Virginia Board of Elections announces new date for random drawing to decide tied race
Source: The Hill
BY AVERY ANAPOL - 12/29/17 04:58 PM EST
The random drawing to decide a tied race for a seat in Virginias House of Delegates and party control of the chamber will take place on Thursday, after officials postponed the drawing in response to a legal challenge from one of the candidates.
The State Board of Elections announced in an email that the drawing of lots, which was originally set to take place on Dec. 27, will now occur on Jan. 4, after Democratic candidate Shelly Simonds filed a legal challenge disputing the tie.
Link to tweet
The race between Simonds and GOP incumbent Del. David Yancey drew national attention after a recount, triggered by Yancey winning on election night by only 10 votes, found Simonds to have won the race by a single vote.
The race was then declared a tie after a three-judge panel ruled that one ballot that hadnt been counted in the recount should count for Yancey. The ballot in question had bubbles for both candidates filled in, but the bubble for Simonds had a slash though it.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/366827-virginia-board-of-elections-announces-new-date-for-random-drawing-to
Yonnie3
(17,491 posts)I was getting ready to leave DU and search to see if there was an update. Now I don't need to
SkatmanRoth
(843 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,308 posts)It wasn't their job, was it?
spooky3
(34,483 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,308 posts)an 'x' through one name, a "/" through another, and another mark on another.
Divining the voter's intent is like reading tea leaves. Three Wise Men couldn't figure it out.
What do the directions say? I doubt x' and /'s are part of the drill.
Others are all Republican? So what?
If intent is unclear, they really must toss it.
If the panel has not the LEGAL authorization to adjudicate ballots, they should stick to the duties they are legally assigned - validating the recount as it was presented to them. Legal is not 'lets be fair' or even impartial. It's following the law, whatever
that says. Or maybe it's ambiguous too. Draw straws if you can't decide.
spooky3
(34,483 posts)look at 5c (NOT to be counted--even though I think that one is clearer than the disputed ballot in 2017)
and 8b (TO BE counted) -- but the directions say this should NOT be counted if other candidates (for the same office?) are marked similarly, and Gillespie's vote was Xd out in a somewhat similar way, with no other Gov. candidate chosen.
The general rule in 5 is "Any ballot which is marked for more than one candidate for the office shall be deemed an overvote
and no vote shall be counted except as provided in this section."
To me that says that the burden is on the Republicans to prove that the 2017 ballot is just like one of those in section 5, and if in doubt, it will be considered an overvote.
None of the other examples look like the disputed ballot to me, but they may, to you.
So to me, it's at best ambiguous, but I guess we'll see what the lawsuits end up saying.