Posted on 09/19/2018 5:09:13 PM PDT by BackRoads775
In a decision that appears to flout Nevada election law, a Las Vegas judge has nullified the results of a Republican primary election.
Jason Burke defeated Mack Miller by 122 votes in the June 12 primary for state Assembly District 5, but a judge declared Miller “the rightful winner of the election” because Burke did not file campaign finance reports in time.
“This is certainly a novel case that I haven’t seen before,” said Las Vegas attorney Daniel Stewart, who specializes in Nevada election law. “But no two election contests are the same, and it seems like every election cycle there’s a new set of facts, new wrinkles to these disputes, but they always pose significant legal and constitutional questions that are difficult to unravel.”
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
Lots of quirks here.
Miller was convicted of desertion and still almost won.
Burke did not show at first hearing. Says he was not notified.
Miller is not on the Nov. ballot. Burke still is.
Another hearing is scheduled.
The Judge is writing his own law. He needs to be impeached.
Bump
There’s no corruption like Las Vegas corruption. Blatant and in your face.
Did the judge put Miller back because he’s the weaker candidate? Sorry, but I can only think that all judges are working for the Dems, especially in Nevada.
This is judicial interference in an election. Isn’t the lawful remedy - via the election financial disclosure laws - already established as a fine, and not the nullification of an election. Seems with the Dims having no candidate the judge is trying to pevent the GOP guy from running unopposed. Where does the law say a candidate cannot run unopposed?
Not the ordinary penalty/remedy for CFR violations.
I catch a whiff of affirmative action here...
In this guys courtroom, thats where.
I’ll bet a lot of liberals across the country, salivating over this decision. A new way to nullify elections they lost.
I think we need to rethink the whole “judge” thing.
People are evil, corrupt and stupid, and really shouldn’t be entrusted or trusted with any kind of power whatsoever.
Absolutely ridiculous. Burke needs to get before an appellate court pronto.
Oh, those leftist judge rascals.
No telling what they’ll be up to next.
Our judicial system is as rotten as the FBI and CIA.
Pause immigration from terrorist unvetted areas? No, stopped cold by a judge.
GOP wins an election. No, can’t have that. Judge disagreed with the party so throw it out.
Enforce laws in “sanctuary” cities. Sorry, not allowed.
Nevada is an open carry state. Just sayin’ I’d be very nervous if I were that judge. Just sayin’.
Not sayin’ a Republican or a Conservative is a threat, just sayin’ the antifa/socialist/BLM faction of the democrats is not above assassinating a political figure and projecting blame onto loyal Americans. Especially right before an election, even a mid-term.
Robert Torricelli
He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996, defeating Republican Congressman Dick Zimmer to obtain the seat vacated by the retirement of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley. It was later found that six donors had made illegal contributions to Torricelli's campaign. In 2000, he headed the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee which regained the Democratic majority in the Senate. Torricelli was responsible for recruiting Senate candidates including Hillary Clinton.
Late in the 2002 Senate election against Republican Doug Forrester, Torricelli received a formal letter of admonishment from the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics for his involvement with campaign donor David Chang. The investigation was later dropped when attorney Mary Jo White issued a letter of clearance. When Torricelli withdrew from the campaign on September 30, 2002, he stated that despite leaving public office in a different way than he had planned, he was proud of his service. Shortly thereafter, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Democratic Party could legally replace Torricelli's name on the ballot with that of former U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg. In 2007, Torricelli drew public criticism despite federal rules allowing retired officials to give leftover campaign funds to political parties, candidates and charities when his leftover campaign funds, given to the Rosemont Foundation, were not funneled back to his political party.
During his time in the Senate, Torricelli was a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Finance Committee, and Rules Committee.
I remember the replacement of Torricelli for Lautenberg very clearly. State election law didn't allow for last minute replacements on the ballot. The GOP candidate was beating Torricelli pretty badly, so he withdrew. The DNC replaced him on the ballot with Frank Lautenberg, a former US Senator and well-known name. The GOP argued that there wasn't time before the election to campaign against a new opponent--this was the purpose of the State law. The main argument by the DNC was that Democrat voters would be disenfranchised by not having a candidate on the ballot.
The Court put Lautenberg on the ballot. He won. The Senate was tied two years into GW Bush's administration. The GOP offered power-sharing in a misguided attempt to get-along (having the VP gave them the majority). Jumpin' Jim Jeffords changed parties and switched the balance to the Democrats. They didn't return the courtesy of the GOP. They took over every committee and ruled with an iron fist. All of this precipitated by the illegal switch in the NJ Supreme Court.
“Absolutely ridiculous. Burke needs to get before an appellate court pronto.”
His name is on the November ballot and a hearing is scheduled in October.
Makes me wonder if this is an Obama or W. Bush appointee trying to make up law instead of the prescribed remedy of a fine.
[The Judge is writing his own law. He needs to be impeached.]
I agree 100%.
I think we need a new impeachment process for the judiciary. Three business day notice. Three business day impeachment hearings. One day impeachment vote. If, impeached, five business day delay for trial in front of full Senate, two days of presentation of evidence, two days of rebuttal, two days for deliberations.
Works for me.
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.