DURING AN ELECTION CONTEST

My biggest issue is protecting the sanctity of the ballot.
"(a) A voter who cast an illegal vote may be compelled, after the illegality has been established to the satisfaction of the tribunal hearing the contest, to disclose the name of the candidate for whom the voter voted or how the voter voted on a measure if the issue is relevant to the election contest."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/EL/14/A/221/221.009

So what is an illegal vote?

(b) In this title, "illegal vote" means a vote that is not legally countable.

Another concern of the tribunal should be

(2) an election officer or other person officially involved in the administration of the election:
(A) prevented eligible voters from voting;
(B) failed to count legal votes; or
(C) engaged in other fraud or illegal conduct or made a mistake.

(c) This section does not limit a provision of this code or another statute expanding the scope of inquiry in an election contest

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/EL/14/A/221/221.003

YES, this is kind of dry, but we do not live in a tyranny where cyberpolitiqueros decide the law on any given day as it fits the needs of their bosses.


A BIG AREA WHERE THE LAW IS VIOLATED IS IN THE HANDLING OF THE MAIL BALLOTS

There are too many examples, but you can read § 86.006 for guidance.  The big one is mailing the ballot for the senior.  Several voters testified to this in the Herndandez/Pena trial.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.86.htm

BUT, IMMORAL CONDUCT BY A CANDIDATE OR THEIR CAMPAIGN IS NOT A BASIS TO VOID A BALLOT

I have already established that the court cannot deem a voter mentally incompetent and then void their ballot.  This can only be done if it can be shown at the time the voter voted, there was a court order taking away their right to vote.  Without such an order you can drag a babbling idiot into court, and there is nothing the court can do.

Alzheimer's is a terrible disease.  But it does not mean a person does not know what they are doing on the day they vote.  Idiots who do not know the difference between city and county elected officials vote in every election.  If I understand the argument idiots who vote blindly and do not even know the difference between city and county officials or who they are voting for, should be allowed to vote, but if someone has Alzheimer's they should not be allowed to vote even if at the time of their vote they made an actual informed decision.  The fact they cannot remember anything, does not mean that at the time of their vote they did not make an informed decision.

Further, any testimony by family members to what happened when the person with Alzheimer's voted would be deemed hearsay, and not admissible.  So on this issue Yolanda Begum has nothing.

Yes we can agree their is a moral issue, but for legal proceedings it means nothing.

So what is the point other than for Yolanda Begum, the essence of pure evil, to drag these people into court and humiliate them? 

BUT THE PURE ESSENCE OF EVIL, YOLANDA BEGUM WANTS TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT TO VOTE  FROM THESE VERY PEOPLE

Not even the most radical right wing elements in the Republican Party are calling for the extreme measures being demanded  by Yolanda Begum.  This simple fact should convince everyone - Yolanda Begum and CAVA are not about protecting the voters, but about abusing them for power.

THIS ELECTION CONTEST IS POINTLESS- OTHER THAN TO FURTHER ABUSE THE VOTERS FOR THE SAKE OF POWER

Assuming Erin Garcia ever hires an attorney, under the rules of procedure all her attorney has to do is issue interrogatories demanding the names of the voters who votes should not count, while stating under the election code why they should be deemed illegal.  If Michael Cowen does not produce enough names, the court can dismiss the Election Contest.  At trial you cannot introduce evidence you failed to produce in properly requested discovery requests.

BUT WHAT IF THE JUDGE SIMPLY RULES HE CANNOT DECIDE THE TRUE WINNER AND ORDERS A NEW ELECTION?

Yolanda Begum will get nothing.  Given this simple reality, then what is the point, other than to harass voters and try and take away their right to vote?  Further, Erin Garcia could still be the nominee for the Democratic Party.

An election contest is not finished until the appellate process is done, or the timeline for the printing of the ballots has arrived.  In this case the deadline for the printing of the ballots will arrive first.  THEN WHAT?  The court has ordered a new election.  There is no time.  Under the rules with no nominee available for the ballot, the Cameron County Democratic Party gets to choose. 

NOW WITH ALL THE TRASHING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BY YOLANDA BEGUM AND A CALL FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE REPUBLICAN, WHO THINKS THE DEMOCRATS WILL NOMINATE YOLANDA?

I do not know if the above scenario has ever played out in Texas.  A call for a new election voids the result.  So there is no nominee.  Below is the only thing I can find which remotely addresses the issue of the timetable running out before the process is complete.

"c) The candidate receiving the most votes in a new election ordered by a court in a primary election contest is the political party's nominee, regardless of whether the candidate receives a majority vote, if the date of the final canvass of the court-ordered primary is on or after:

(1) the 85th day before the date of the succeeding general election in the case of a statewide or district office; or

(2) the 75th day before the date of the succeeding general election in the case of a county or precinct office."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/EL/14/B/232/B/232.048

I looked, but cannot find any provision which addresses what happens if the court calls for a new election, but there is no time to conduct the new election before the general election.

The process I outlined is based on the known law.  If a nominee withdraws from a race before an election,  the local party officials can nominate someone for the ballot.

In the end the local Democratic Party can nominate Erin Garcia, if they believe the court was wrong in ordering a new election.


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hope the Democrats do nominate Erin Hernandez. For the vast majority of Democrats out there believe their wonderful Democrat Party would NEVER *officially* support dirty candidates like the Hernandez. (LOL) You know, the Democrats who want to believe their party are the "good guys" who do things the "clean way" and the Republicans are the "bad guys". Especially the ones who entrust the great Democrat party would NEVER steal votes from the elderly or endorse the cheater candidates who do ... wow! Hope the Democrats take this opportunity to nominate Hernandez and show everyone what they stand for: vote fraud, corruption... Just in time for the general.

BobbyWC said...

A+ on your comment - comments like this make me enjoy blogging - While theoretically the Dems could nominate Erin, I think they would not for the very reasons you state - thanks for a well thought out comment which added to the discussion

Bobby WC