Monday, March 14, 2016

 
MORGAN "VOTE REPUBLICAN WE ARE AS CORRUPT AND DISHONEST AS THE DEMOCRATS."

Morgan has retained one of those lawyers who will sue god for you for making you stupid so long as you have the money.

Here is his moronic response.  Further my sources are telling me she has until noon to comply with the law of be sued.  Independent of same, she will be sued for declaring John Chambers administratively ineligible.  I will get to this but even the Secretary of State counsel said in his letter under the election code a felony conviction is not final until the appellate process is complete, but that the occupational code on the issue is silent. 

MORGAN'S COUNSEL ARGUES § 145.005(d) allows her to declare John Chambers ineligible.  But what is clear is, .005 deals with what happens to the votes of someone who is declared ineligible for the primary, but before the run-off/

Sec. 145.005. EFFECT OF VOTES CAST FOR DECEASED, WITHDRAWN, OR INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE. (a) If the name of a deceased, withdrawn, or ineligible candidate appears on the ballot under this chapter, the votes cast for the candidate shall be counted and entered on the official election returns in the same manner as for the other candidates.
 
(d) In a race in which a runoff is required, if the deceased, withdrawn, or ineligible candidate received the vote that would entitle the candidate to a place on the runoff election ballot or tied for that number of votes, the candidates in the runoff shall be determined in the regular manner but without regard to the votes received by the deceased, withdrawn, or ineligible candidate.

Part A when read with part D clearly envisions that the candidate's name remains on the ballot even though they were declared ineligible for the primary, but that you simply do not count the votes after the election for run-off purposes.

Here is the irony here - had Morgan declared John Chambers ineligible before the primaries, by the plaint language of .005, his name would have remained on the ballot and his votes counted, but his votes would not have been considered in determining the winner of the run-off - meaning John Chambers would be out.

But the inept Morgan and her counsel waited until after the primary, so the new rule comes into play, which has the same effect as the old rule.  John Chamber's name goes on the ballot, but his votes are not considered when determining the winner of the run-off - which in this case means Victor Cortez would have been declared the winner - but if Morgan gets her way Victor Cortez for whom she is corrupting the process, will now face a real opponent whose votes will count.

The Election Code: Sec. 145.096, (b)  If a candidate in a runoff election dies or is declared ineligible before runoff election day, the candidate's name shall be placed on the runoff election ballot

Under the simple rules of statutory construction, you cannot read, .005 separate from .096.  The former clearly provides such as .005, that the candidates name must still appear on the ballot.

But in this case if John Chambers wins the run-off because we are more than 74 days before the general election his name will be removed from the ballot.

Sec. 145.035.  WITHDRAWN, DECEASED, OR INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE'S NAME OMITTED FROM BALLOT.  A candidate's name shall be omitted from the ballot if the candidate withdraws, dies, or is declared ineligible on or before the 74th day before election day.

Once the above happens the Republican county executive committee will choose a replacement for the ballot.  Why is Victor Cortez afraid of what the county executive committee might do?

BUT WHAT IF JOHN CHAMBERS BEFORE THE MAY RUN-OFF'S GETS HIS PEACE OFFICERS LICENSE BACK?

If John Chambers either gets an injunction against revocation of his peace officers license or out right wins by the time of the May Run-offs, Morgan's declaration of his ineligibility is voided and John moves on to November assuming he wins the run-off.

The SOS admits in his letter that the Occupation Code is silent on the issue of when John Chambers felony conviction becomes final.  The SOS also admits that for election purposes the felony conviction is not final until the appellate process is complete.

John Chambers needs to immediately sue the licensing authority claiming the statute for its silence on the issue is unconstitutionally vague and therefore they unconstitutionally took his peace officers license.  Now of course the courts have a legal duty to avoid a constitutional issue if possible.  Another basic rule of statutory construction is for the courts to look to other statutes to see how they address the issue.  Because this impacts an election the statute best to look at is the Election Code, and the Election Code says, the felony conviction is not final until the appellate process is complete.

I see no problem with John Chambers having the court of appeals restore his peace officers license until the appeal of his felony conviction is complete.  These are not complex rules.  The problem is Carlos Cascos ordered the SOS lawyers to write a letter which gets the result Saenz and Victor Cortez want, and not a letter which outlines the true law.

Before this is all done and over with Carlos Cascos could find himself embarrassing the governor and looking for a new job.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

Wow!!! Bravo!!! See why is it that you can see these things like that and others can't? It's black and white. I agree the law is the law just like rules are rules... they were made NOT to be broken. I hope John Chambers sues just because it's unprofessional and unethical what Morgan Graham did. She's supposed to be keeping the peace and holding the party together and not doing more or less for the other. We got Republican vs Republican now. What is that??? That's the whole reason I switched from Democrat to Republican and it's worse on this side. And the Republican Chair is there playing favorites. John Chambers will be proven innocent. .when? I'm not sure but of all ppl I know in my heart he's a good man with great intentions for Cameron County. Thank you so much for looking beyond his accusations and pointing out that no matter what RULES ARE RULES.

Anonymous said...

How is Carlos Cascos implicated in this again? It was SOS lawyers who wrote the opinion...an opinion Graham misinterpreted...I don't see it.

Anonymous said...

She didn't. There is a secrion saying that if a candidate is administratively declared ineligible before the canvas his votes are disregarded while they determine placement in the runoff. If she waited until after the runoff to declare him ineligible it would have automatically gone to Cortez and the voters don't even get a choice between two eligible candidates. Had she done it after his conviction which she could have Chambers would have argued he still had his license and the party would have been dragged through even more mud. It sounds like no matter what she did she would be the whipping boy for a convicted felon not withdrawing. The party looks bad no matter what. But according to their Facebook page and one of the witnesses the canvas came after Chambers got that email.

BobbyWC said...

First of all there are emails which speak to the sequence - those and not rumors will guide the court

Second she declared him ineligible after the primary - that is a fact - to the run-off rules apply no matter how much you hate reality.

Convicted people are acquitted on appeal all of the time. Do you hate our laws so much that you refuse to allow them to play out?

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Paul you write a lot but never address the code:

First and this could not be any more clear:

Sec. 145.004. FINAL JUDGMENT REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATION OF INELIGIBILITY. A candidate's entitlement to a place on the ballot or to a certificate of election is not affected by a judicial determination that the candidate is ineligible until a judgment declaring the candidate to be ineligible becomes final.

The Occupation Code is silent on the issue of a final judgment but the election code makes clear even the judgment of the court is stayed pending a final judgment.

Also you fail to address the code wherein it says an ineligible candidate's name remains on the ballot.

Also I will tell you I have rejected a bunch of comments against Morgan which are vile, but the same goes for John.

Morgan messed this up big time and the party will not recover from her actions.

I think I understand what her argument will be and it will not fly.

Bobby WC