Posted on 07/16/2014 2:33:20 PM PDT by Hostage
The lawyer for state Sen. Chris McDaniel announced at a press conference on Wednesday afternoon in Jackson, MS, that he has enough evidence to file for an official challenge of the election results, and will do so in the coming days. “The million dollar question: What did we find? We found a lot,” Mitch Tyner, of Tyner Law Firm, said after he and McDaniel supporter state Sen. Michael Watson walked the press and McDaniel supporters at the press conference through how they have serious concerns with the election review process in Mississippi. “We’ve heard it our entire lives in Mississippi,” Tyner said. “Votes are being bought. Ballot boxes are being stuffed. There are false affidavit ballots. There are invalid affidavit ballots. There are invalid absentee ballots—we’ve heard it all our lives. I’m 51 years old and it’s the first time I saw it up close and personal. It exists. We are committed to finding it and rooting it out and stopping it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Ditch Mitch!
McDaniel is right to be upset. It is illegal under Mississippi law to vote in a primary unless you intend to vote for the party's nominee in the general. Ask yourself how many of those blacks who voted in the runoff intend to vote for Cochran in November? Whether or not they already voted in the Democrat primary.
It was a key part of the Cochran campaign strategy to encourage violation of the law by enough Democrat blacks to swing the runoff. They were bragging about it!
Whoa! Didn’t know about Mitch Tyner.
I was referring to Mitch Turtleneck.
You’re spot on about Cochran. He could have retired and enjoyed being a beloved son of Mississippi.
But McConnell-Barbour got him to do this dirty deed and now he’s going to pay for it.
Gotta be the folks mentioned on the vote buying video from the preacher. I believe the max cap on cash was $2600 or so and she got reimbursed $40,000 for the ‘street money.’
The really stupid thing was putting the cash into small individual envelopes of $25. That shows knowledge, intent, orchestration, etc.
nice to see somebody actually willing to fight for a change.
And how many McDaniel voters plan to vote for Cochran in November if he is declared the winner?
Up the Tea Party—Up Democracy and Liberty!
Up the Tea Party—Up Democracy and Liberty!
You really are a troll aren’t you?
The post you responded to misquoted the law a little but most everyone following this story knows what they meant.
Sure hope they have their information sealed up tight; in case you know, the law office has a break in and steals their computers.
I can just see something “nasty” happening now that the attorney says they found something....
I do hope they protect themselves and all information...wishing them the best on the outcome.
Ditto.
Actually, there are two related "laws," and the poster was pretty close on quoting the notion that is directly expressed in Mississippi law.
23-15-575. Participation in primary election.On that law, the voter's stated intentions control; but it is not allowed to "qualify" the voter by asking them, so the law is roughly toothless. That law does work, but only to the extent that the voter volunteers the incriminating information.No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.
The "law" that a person can't split their votes between parties in the primary is based on a ruling by the state AG.
As a practical matter, it is easy to show an invalid "crossover" voter by pointing to the pollbooks, and those votes are invalid without asking the voter what their intentions were. "Crossover" as a narrow meaning in Mississippi election law, that being a person who votes in primaries for both parties. This is done by voting in the primary for one party, and the runoff for the other party.
Mississippi Code 97-13-35 - Voting; by unqualified person, or at more than one place, or for both parties in same primary.For the careful parser out there who notices the "same date" qualifier, that's covered too. The runoff is deemed to be part of the original primary, and for legal purposes, the primary and runoff are one election, held on the same day.Any person who shall vote at any election, not being legally qualified, or who shall vote in more than one county, or at more than one place in any county or in any city, town, or village entitled to separate representation, or who shall vote out of the district of his legal domicile, or who shall vote or attempt to vote in the primary election of one party when he shall have voted on the same date in the primary election of another party, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be fined not exceeding two hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months, or both.
MS AG Op., Brown (April 7, 1988) 1988 WL 250048There is, however, a statutory prohibition to "crossover" voting. Crossover voting may be defined as participation in the first primary of one political party and participation in the runoff primary of another party. Several Attorney General's opinions and case law has defined the first and second primary as one election process. The runoff primary has been described as a continuation of the first primary. Therefore, Miss. Code Ann. AS: 97-13-35 (1972), which prohibits participation in more than one primary on the same day, has been interpreted to prohibit crossover voting.
Amanda Shook is one of them, I’m sure.
“And how many McDaniel voters plan to vote for Cochran in November if he is declared the winner?”
Cochran’s campaign and the gop voided the contract.
“I hope the challenge stands. The Republican Establishment should not trifle with the affections of the T.E.A. party and the normally conservative voters, by taking them for granted year after year.”
They haven’t really been taking Conservatives for granted lately, they’ve declared war on us.
That question swings both way, does it not? The net effect is to draw even more "question" into the outcome of the contest.
The MS law appears to have the aim or effect of enforcing party loyalty, and forbidding a condition of one party being home to candidates having irreconcilable differences.
Civil war inside the party is really messy.
That's right but I will say it was not Lurker that was at all close to the MS law, it was the poster he responded to, which is what I think you meant.
Lurker's question is vacuous. I think it was designed to stir uncertainty in the original poster's assertion. This is why I exhibit a serrated edge with Lurker who professes to be a lawyer, but I think he's more of an imposter.
...so the law is roughly toothless
That's right and plenty of news outlets have drawn attention to that fact that this law is unenforceable. Many leftist rags and squawkers have also tried to insinuate that the McDaniel camp was using this law when in fact they are not.
The McDaniel campaign is using a solid law that is easy to enforce. It is that law stating that a person voting in the primary of one party may not crossover and vote in the other party's primary or the other party's runoff. Violation of this law is easily discovered by examining the poll books of both parties. During a runoff, the poll books are supposed to be 'switched'.
For example, a republican runoff polling station is supposed to have a democrat poll book for that precinct so they can see if a voter is ineligible by noting if they voted in the dem primary. They have the dem poll book in front of them to check.
But what the McDaniel team has uncovered is the dem poll books were not provided to the precincts so there is no way to know if the dem voters were eligible to vote or not UNLESS they can inspect the dem poll books and find out. This should have been done at the time of the vote but now they are having to go back and do it themselves and the Cochran-Barbour gang is blocking them. This is why they are in court.
Thanks for quoting the various legal passages.
Speaking of Boss Hogg, have not head from Boss Hogg in some
time. Where is that Fat Bstd hiding?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.