Campaign Watch: Elections Board to Hear Ninth District Case
The newly reconstituted State Board of Elections (SBE) will finally get to hear months of assembled evidence in considering the fate of the disputed Ninth Congressional District contest.
Since the previous combined elections and ethics board was found to be unconstitutional and dissolved by a state court order in December, the hearing on the Ninth District case had to wait until the new board was appointed. Those appointments took place early this month, after the law authorizing the new board went into effect January 31.
In the meantime, state elections staff and legal teams for the competing congressional candidates continued to put together evidence on the case asserting elections fraud in parts of the district. The new SBE is scheduled to hear that evidence starting today (Monday, February 18). The SBE has said that it could decide either to certify the elections result (a narrow win for Mark Harris) or order a new election in the district, depending on whether it concludes that fraud in absentee ballots in two counties may have affected that result.
Substantial evidence indicates there were more than enough absentee ballots affected by the clearly illegal ballot “harvesting” practices of a Harris campaign operative that the results of the overall contest could have changed. The uncertified results show Harris leading opponent Dan McCready by just 905 ballots out of almost 278,000 cast. The old elections board twice refused the Harris campaign’s requests to certify the results while it initiated an inquiry into the alleged fraud, as did a state court.
This is the nation’s last unfilled congressional seat from the 2018 elections. While its outcome will not change partisan control of the U.S. House of Representatives, it is considered a harbinger of how seriously North Carolina (and possibly other states) will treat actual substantial elections fraud.
Ironically, this is a case in which the Republican campaign is the one accused of benefiting from fraud. The state Republican Party, which has made claims of in-person voter impersonation fraud a major issue theme, is the side demanding that the possibly tainted result be accepted no matter what the evidence in the case shows.
The alleged fraud involves the illegal collection of absentee ballots from voters, their completion by persons other than the voters, and non-return of ballots which were not cast for Harris. The state Democratic Party has long said that voter impersonation fraud is practically non-existent, and that if any notable fraud was taking place it was likely in the area of absentee ballots.
The candidate challenging the uncertified results and seeking a new election, McCready, was endorsed by the national League of Conservation Voters (LCV). In anticipation of a new election, LCV has re-opened its GiveGreen online fundraising effort for the McCready campaign.
The new SBE has five members, three Democrats and two Republicans. If the board votes along party lines, however, that could complicate the case’s outcome. Under the new state law, any SBE order for a new election must be supported by at least four of the board’s five members. If just three of the board’s members conclude that the evidence supports a new election, it could direct that its findings and supporting evidence be sent to the U.S. House.
Under the U.S. Constitution, each chamber of Congress is the final arbiter of the qualifications of its own membership. The House can refuse to seat a candidate whose election has been challenged. House Democratic leaders have said that the chamber may refuse to seat Harris if its own hearings conclude that the election outcome was determined by fraud.
Up next, Senate Permanently Renews Conservation Fund >>
To get news like this in your inbox every Monday, please sign up for our Conservation Insider Bulletin newsletter!
