tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post116439333429585951..comments2024-03-25T13:42:25.771-05:00Comments on Advance Indianaâ„¢: Recounts Begin Next WeekGary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1164458581893310972006-11-25T07:43:00.000-05:002006-11-25T07:43:00.000-05:00Re: McCloskey. The Indiana Recount Commission was...Re: McCloskey. <BR/><BR/>The Indiana Recount Commission was not empowered to consider voter intent. They abided by the law at the time, which discarded, I believe, 50-55 ballots where intent was clear, but the archaic Indiana law didn't allow the ballots to be counted.<BR/><BR/>The US House counted all of them.<BR/><BR/>McCloskey won, I believe by three or four votes when all were counted. Nothing brazen about that.<BR/><BR/>Indiana's law was changed shortly thereafter to reflect the exact rules used by the US House Recount at the time. Lead testifier in the Indiana Recount law House and Senate hearings: loser McIntyre, advocating the law as changed. RIght is right, and his supporters had a lot of guts to stand up for a change in the law to count all ballots unless clear fraud was demonstrated.<BR/><BR/>Re: Mahern, Hile: I don't expect the Indiana Recount Commission to find in favor of anyone who didn't get the most votes. In each race, there are enough questioned ballots to tip the scale.<BR/><BR/>But the Billy Bright thing is very bizarre. Local Democratic organizers there, wasted no time in October, and got an unusually large number of absentees in before the deadline. Hard work, plainly and simply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1164406985012726362006-11-24T17:23:00.000-05:002006-11-24T17:23:00.000-05:00anon, 4:59, not sure what part of my post involves...anon, 4:59, not sure what part of my post involves "faulty" election law history. I did not assert that the voter intent provision was a part of the law at the time of the McCloskey-McIntyre recount. The law was indeed amended a couple of years after that-and specifically that provision. The fact is that a commission chaired by Evan Bayh certified McIntyre the winner, and that the U.S. House threw out that vote count and devised their own recount in a fashion that insured a win for McCloskey. The Democrats were vilified by even liberal members of the press at the time for what was viewed as a brazen exercise of power.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1164405560801635602006-11-24T16:59:00.000-05:002006-11-24T16:59:00.000-05:00Elrod did work hard. Mahern didn't until the last...Elrod did work hard. Mahern didn't until the last minute. Two things did Mahern in ultimately--turnout, and lack of focus until the final few days.<BR/><BR/>AI, I believe your election law history is somewhat faulty, but I'd be glad to be corrected.<BR/><BR/>Indiana's voter intent law came after McCloskey's "win" in 1984, I believe. The law prior to that date did not allow recounters to consider voter intent as the chief determiner. I was a watcher in that recount. Under state law, if, for instance, there was a stray mark on the ballot, it could be challenged, and ultiamtely, thrown out. If one of the two election clerks forgot to initial an absentee ballot before it went out, and that error was not found until after it was returned, the ballot, by law, could not be counted. We found multiple county clerks in that district who had ignored the law for decades and counted them anyway, and some who had not. There was zero consistency. In the McCloskey race, there were over 60 of those fanned out across the district. Few counted on election night. Most counted in the end, because U.S.House rules allowed a more-liberal interpretation of the law nd mandated voter intent as the chief determiner.<BR/><BR/>By the way, for what it's worth, that recount also turned up scores of other counting problems across that district. One county sheriff candidate (the county escpes me now) probably should've asked for a recount, because he'd have won instead of losing by ten.<BR/><BR/>The shoddy application of Indiana's voter laws led to some reforms after that recount. I am pretty sure "Voter Intent" was added after that point.<BR/><BR/>There are enough questions in Marion County to justify the 97th district recount. Absentee ballots not counted, for one.<BR/><BR/>But again, it looks to me like turnout was an issue. Center Township's dismal turnout in 2006 did not help Mr. Mahern. <BR/><BR/>But Lord knows, all the Center Township Dems won. Thank the Lord for that, huh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1164403555548559252006-11-24T16:25:00.000-05:002006-11-24T16:25:00.000-05:00I'm curious to know whether or not the provisional...I'm curious to know whether or not the provisional and absentee ballots give Mahern the edge. If not, then, I'd guess he's lost. It is reminiscent of Kurt Coonrod losing his City County Council seat by taking it for granted that he'd win. Give Elrod his due respect, he worked hard to get elected. And, I might add, deserves his chance to serve more the Mahern.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com