| For those just starting to read about this recount, it is worth reiterating that the Tedisco campaign filed a lawsuit in Poughkeepsie before the voting even started on March 31st. Why? This allowed them effectively to pick the court where potential voting disputes would be heard. And his lawyers evidently calculated that this pre-emptive move would have a higher chance of landing them a sympathetic judge than leaving things to chance.
From what follows below, it appears they may have calculated correctly.
A fellow Columbia County Democrat brought the following article to my attention, and it should give the Murphy campaign great pause:
http://www.theweeklybeat.net/2...
THE DUTCHESS BEAT
23 December 2005
Judge Rules for GOP in Contested Races
by Jeremy Schwartz
Supreme Court Judge James V. Brands on Monday ruled in favor of Republicans in three contested races, including one that could have tipped the balance of power in the Dutchess County Legislature.
Brands dismissed a lawsuit by Democrat Duane Smith, a candidate for the Legislature in District 6, on technical grounds.
Brands' grounds for dismissing the Democrats' suits were highly creative. The candidates' lawyers did not miss their legal deadline to file paperwork; but because the court did not process that paperwork in a timely way, the Judge used this as an excuse to dismiss their suit.
I'm not going to cite the entire article, which is linked above; but rather will highlight some of the more eyebrow-raising passages below.
Democratic candidate for the Dutchess County Legislature in District 6 Duane Smith called Brands' actions "politically motivated":
"Judge Brands and Katherine Harris apparently graduated from the same law school, the law school that taught them how to deliver an election to the political party that has them in their pocket," he said.
Thomas Halley, Smith's attorney, was incensed by Brand's decision.
"It's non-sensible and self-contradictory. How can you be too early and too late? We did all we could to get it in on time," he said.
Meanwhile, Erik Haight, a Republican candidate who was in another tight race which went before Judge Brands got what he wanted:
Haight, who was ahead by five votes, objected to 14 absentee ballots, the majority from the River Valley Care Nursing Home. Brands sustained all of Haight's objections, ruling that some residents failed to differentiate between primary and general elections on their ballots, while others did not provide proof of a disability, other than identifying themselves as nursing home residents.
Lawrence said the ruling sent the wrong message to voters.
"It (the ruling) said never vote with an absentee ballot, because absentee ballots don't count," he said.
And then comes the case which speaks most directly to our current election dispute:
Brands also ruled in favor of Republican incumbent Todd Tancredi in his race against Democratic challenger Jim Challey for a spot on the town board in the Town of Poughkeepsie's 6th Ward.
Tancredi, who was up by three votes, challenged seven ballots. The grounds for the challenges were diverse, ranging from an alleged pizza stain on one ballot to an apparent misspelling of a voter's name by the board of elections.
There was some question on several ballots as to the primary residency of the voter. Brands sustained five of Tancredi's objections, while overruling two others, leaving him with a one-vote victory.
And who was the Republican attorney who handled all these matters before Judge Brands for the GOP?
John Ciampoli. The same guy heading up the Tedisco disenfranchisement effort.
Did you get that? In recent close elections, Brands has issued rulings based on tortuous logic which allowed Republican candidates to eke out very narrow victories -- siding with the very attorney hired by Tedisco.
Now, Murphy can always appeal any blatantly erroneous ruling by Brands. But in New York, it is a lot harder to overturn a ruling that to win one the first time around. |
