Latest Breaking News

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,464 posts) Fri Dec 28, 2018, 05:51 PM Dec 2018

Hoyer says House will not seat a North Carolina Republican amid questions about integrity of electio

Source: Washington Post

Politics

Hoyer says House will not seat a North Carolina Republican amid questions about integrity of election

By Felicia Sonmez and Eli Rosenberg
December 28 at 4:42 PM

Incoming House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Friday that Democrats next week will not seat a North Carolina Republican amid allegations of election fraud in the state's 9th Congressional District.

"Given the now well-documented election fraud that took place in NC-09, Democrats would object to any attempt by [Mark] Harris to be seated on January 3," Hoyer said in a statement to The Washington Post. "In this instance, the integrity of our democratic process outweighs concerns about the seat being vacant at the start of the new Congress."

The statement came after North Carolina dissolved its elections board Friday without certifying the results of the election, leaving the fate of the seat in doubt days ahead of the start of the new Congress.

Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, told CNN on Friday that the elections board "failed in their duty" to certify Harris and suggested that the state GOP may take legal action.
....

Felicia Sonmez is a national political reporter covering breaking news from the White House, Congress and the campaign trail. She was previously based in Beijing, where she worked for Agence France-Presse and The Wall Street Journal. Follow https://twitter.com/feliciasonmez

Eli Rosenberg is a reporter on The Washington Post's General Assignment team. He has worked at the New York Times and the New York Daily News. Follow https://twitter.com/emrosenberg

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-congressional-race-in-limbo-north-carolina-dissolves-state-elections-board/2018/12/28/ad09dedc-0abb-11e9-88e3-989a3e456820_story.html

House Democrats will not seat a North Carolina Republican amid questions about integrity of election, Hoyer says

Link to tweet

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hoyer says House will not seat a North Carolina Republican amid questions about integrity of electio (Original Post) mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2018 OP

If the state did not certify the results, they are almost under obligation not to seat him Tiggeroshii Dec 2018 #1

As with the 'nuclear option' The Mouth Dec 2018 #2

No, it would be a good precedent BBG Dec 2018 #3

LOL! The Mouth Dec 2018 #5

In this case it means cheating was definitely involved. lark Dec 2018 #18

It's been done before. Drunken Irishman Dec 2018 #4

Why would this set a bad precedent? volstork Dec 2018 #6

I wouldn't be surprised if the Reps use this at their first opportunity The Mouth Dec 2018 #8

Oh, so I guess we shouldn't use the rules when they're on our side . . . hatrack Dec 2018 #13

Like the Nuclear option? The Mouth Dec 2018 #20

And why is that? hatrack Dec 2018 #7

And when the claim 'fraud' The Mouth Dec 2018 #9

If NC certified him I might agree GulfCoast66 Dec 2018 #15

Wrong obamanut2012 Dec 2018 #17

I sure as hell HOPE I am. The Mouth Dec 2018 #19

i would rephrase this as "This would be a GOOD precedent if there is evidence of cheating and onetexan Dec 2018 #21

Question? The Mouth Dec 2018 #22

Already answered both clearly and distinctly. LanternWaste Dec 2018 #25

Good! mahina Dec 2018 #10

Good. Forget another election ZeroSomeBrains Dec 2018 #11

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tooth and nail. PatrickforO Dec 2018 #12

The sound you just heard Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Dec 2018 #14

In the days of yore commercial - akraven Dec 2018 #16

Thank you Mr Hoyer! CRK7376 Dec 2018 #23

Hopefully, this will more national and media attention paid to NC-09 LanternWaste Dec 2018 #24

Tiggeroshii

(11,088 posts)

1. If the state did not certify the results, they are almost under obligation not to seat him

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 05:59 PM

Dec 2018

The Mouth

(3,150 posts)

2. As with the 'nuclear option'

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 06:21 PM

Dec 2018

this might be a bad precedent.

BBG

(2,538 posts)

3. No, it would be a good precedent

Reply to The Mouth (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 06:30 PM

Dec 2018

Not seating an uncertified electee would be what is called for. Him being republican doesn’t make it partisan, it just means cheating was probably involved.

The Mouth

(3,150 posts)

5. LOL!

Reply to BBG (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 06:46 PM

Dec 2018

True, that...

lark

(23,102 posts)

18. In this case it means cheating was definitely involved.

Reply to BBG (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:36 AM

Dec 2018

Dems should sue for a new election as the first one was tainted by repug cheaters.

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)

4. It's been done before.

Reply to The Mouth (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 06:37 PM

Dec 2018

Not in a long while - but it has happened. I think the last time was in the 1980s, maybe, and it was the Democrats refusing to seat a Republican. I believe it was during the Reagan years.

volstork

(5,401 posts)

6. Why would this set a bad precedent?

Reply to The Mouth (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 07:13 PM

Dec 2018

If there are credible questions concerning the legitimacy of an election, it seems proper to refuse to seat the candidate until such questions can be clarified.

The Mouth

(3,150 posts)

8. I wouldn't be surprised if the Reps use this at their first opportunity

Reply to volstork (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 07:40 PM

Dec 2018

even when there is little or no evidence of fraud on our part.

hatrack

(59,587 posts)

13. Oh, so I guess we shouldn't use the rules when they're on our side . . .

Reply to The Mouth (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 08:37 PM

Dec 2018

Or when the Republicans cheat?

'Cuz if we do, then the GOP might be mean to us.

The Mouth

(3,150 posts)

20. Like the Nuclear option?

Reply to hatrack (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 12:03 PM

Dec 2018

It sure seemed like a good idea at the time to many.

hatrack

(59,587 posts)

7. And why is that?

Reply to The Mouth (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 07:31 PM

Dec 2018

This election has fraud oozing out of it.

He very likely cheated, and he's not certified by his own state government.

Too bad, so sad.

The Mouth

(3,150 posts)

9. And when the claim 'fraud'

Reply to hatrack (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 07:41 PM

Dec 2018

when we win but they control the state?

Maybe, I mean I'm not going to argue the point. But like the Nuclear option, never ever use a weapon, even when justified, that the bad guys can use back on you.

Well, whatever happens, happens.

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)

15. If NC certified him I might agree

Reply to The Mouth (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 11:03 PM

Dec 2018

But even some republicans in NC are not willing to certify the results.

obamanut2012

(26,079 posts)

17. Wrong

Reply to The Mouth (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 08:26 AM

Dec 2018

The Mouth

(3,150 posts)

19. I sure as hell HOPE I am.

Reply to obamanut2012 (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 12:01 PM

Dec 2018

onetexan

(13,041 posts)

21. i would rephrase this as "This would be a GOOD precedent if there is evidence of cheating and

Reply to The Mouth (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 02:20 PM

Dec 2018

attempted suppression or manipulation of votes".

No candidate should be seated
1- if there is clear evidence of cheating, and
2- if the state does not certify the candidate

The Mouth

(3,150 posts)

22. Question?

Reply to onetexan (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 10:37 PM

Dec 2018

Who decides?

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

25. Already answered both clearly and distinctly.

Reply to The Mouth (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 11:14 AM

Dec 2018

"the state does not certify the candidate..."

mahina

(17,663 posts)

10. Good!

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 07:43 PM

Dec 2018

ZeroSomeBrains

(638 posts)

11. Good. Forget another election

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 07:54 PM

Dec 2018

Seat the dem instead. Cheaters shouldn't be given a second chance.

PatrickforO

(14,576 posts)

12. Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tooth and nail.

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 08:29 PM

Dec 2018

NO more election fraud and voter suppression. No more GOP tricks.

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,010 posts)

14. The sound you just heard

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2018, 08:48 PM

Dec 2018

is Trump soiling himself

akraven

(1,975 posts)

16. In the days of yore commercial -

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2018, 01:04 AM

Dec 2018

I'm LOVIN' it!

CRK7376

(2,199 posts)

23. Thank you Mr Hoyer!

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 10:18 AM

Dec 2018

My state has enough crappy Repubs in Congress and harming my state, so not seating Harris is a good thing for the 9th District. Just wish you could also block Virginia Foxx, my district critter.....wishful thinking on my part.

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

24. Hopefully, this will more national and media attention paid to NC-09

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2018, 11:13 AM

Dec 2018

and more eyeballs on what happened. The Republics have been rather successful in defining this story as merely a regional blip in the entirety of their national operations. If the story gets more traction, more scrutiny will be placed on this particular, and from that, their election frauds in general.

Reply to this discussion