Posted on 06/17/2010 5:15:58 PM PDT by Steelfish
S.C. Democratic Party Considers Overturning Alvin Greene Election Results June 17, 2010
Alvin Greene said he has no plans to attend a meeting Thursday of party leaders deciding whether to overturn the primary election result that named him the South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee to challenge Sen. Jim DeMint in November.
In a brief phone interview with FoxNews.com, Greene said he was not attending the state party's executive committee meeting in Columbia to hear a protest by former state lawmaker Vic Rawl, whom he defeated in the June 8 primary.
South Carolina's Democrats are poised to decide the fate of the election in which Greene, a 32-year-old unemployed military veteran, shocked local officials by winning without raising funds, giving any speeches or holding any rallies.
Rawl has asked the state Democratic Party for a new primary election based on flaws with the voting machines or software. In his protest, he cited voting irregularities including people who tried to vote for Rawl but whose ballots showed Greene's name checked instead.
So far, no evidence of tampering or voting abnormalities has been determined. South Carolina's Board of Elections told FoxNews.com it has no plans to investigate the vote. Rawl doesn't have to prove malfunctions occurred to get a ruling in his favor, said party executive director Jay Parmley. But the committee must consider the facts carefully because any decision it makes could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
"There is not anything in the law that says anything regarding the burden of proof," Parmley said. But: "It's not like we will say, 'We don't like the candidate,' so we will overturn the election."
The executive committee was expected to make a decision at the end of Thursday's hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
bull...they are a bunch of racist that dont like him beating the white guy.
Wow,,, so we can just overturn voting results with a meeting??? OK,, I have lots of confidence in future elections....NOT!
This is a set up by the Dems. They’re looking to set precedence for overturning an election that doesn’t go their way!
Did anyone try to vote for Greene but Rawl got checked instead?
this is real interesting at many levels of the operation of the dems.......
White Democrats want to replace the duly-elected BLACK MAN with a WHITE MAN.
Maybe the Administration will offer him an unpaid consulting job to get him to step down.
But they are saying because they don’t like the candidate, they want to overturn the election. Sure blame it on the software.
Why didn’t Hillary try this tact at the DNC convention? My God Barack had to have won only because of a software flaw...
I guess democrats only like blacks who go to harvard, are closet bisexual muslims who’ve never served in the military, and don’t show their birth certificates.
Yeah...Software written by THE MAN. You know the THE MAN I’m talkin bout. It’s the same MAN that invented that game where the white ball knocks all the colored balls off the table. THAT MAN.
They can put him in charge of cleaning up the oil spill.
Oh Goodie ... if they do this, then I can get in line and maybe be can “VOID” McCain? /s
Why are the evil dims picking on this poor guy? He’s got the perfect resume for a dim. He’s a dead bang sure thing to get elected. After all, he’s just a pervert.
What’s the big deal? Did you pukes forget you just elected a communist recently??
The democrats are too stupid to decide for themselves. Their politicians have no choice but to decide who wins for them.
I do not understand the authority that the Democrat party has to overturn an election. The election was conducted by government agencies, not the Democrat party. The ballot was open to any registered voter. I do not think that the Democrat party certifies the election results.
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.