On Thursday we learned the names of the five people who will be tasked with untangling the mess that is the congressional race for the District 9 seat and a District Court judge’s seat in this county, which is less talked about but of immense interest locally.
Although we have gone on record as saying we believe that a new election is demanded in District 9, we don’t have all the evidence, and accept that we could be wrong and that the allegations of absentee ballot fraud are either exaggerated or, if deemed true, were not of sufficient size to reverse Republican Mark Harris’ apparent victory.
What matters most is not whether Harris, Democrat Dan McCready or even someone else should a do-over vote retreat all the way to the primary is seated, but that the people’s choice is eventually identified. There must be trust in the process, and the new state Board of Elections has a grand opportunity to at least reclaim some of that ground.
We know little of the five people appointed to the board by Gov. Roy Cooper, but we are willing to trust his word that he named people he believed would follow the evidence and do what is right.
We know firsthand that “evidence” continues to be sought. Although we elected not to do a story about it as the potential issue appeared to evaporate as soon as we discovered it, this week a Democratic outfit that is trying to build a case for a new election was digging in the wrong place.
We know of several people, including a member of The Robesonian’s newsroom, who were contacted by a group claiming to be working on behalf of Democrats who wanted those people to sign an affidavit stating that someone other than themselves had requested an absentee ballot for the general election in November. If the person was unwilling to sign an affidavit, they were encouraged to call the state Board of Elections, apparently to build the case of the problem with absentee ballots in November.
Well we did call the Board of Elections and found that no one had tried to pilfer an absentee ballot in the name of the person in our newsroom or four or five additional people who had complained to the local Board of Elections. The confusion appeared to be that these people had voted One-Stop, but were listed as absentee voters, and the Democratic group apparently believed that even though the ballot was cast in-person, that an absentee ballot had been requested.
Confused? It’s confusing, but the bottom line is people were being encouraged to tell the state Board of Elections that someone other than themselves had requested an absentee ballot in their name when that had not happened.
We share this as proof that not all evidence is created the same, and this muddying of the water, intentional or otherwise, will only make the work of the new Elections Board more complicated. But it doesn’t eclipse well-founded allegations against the Bladen County hired gun who worked on behalf of Harris’ campaign that McCready supporters insist stole the election.
It has been three months since the election, and the new Congress was sworn in last month. But this county and others that are part of District 9 remain without representation. It’s still not clear when the new Elections Board will hold an evidentiary hearing on District 9 — and, we presume, other uncertified races to include the one for District Court judge — but Thursday’s formation of the new board is a step in the right direction.
Let’s hope that the board can stay on that track.