Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the sort of thing you'd see Venezuela, or some third-world hellhole.
Or in a Republican-controlled American state.
November elections. In one statehouse race, the Democrat and Republican tied. Per state law, they drew lots to determine the winner. The Democrat drew the winning lot. The Republican contested the election and - surprise, surprise! - the Republican-controlled statehouse decided that the Republican who lost the election should be the one seated, and not the Democrat who won the election.
Quote:
The Republican-controlled House voted late Wednesday, mostly along party lines, to unseat longtime Democratic state Rep. Bo Eaton and name Republican challenger Mark Tullos the winner of the District 79 seat.
The move gives Republicans a three-fifths supermajority of 74 in the 122-member chamber. But House leaders said the vote wasn't based on partisan politics, but about problems with the election, which resulted in a tie that was broken by drawing straws in November. Eaton drew the long, green straw, but Tullos contested the election to the House.
And now the usual suspects will come running to twist themselves into contortions in explaining how eminently reasonable it is that the Republicans decided to seat the Republican loser over the Democratic winner, and it was totally non-partisan...
You left out this part. Eaton wasn't tied until a certain elections board met in secret to count 9 provisional votes. Without those votes Tullos won. This is what was challenged.
Quote:
Baker also said a meeting of election officials and the Smith County circuit in which a decision was made to count nine affidavit ballots was not properly called and therefore was illegal under the state's Open Meetings Act."In my opinion, if it was properly called, it would have prevented us from being here," Baker said. "It was an improperly called meeting."
Baker said if Eaton and Tullos would have been at the meeting, they could have made objections.
You left out this part. Eaton wasn't tied until a certain elections board met in secret to count 9 provisional votes. Without those votes Tullos won. This is what was challenged.
Democrat hacks leaving out dispositive facts while smearing Republicans? Hard to believe....not.
You left out this part. Eaton wasn't tied until a certain elections board met in secret to count 9 provisional votes. Without those votes Tullos won. This is what was challenged.
There you go with those damned facts again. When will you ever quit doing that? Enquiring minds want to know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
