Skip to comments.McDaniel Campaign Begins Legal Challenge in Mississippi GOP Primary
Posted on 07/03/2014 10:14:02 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
This years most hotly contested Republican primary elections entered a new round of controversy Thursday morning, when the Tea Party challenger attempting to unseat incumbent Senator Thad Cochran officially initiated a challenge to the results of a runoff last week.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Good. I noticed a spokesman said it was to preserve the integrity of the election process, and frankly, that’s the key to the whole thing.
Our elections have become so corrupt that they’re becoming meaningless.
The only reason this one might get more scrutiny by the courts is that the party in question was the GOP, although they did it through the Dems. Dem voter fraud, especially black Dem voter fraud, is either shrugged off or protected. But if the GOP was involved in any way, it might get more attention, if only to make them look bad (well, worse than they already do).
Two duplicate threads came after this one. I’ve requested that they be suspended.
Here’s my take:
McDaniel Campaign confirms that a write-in campaign is not off the table.
I’ve posted my research that federal courts treat seekers of federal office different than state courts do and federal case law highly favors substantial candidates seeking federal office.
Although MS has ‘sore loser’ laws on its books, federal courts have in the past overruled states in every instance where a credible substantial candidate seeks to file as an independent past state deadlines or is denied ballot access as a write-in candidate.
The crux of federal rulings is the issue of disenfranchising large numbers of voters from having an opportunity to elect the person they think best represents them in federal office. In this case there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of voters who voted for Chris McDaniel in his campaign to be elected as US Senator.
The McDaniel campaign will not seek to be on the ballot as a write-in or as an independent until MS has denied their challenge to the election which could happen because of the thick corruption in that state and an apparent ‘good old guy’s network’ that seems to be in place everywhere that seems to take direction from the Barbour family members.
If McDaniel loses his bid to overturn the election, he needs only walk a short distance over to the federal courthouse and file for an injunction against MS sore loser laws and within two weeks he can have a federal order issued to the state of MS to allow him onto the ballot for the November election.
He will have plenty of ammunition in federal court to show criminality, vote fraud and conspiracy to be granted a preliminary federal injunction while waiting for the state of MS to make its argument of a ‘compelling state interest’ to deny the injunction request.
What “compelling state interest” is there that MS could argue?
The answer is there are none.
Arguments put forth in the past for support a compelling state interest have focused on the confusion and chaos that too many candidates cause, the burden of managing too many candidates and parties especially those that are not serious and are designed as a protest vote, for example “Daffy Duck” or “Mickey Mouse” as a write-in.
None of the cases on record have arguments that apply to the McDaniel case in denying so many voters the right to elect him as their US Senator.
In my view I wish that an independent or write-in campaign will not be necessary but if it becomes necessary it is easy for the McDaniel campaign to overcome MS election law that would bar him from accessing the November ballot.
I noticed this...
All we are asking is that the MS State Republican Party follow the law; allow their designated county representatives to inspect the poll books and ballots, give them the review time they are permitted by law, and allow them to uphold their responsibility to MS voters, True the Vote president Catherine Engelbrecht said in a statement about the suit.
was missing from the Time article.
Thanks for explaining that. It’s good information. I hope it is not necessary.
In initial reports (right afterward where there can be a fog of war scenario), it was claimed that some precincts were instructed not to switch the books (maybe by Perry, can’t recall) and others switched them well into the day, so for part of the day, the records were not kept. I haven’t heard any more about that after the first couple of days, but it could very well be that the precincts who are not allowing McDaniel access to the books fall into these categories.