Gillibrand: Republicans Have 'Stooped To A New Low' Challenging My Ballot
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has now published an op-ed piece lambasting the campaign of GOP candidate Jim Tedisco, for challenging her absentee ballot and keeping it out of the count for now in the special election for her old House seat:
Today the Republicans stooped to a new low by challenging my ballot. The Republican's challenge is frivolous and without merit.
...
Their latest move to challenge my ballot is part of a much larger attempt to disenfranchise legal Democratic voters and delay Scott Murphy's inevitable victory in the 20th.
National Republicans are trying to turn the 20th District of New York into the next Minnesota. It is wrong.
The reason Gillibrand's ballot is being challenged is that the Republicans allege she was in her home county on Election Day, and thus wasn't legally qualified to vote absentee and should have gone to the polls. Gillibrand spokesman Matt Canter told TPM that Gillibrand was in Albany that day, and was never in the district at all.
And all those challenges are definitely piling up. The latest numbers from Columbia County, provided to TPM, show 214 challenges compared to 378 absentee ballots that have actually been counted. And out of those total challenges, 194 have come from the Tedisco campaign. And Saratoga County, the Tedisco stronghold that hasn't reported any numbers yet, and which has about a quarter of the total absentees, currently has 714 challenges, the Albany Times Union reports.
The latest official numbers from the state show Murphy ahead by 47 votes -- but really, if you add in Kirsten Gillibrand's ballot it's 48 votes. And then there are all the other challenges out there. In addition, the latest numbers from Columbia County, which aren't yet in the state totals, put Murphy's lead even higher at 105 votes, notwithstanding any other un-reported numbers and the eventual resolutions of these challenged ballots.
This really does make a mockery of the secret ballot, doesn't it?
Josh
Matt
Eric
Is it actually illegal to vote absentee if you are physically in your district on election day? What an odd rule. What if you plan to be out of the precinct but your trip gets cancelled?
April 15, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What makes no sense is, why is it necessary or pemissible for campaigns to be involved in the vote counting process? That is what we have election judges for.
It is obvious Tedisco is pileing up challenges to maximize his chances of shooting down votes. The process invites it and he would be foolish not to do it since absentee ballots seem to slant against him. But it is like the silly scenario in MN that the SC set up giving veto power to both sides and then relying on them to be "honorable". In the end we still end up in court with the loser claming unfair process. If we can't trust the elections judges the solution is get judges we can trust not second guess them.
April 15, 2009 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I question it to, but just for everyone's information: even though Coleman challenged more ballots than Franken, Franken won more of his challenges. Franken probably helped his PR case, and maybe the legal case too, by offering to accept all absentee ballots judged by local officials to have been wrongly rejected. Either candidate could probably help himself by offering to withdraw all absentee challenges and accept local decisions if his opponent does too. When Coleman rejected that offer, it hurt him.
April 15, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to that Republican operative that challenged Gillibrand's vote. Its obvious to all now that the Republicans are simply trying to disenfranchise voters to skew the election in their favor. A classic Republican tactic.
Now, not only have they lost NY-20 for this election, but quite possibly for all future elections in the near term, as the Democrats remind voters over and over again, how the Republicans tried to disenfranchise their former congresswoman; and the Republicans have also handed the Democrats a propaganda bonanza to use nationally if they so choose.
NY-20 has become a fish bowl. And all eyes are on this one. Magnifying for all to see, the Republican disenfranchisement machine.
Again, Kudos to that poll operative. You've done the nation a massive service.
April 15, 2009 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is more on the Judge. Looks like the Republicans have a sympathetic ear in Judge Brand. All bets are off:
This post on the DailyKos might speak directly as to why the Judge might have decided to take himself out of the picture for a few days. To allow the Republicans time to challenge as many ballots as possible:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/14/191335/772
Since he leans Republican, and seems to have decided in their favor many times in the past, this election is completely up for grabs now; all those projections of a Murphy win in the absentee ballot count, probably out the window.
April 15, 2009 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Murphy now leads by 168 votes, updated Wed morning 10 am.
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/Elections/2009/Special/20thCDSpecialUnofficialResults041509.pdf
April 15, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get too pumped up about that increase.
Those numbers come almost exclusively from more reports coming in from the pro-Murphy counties of Columbia, Warren, and Dutchess.
The pro-Tedisco counties are all standing pat from their numbers from yesterday.
And still nothing in from the pro-Tedisco county of Saratoga (the largest county).
Nor the pro-Murphy county of Washington.
April 15, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It could be a pretty meaningful increase. There are more to count in those counties, and Tedisco's been claiming a margin of under 200 from Saratoga.
If those counties keep delivering at anything like these rates, and Tedisco doesn't get something like a 300 or 400 vote margin out of Saratoga, then even with the hundreds of challenges Tedisco has made, Murphy should win. Nate Silver has a good piece today on the math, and I think these numbers bear Nate out.
April 15, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I read Nate's article on the 538 as well. I'll admit, his conclusions are encouraging. But I'll still wait to see a large chunk of both Saratoga and Washington come in before I start saying we're on Nate's track.
And even then, I still have concerns about ballot challenges relative to Judge Brands and the way he's ruled on similar issues in the past (pro-Republican).
We'll see. I hope the Dems have enough lawyers on the ground (in both NY-20, Albany, and NYC) to defend this. If not, I can see this one slipping away pretty easily.
April 15, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't wait to see the RNC simultaneously defend the challenging of the these ballots and parrot the Coleman line in Minnesota that it doesn't count because some ballots weren't counted.
Consistency - ur doin it wrong.
April 15, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Accusations of corruption are never good to toss around without evidence. On the other hand, waiting to report you numbers until your opponents have told you what you need to beat is an old, old tactic.
April 15, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink