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

Via the Washington Post

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. “In this instance, the integrity of our democratic process outweighs concerns about the seat being vacant at the start of the new Congress.”

Under Article I, section 5 of the Constitution the House can decide not to seat members.

In affidavits to the board, voters alleged various types of election-related impropriety. Some said their absentee ballots had been collected by strangers, an illegal practice known as “ballot harvesting.”

Reports in local and national media implicated a Republican operative who had been working on behalf of Harris’s campaign. The operation is the subject of multiple investigations.

The last time this happened was in the Senate in 2009 where Roland Burris was denied amidst the Rod Blagojevich corruption scandal. The last time the House denied a member was in 1967 and was eventually decided by the Supreme Court decision Powell v. McCormack.

It's all still very much in the air so I can't venture to guess what will happen here. Some options include a special election is held in NC-09, a new elections board is convened and declares the winner, the seat remains open that the Democratic governor appoints the new Representative.

a reply to: links234

This should prove to be an interesting case. I'd also like to thank you for providing some relevant data for me to help research the situation, such as the Powell v. McCormack case.

The initial problem seems to be restricted to North Carolina. The elections board there has not certified Mark Harris as the winner. That's something North Carolina will need to sort out. As long as he is not certified, I see nothing that would prevent the House of Representatives from refusing to seat him. Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1 clearly states that the Representative must be chosen by the people of their state, and that is not verified unless and until he is certified the winner of the election.

Of course, that is the only reason to not seat him that could stand Constitutional muster. Powell v. McCormack clearly stated that only the requirements in Article I, Section 2, Paragraphs 1 and 2, can be used to refuse to seat a Representative.

I personally have a bit of a prejudice against anyone who dares claim they oppose seating an official duly elected by the people; I consider that an act of rebellion against the people and a direct violation of the oaths taken. I came into this thread ready and willing to lambast the damn Democrats for daring to go against the will of the people... but then I realized that was not the case. I guess it's time to check my bias.

S&F for making me do that.

Here's hoping North Carolina gets their act together. I am simply not familiar enough with the allegations against Harris to comment on that aspect.

TheRedneck

www.wsoctv.com...

Check out that article. There was some shady stuff found and it's not clear what the truth is yet. It's a close race, like 900 votes, and with allegations of voter fraud, it should be investigated before finalized. Even though this is a republican being accused of the fraud.

This area is very rural, largest industry is hogs and chickens.

It's also the next county over from me, so a little embarrassing.

Hopefully they have a speedy investigation so the people have a representative soon.

a reply to: network dude

It's also the next county over from me, so a little embarrassing.

I was hoping someone close to the action would check in here.

Can you enlighten us on what those shady allegations were and what the status of the election is?

TheRedneck

a reply to: network dude
someone needs to run some ads in a few of your counties next election season, just explaining to people the rules regarding the mail in ballots, that no, not just anyone can come to your door and pick it up offering to deliver it for you. And that it's rather illegal to go around picking them up.
no reason to be ashamed though... ya know what they say...

fool me once, shame on you...
fool me twice, shame on me...
well, it doesn't look like they are gonna get away with it the second time so..

the republican candidate probably should have known better than to hire this guy... unless he thought they could get away with it, then he's just as crooked as the guy he hired.
the people should have known better than to just give their ballots to strangers..
but, well... life just doesn't seem to go with the should haves anymore.
I think there's gonna end up being a new election, the only question is weather there will be another primary with that election or if it will be the two same candidates running.
if the state orders the new election, it will probably be the same two candidates, and I have a feeling that the seat will go to the dem. if the feds order it, they can also order that a new primary also, which would probably be fairer.

It's gonna be an interesting story to follow.

In the theme of the now infamous educational show, Schoolhouse Rock, we shall deem such events...

“Dysfunction Junction”!

It seems to me if the Democratic led House is going to refuse to seat members due to alleged election abnormalities, there’s a few more members that shouldn’t be seated quite yet, due to election shenanigans. We all know, though, in the world of politics it’s not always a “good for the goose, good for the gander” environment.

I wish they all (Senate/House) would make and adhere to a New Year’s resolution for 2019 “TO DO OUR #ING JOBS”!

a reply to: Lab4Us

the house on the federal level wont seat a person unless they've been certified as the winner by the state. It was the state election board, that consisted of both democratic and republicans, that voted unanimously to not certify until there was an investigation to figure out what actually occurred. and then the election board was disbanded, not sure why, which is delaying the investigation. the governor deciding to form a new election board before the rules state, so that the investigation can go on in a timely manner. republicans having a fit over him trying to form the new board and refusing to nominate some representatives to it, and well, maybe network dude can explain all that to you, because I have no idea why the election board was disbanded..

I have been told for years, voter fraud is just a figment of my imagination

So this either cannot be true or the tip of the iceberg

If you commit voter fraud that person/persons should be punished.

The reason I am worried, this sounds like voter fraud, but one is insoocent u til proven guilty. Project veritas Has some under cover vedio of voter fraud and campaign finance fraud. Again, innocent until proven guilty, but if they are not investigated, this again will show two different laws for republican and Democrat. I am not sure how much longer the republicans are going to take it

Ever notice the number of accusations that have flown this election on almost every race where a dem lost. But when a Repub loses he bows out graciously despite suspicious reports of cheating. I suspect it was cheating here, but i also suspects cheating in 90 percent of areas where the Dems won we cheating heck California just legalized cheating lol.

a reply to: links234

I blame the Democrats for putting the apple in front of the Republicans. It's all the Democrats fault!

originally posted by: Saiker
Ever notice the number of accusations that have flown this election on almost every race where a dem lost. But when a Repub loses he bows out graciously despite suspicious reports of cheating. I suspect it was cheating here, but i also suspects cheating in 90 percent of areas where the Dems won we cheating heck California just legalized cheating lol.

So what you are saying is it is okay for the people running our government to ignore our laws. The laws do not apply to people who really want something. If you want something really badly, you can break the law is what you are saying. Got it.

Isn't ballot harvesting legal and how democrats won in California?

If so, then to be consistent, the new democrats in California should not be allowed either.

But that would we equally applied justice, so never mind.

It's all about just democrats taking control.


Sorry.

a reply to: links234

Here's the real amazing part in the article you referenced:

"House Democrats are poised to take control of the chamber next week, "

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Isn't ballot harvesting legal and how democrats won in California?

If so, then to be consistent, the new democrats in California should not be allowed either.

But that would we equally applied justice, so never mind.

It's all about just democrats taking control.


Sorry.

So are you for election laws or against them. I don't understand your statement. Are you saying if Democrats break the law in California it's okay for Republicans to break the law in North Carolina? I don't get it. I thought each state decided its own election laws.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I was told ballot harvesting is legal.

Apparently it is only legal for democrats.

You are obviously okay with that.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dfnj2015

I was told ballot harvesting is legal.

Apparently it is only legal for democrats.

You are obviously okay with that.

Laws governing "ballot harvesting" are set up at the state level.

California's laws allow the practice. North Carolina's laws do not allow the practice. Furthermore, there are allegations that the ballot harvester in NC either changed, or did not submit, ballots from some voters.

California Republicans were aware of the practice and acknowledged that they needed to up their game in making use of it to their advantage.

“To say we were caught flat-footed by this is just not true,” California GOP spokesman Matt Fleming told Fox News. “We were well aware of this, we even did it ourselves, we pay attention to election laws.”

Dale Neugebauer, a veteran Republican consultant, told the Chronicle that Democrats used the practice in a “thorough and disciplined” ground game.

“Absolutely, ballot harvesting played a very significant role,” Neugebauer told the Chronicle, adding that “I have a little bit of professional admiration for how well the Democrats executed their plan.”

Th e San Diego Union-Tribune

This Associate Press article discusses some of the positive and negative aspects of the practice.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Christ.

Why bother even voting any more.

SMGDH

And when the dust settles, it's always the Republicans that end up cheating.

They get so loud about everyone else cheating, pointing fingers everywhere and then when it's all said and done, just like every other time, their own people end up getting indicted or shamed.

And then next time they get even louder projecting onto others what they do on the regular.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I have been told for years, voter fraud is just a figment of my imagination

This would seem to be a case of election fraud. It is not voters who committed fraud.
Subtle difference perhaps, but important.