Winning margin in NY House 23 race tightens

[AnOhioan]

Source: Associated Press

ALBANY, N.Y. — The special election last week for the 23rd Congressional District seat in New York may not be over after all.

Though Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman conceded and Democrat Bill Owens was sworn into Congress last week, the routine recanvassing of votes shows Owens' lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes, with about 5,800 absentee ballots received so far that have yet to be counted. The final outcome rests on uncounted absentee ballots, and more than 10,000 were sent out.

The county Boards of Election are still recanvassing votes and it could be the end of November before a final count is certified. If the count overturns the election, Owens could be removed from office.


snip


It's still unlikely that Hoffman could come back; he would need to win roughly 75 percent of the 5,800 absentee ballots that have been returned

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j0VibvgMRn4zDGTwEZjej-eRI1swD9BUA4300

[Gman]

1. It is over and a done deal once Owens was sworn in

and there's not a thing the locals can do about it.

This happened a few years ago with some Republican and the GOP congress couldn't get him up there to DC and sworn in fast enough. I wish I could remember the name and the race. I think they dropped the recount because the House ultimately decides who it's members will be.

[FarPoint]

2. Was it Buchanan

from the St. Petersburg Fla election in 06?

[HarryFilin]

3. That's not entirely true...

From another article: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/its_not_over_recanvassing_shows_ny23_race.html

"Conklin said the state sent a letter to the House Clerk last week explaining that no winner had been determined in the 23rd District, and therefore the state had not certified the election. But the letter noted that Owens still led by about 3,000 votes, and that the special election was not contested -- two factors that legally allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to swear in Owens on Friday.

"We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals," Conklin said. "The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed.""

Owens has yet to be certified by the Secretary of State of New York, so he can be removed if found he was not elected.

[Brother Buzz]

4. Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution

trumps your opinion

[Cha]

5. And, that article states that ..

once they're sworn in.. that's it?

[harkadog]

6. Not according to election law.

[Brother Buzz]

12. You can't unring the bell

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members

NY state sent a letter to the House Clerk last week explaining that no winner had been determined in the 23rd District, and therefore the state had not certified the election. But the letter noted that Owens still led by about 3,000 votes, and that the special election was not contested -- two factors that legally allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to swear in Owens on Friday.

The US house judged and Owens was sworn in all legal.

[Cha]

13. Edge of the seat stuff..hope it

doesn't get to that warring point.

Thanks, BrotherBuzz

[harkadog]

7. No it doesn't

Besides there is a political price to be paid for those type of actions which would not be worth it. Congress generally only uses that in cases of corruption.

[struggle4progress]

18. Look up what happened in the 2006 CA-50 Busby-Bilbray fight: Hastert swore in Bilbray before

the close election was certified; a subsequent lawsuit was tossed

[harkadog]

20. Tossed on what grounds?

Just because a lawsuit was "tossed" doesn't mean anything by itself.

[Brother Buzz]

21. Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution. The court found the complaint to be moot

That pesky US Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 5 prevails.

Did Doug Hoffman Actually Win the NY-23 Special Election? If So, Does It Actually Matter?

By Brad Friedman
11/13/2009


<snip>

Then, as now, the candidate believed to be the "loser" --- Busby in that case, Hoffman in this one --- had conceded before all the votes had been counted. Then, as now, the state sent notice to the U.S. House Clerk based on unofficial election results before all votes were counted, attesting to the name of the "winner" and that the race had not been contested. Then, as now, the "winning" candidate --- Republican Bilbray in that case, Democrat Owens in this one --- was quickly shuttled to D.C. to be sworn in by the Speaker of the House. Back then it was Republican Dennis Hastert. This time it's Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Owens vote in favor of the House Democrats' Health Care legislation proved vital on Saturday, following his swearing-in just one day earlier.

The bad news, however, for now-hopeful Republicans/Conservatives is that when the results of the Busby/Bilbray race were contested by a California voter, the Republican-leadership of the U.S. House Administration Committee sent a letter to the CA judge in the case, arguing that neither CA voters nor the state courts had jurisdiction to contest the election any longer, once the candidate had already been sworn into the U.S. House.

"The Court should dismiss this action," Paul Vinovich, Republican counsel to the House Admin Committee wrote to Superior Court Judge Yuri Hoffman. "State courts do not have jurisdiction to decide an action contesting the election of a member of the United States House of Representatives. That power is textually committed to the House of Representatives itself by the Constitution, a commitment that has been recognized by the Supreme Court."

"The United States Constitution unambiguously states that 'Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its Members,'" Vinovich argued, quoting article I, section 5 of the Constitution. "As a result, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives 'the authority 'to determine the facts and apply the appropriate rules of law, and, finally, to render a judgment which is beyond the authority of any other tribunal to review.'"

"When plaintiff asks this court to decree following a recount 'hat the candidate with the most votes be judged elected,' plaintiff is asking the Court to issue an order that the House of Representatives is bound by the FCEA not to honor," Vinovich instructed the judge in his letter.

On the House Republicans' assertion of the Constitutional argument that it was the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives --- not the CA courts and not the voters in the state --- who had jurisdiction over the results of the election at that point, the judge accepted the argument and dismissed the case. Democracy was denied. The argument withstood appeal to a higher court, essentially, as time wore on and the court found the complaint to be moot.

<more>

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7518#more-7518

[harkadog]

22. I read the link and it doesn't back up the argument.

Busby did not have the most votes by the official count. We don't know the official count in the NY 23 case yet. There are no links to the court decisions in the Busby case and I don't accept some blogger's interpretation of them. The link used the word "essentially" in his interpretation which is a huge wiggle word.

[Brother Buzz]

27. I'm sorry you lack the reading skills needed to comprehend my answer to, "Tossed on what grounds?"

I provided a response to your question only to have you slam my good friend, Brad Friedman, and tell me I didn't provide a link to the court decisions in the Busby case. Did you bother to read the entire piece written by Brad Friedman, and did you ever bother to absorb the information and research and verify it on you own? Google® is your best friend.

Here's it is again, real slow:

Q: Tossed on what grounds? Just because a lawsuit was "tossed" doesn't mean anything by itself.

A: The House Republicans' assertion of the Constitutional argument (Article I, section 5) that it was the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives --- not the CA courts and not the voters in the state --- who had jurisdiction over the results of the election at that point, The judge accepted the argument and dismissed the case.


The argument withstood appeal to a higher court, essentially, as time wore on and the court found the complaint to be moot.

[struggle4progress]

23. ... Judge Hofmann said the matter is one the U.S. House .. must .. address. "Once the House asserts

exclusive jurisdiction and selects a candidate, the court no longer has jurisdiction," Hofmann said ...

Judge throws out 50th District election lawsuit
By: WILLIAM FINN BENNETT - Staff Writer | Posted: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:00 am
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_ec21c28c-b277-5335-887d-2cb228c9eb68.html

[harkadog]

24. This doesn't apply

Under the federal statute any candidate --including Busby -- had 30 days to appeal the action of the Speaker in swearing in the Congressman. No one did so it became moot. That is not the situation in NY.

[struggle4progress]

26. Not a link from you yet -- just bare unsupported assertions

[harkadog]

28. It is taken from the article

You didn't even read the link that you posted. But you know it all. OK

[struggle4progress]

29. No, what the article says is: Bilbray's attorney made that claim. I don't know whether the

attorney was misquoted or mistaken, but the alleged claim of Bilbray's attorney was false

USC TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 12 > § 382
(a) Filing of notice
Whoever, having been a candidate for election in the last preceding election and claiming a right to such office, intends to contest the election of a Member of the House of Representatives, shall, within thirty days after the result of such election shall have been declared by the officer or Board of Canvassers authorized by law to declare such result, file with the Clerk and serve upon the contestee written notice of his intention to contest such election ... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000382----000-.html

The special election was in early June 2006; Bilbray was sworn in mid-June; the election was certified in early July; and the lawsuit was filed before the end of July 2006, less than thirty days after the result of such election shall have been declared by the officer.

And, as already established, the case was not dismissed for failure to file timely; it was dismissed on constitutional grounds, the court holding it had no jurisdiction after Congress swore Bilbray as a member

The comparison is on point: in both the CA-50 and NY-23 special elections, one candidate conceded and the other was sworn before the election result was officially certified

[harkadog]

30. Please read the statute again

It says nothing about filing a lawsuit. It says file "with the Clerk.." That was not done. A lawsuit is not a substitute for that procedure. The fact is the CA election dispute was primarily about the accurately of voting machines and that is what the lawsuit was about. There is no such allegation in NY23.Apples and oranges.

[struggle4progress]

31. ... Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff? Be off, or I'll kick you down-stairs! ...

Father William
http://www.poetry-archive.com/c/father_william.html

:hi:

[youngharry]

15. Right

You're thinking of Fla 13---Sarasota, Fl

[Jane1620]

35. Doug Hoffman

The vote was NOT certificated. Owens can be removed,if Hoffman
has more votes.

[wisteria]

8. It's over and we won. This is all being done to place a cloud over this win. n/t

[Cha]

9. Well, shit. That means we

might have to unswear in Bill Owens who has already voted on the House Bill that passed by 2 freakin' votes?!

[quiller4]

32. Not a chance. Owens lead is greater than the number of

outstanding absentee ballots likely to come in. Nov 10th was the last day to receive regular absentee ballots by mail. The race tightened slightly when those results were announced. November 16th is the last day to receive military ballots. Those ballots are few in number and are expected to favor Owens who carried the heavily military area around Plattsburg and in Clinton County. What the Plattsburg media are predicting is that Owens will make up on Monday the ground he lost last Tuesday.

[Grassy Knoll]

10. RISE TEABAGGERS, RISE ! HAHAHAHAHA !

[Adsos Letter]

14. LOL!...sorry... I couldn't help meself...

:spray: :rofl:

[mcablue]

11. It would be nearly impossible for Hoffman to surprass Owens

With only 5,000 votes left to count and a deficit of over 3000 votes, he would have to pull off a miracle in order to win.

[Yupster]

17. Not worried

I'm assuming that as the third party candidate, he didn't have the money or time to organize any type of organized absentee ballot effort. I would expect him to lose vote share as absentees are counted.

[janet118]

19. or election fraud.

Absentee and overseas ballots are very fraud-friendly media.

[quiller4]

33. There are not 5,000 votes left to count, There were 10,000 absentee ballots

sent out. Of those 10,000 only 5,000 had been returned and counted by November 10. Nobody expects a 100% return on absentee ballots. The expectation is 2,500-2,800 additional ballots, mostly from military serving overseas, will be returned and counted by the final cut off for military ballots on November 16. Owens has been pulling in 2 votes for every 1 going to Hoffman in the portions of the district with high concentrations of military personnel.

[Gman]

16. As Brother Buzz points out above...

Article 1, Section 5 reads in part...

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,..."

The election is over and it's a done deal. The locals have no say whatsoever now.

[Garam_Masala]

25. Count ALL votes first! Gore would be the president if they did that in FL

The people's votes should decide who won by counting every vote.
Not the judges. Gore was denied that in 2000, and you would think
congress should pass a law to not certify any election until every
vote is counted.

[David Zephyr]

34. Good. This will give the rightwing more false hope.

.