NY-20: Breaking: Tedisco Loses In Court, Nets Only 163 Votes In Saratoga

Dr. Andrew reporting (4.00 / 8)

He's dead Jim. Dead!

With Washington County reporting additional votes for Scott Murphy and Tedisco's dismal showing in Saratoga County... Murphy ends the day with an 86 vote lead. Tedisco ends the day without any hope left.

Congratulations Congressman-elect Murphy!!!

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:21:11 PM CDT

Yep -- it's Goodbye, Sister 'Disco! (4.00 / 6)

His underwhelming Saratoga numbers, the judge's rulings, and also the underwhelming military ballot results... It's over.

I'm not saying Murphy should let his guard down. But Tedisco is toast.

---

by: Hudson @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:28:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmm, I just read the actual ruling... (4.00 / 3)

... and though my confidence that Murphy will now win is undiminished, I must say it's a rather oddly-argued document. The grounds Brands uses for arriving at his conclusion are not exactly ideal or common-sensical.

The ruling keeps the door open a crack for ballots to be counted and then un-counted -- by an unusual though evidently not-unheard-of mechanism of opening the ballots, keeping a photocopy with the enclosing envelope, then counting the originals.

And it does leave Tedisco's attorney some wiggle room to argue the whole residency question, which will be taken up next week, evidently:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1426...

I also find it peculiar that Brands (and one other court) has found that campaigns are not allowed to have access to absentee ballot applications. I have FOIL'ed and obtained copies of these without difficulty in the past. This is a weaker procedural basis for rejecting some of the challenges than addressing their merits (or lack thereof).

---

by: Hudson @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 17:13:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That all does sound (4.00 / 3)

very strange. But even so... if Tedisco didn't have a lead coming out of Saratoga he isn't going to find one anywhere else.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 20:28:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You think like an honest person... (4.00 / 2)

... but that's not how Republicans do business.  Remember?

Murphy has an honest win, but T'Disco isn't quite dead yet, and I have been told that some people (Cheney) are too bad to die.  I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see this matter dying anytime soon.  

For instance, perhaps:

1)  The pizza stain judge set this up for appeal

    a)  By the next court, which I believe is in Brooklyn.  Tedisco will lose the case, but gain in public opinion as a "librull NYC court" helps the Dems to steal another election, MN Franken all over again.

    b)  All the way to a federal court, the heck with the 10th amendment and states rights, Bush v Gore all over again.  It didn't matter that Bush 41's Supremes stole an election.  Bear in mind that the O"Keefe ruling allows that counted votes can be uncounted at a later date.  

I'm more suspicious of a), that this is all now a PR stunt to gain public opinion that "Dems is just as crooked as Reps."  Take MN for instance.  The people in the know have not increased in numbers, just level of annoyance.  But as each day of the MN battle passes, the general public of the more apathetic people watching from a comfortable distance seem to increasingly shrug their shoulders and say "Yep, both sides are always corrupt", which is exactly what Republicans want them to believe.  

That's the way Republicans do business.  The most disheartening part of banging on doors is that we hear those words all too often.  And when Republicans can't win, they take full advantage of any doors they have opened up to gain in the world of propaganda that gets people to believe all sorts of weird things.  I know.  I'm a reformed Republican and remember some of the crazy stuff I used to believe, silly me!  

---

by: Patriotic_Reader @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 21:14:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Franken all over again. In MN the judges have mostly been non Dems. (4.00 / 1)

In fact that was the strategy from day 1. The first judicial panel was balanced. Sec'ty of State Ritchie did that to preempt accusations of partisanship.

The panel of 3 judges-- which just pronounced Franken the winner--were 1 Rep; 1 Ind; 1 DFL.

The public, acc'd to polls, say the process has been fair.

---

by: LOBlue @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 22:09:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Photocopying (4.00 / 1)

The photocopying of the ballot is a very peculiar idea. I gather it has been used at least once before. But the potential for abuse of voters' privacy is huge. The practice would seem to invite litigation.

---

by: Hudson @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:50:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

GOP + Elections (4.00 / 5)

I've watched various election squabbles over the years, and the Republicans always come down on the side of wanting to count FEWER votes.  Every time.

---

by: global yokel @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:22:39 PM CDT

Tedisco will be back next year, (4.00 / 3)

and he'll lose again, in good part due to his junkyard-dog temperament that was evident in his TV ads and his absentee tactics.  

---

by: devtob @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:25:45 PM CDT

I don't think he'd win (4.00 / 2)

the Republican Primary next year.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 20:28:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I doubt he'll quit (4.00 / 2)

his cushy day job for a chance to lose again...

New Yorkers against Harold Ford

---

by: Jrathman @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 05:22:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yea! (4.00 / 4)

A very good day for Scott Murphy, but, remember, in the movies the monster is always not quite dead the first time.

One hopes Tedisco will show enough class to concede, and go out on positive note.

---

by: Hyde @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:29:35 PM CDT

Yeah, really (4.00 / 4)

When the Tedisco campaign did the pre-emptive strike to require impounding ballots the day before the election, and then Jimmy pulled an all-nighter bothering people at their night-shift jobs the night before the polls opened, I thought it was all to avoid making a concession speech and wishing the winner good luck.

So, "gracious" is gone by weeks.... but I'll give him til about 6 pm tonight to make that phone call/concession speech before I will call it "scandalously poor sportsmanship."

---

by: robinia @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:36:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd like to think... (4.00 / 2)

... that the increased publicity surrounding this race in the past 4-5 days may have played some small role in converting Judge Brands (for now) from a guy who flips close races to the GOP, to a judge who rules on the merits.

I still am curious to see how he deals with the substance of the residency challenges which were not knocked out by his other rulings. There is still potential for mischief there, if he were to throw the GOP a bone back, making it harder for these largely Democratic absentee voters to vote in future elections.

---

by: Hudson @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:33:24 PM CDT

Can someone please explain the chain of appeals? (4.00 / 1)

I assume it would end up at the Court of Appeals, but what are the steps before that? Thanks!

---

by: LOBlue @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 21:16:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trial court, which is state Supreme Court in NY, (4.00 / 1)

then the Appelate Division in Brooklyn, then the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court

---

by: devtob @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 21:45:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah Murphy, (4.00 / 3)

  and yes, i wonder about the residency decision that this Republican Judge will decide next Tues. or Wed. In the meantime, i think its OVER.  (somewhat relaxed Sigh)

---

by: yorkocean @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:52:19 PM CDT

saratoga (4.00 / 2)

A comment left in the previous thread suggests that perhaps Saratoga didn't count all their absentees today, and that there may be as many as 700+ still to be counted.  Anyone else know what the deal is on that?

---

by: global yokel @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:59:13 PM CDT

Those are the challenged ballots. (4.00 / 2)

Or so I've read on other sites, namely Daily Kos.

---

by: wmlawman @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 17:14:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you mean... (4.00 / 2)

... 700 challenged absentees, or another pool of them yet to be addressed yet?

---

by: Hudson @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 17:16:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The challenged ones (4.00 / 3)

are all that are left to the best of my knowledge.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 20:31:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

disregard stupid previous comment.... (4.00 / 2)

The uncounted ballots in Saratoga are the ones that were challenged by Tedisco.  My bad....

---

by: global yokel @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 17:14:10 PM CDT

Republicans at Board of Elections (4.00 / 4)

What hasn't gotten enough attention in this race is the fact that Tedisco's antics were supported and facilitated by Republican officials at the various Board of Elections offices in the District.  When an absentee ballot is about to be opened and counted, either campaign can challenge it, and then the Democratic and Republican election commissioners vote to either sustain or overrule the challenge.  The Tedisco people were challenging something like 60% of the absentees in precincts they assumed were not favorable to their interests, hoping that they could take those ballots to court and find a friendly judge to toss the challenged ballots out of the pool of absentees.  The only way this scam could work is if the GOP officials at BOE sustained all of his bullshit objections to perfectly legitimate votes.  The reprehensible conduct of Republican election commissioners needs to be exposed for what it is.

---

by: global yokel @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 21:48:26 PM CDT

I actually wouldn't expect Democratic election commissioners.... (4.00 / 1)

...to do any different.  An election official overruling someone's challenge lacks a certain air of authority that the courts do provide.  It's a nice idea in theory as it would stomp down frivolous challenges, but in practice I bet any official overruling a campaign lawyer would commence with unbelievable screaming about that "undemocratic process" from whatever lawyer was slighted.

In this case, I think that election officials are wise to pass that buck onto the courts whatever their party affiliation may be.

That doesn't mean that an election official shouldn't take a lawyer aside and school him/her privately.

I see what this objection strategy is trying to accomplish.  I also see that it has to a degree, backfired.

The more we can pin this dragging out of the process on Republicans, the less sympathy they'll see from the masses.  I know plenty of people D or R, that are absolutely sick of election season.  Anyone perceived as dragging out that process unnecessarily certainly does not benefit.

Give them enough rope...they'll hang themselves.  Mr. Tedisco proves that point over and over.

---

by: pcoleman @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:12:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's what I don't get about Brands' ruling (4.00 / 1)

Brands finds that a ballot can be opened Monday if both Commissioners at a given BOE ruled against a ballot.

However, my understanding of (and direct experience with) these disputes is that all candidates clearly do have the right to go to court to appeal a decision by the Commissioners. Any decision by any "agency" as defined in State law, there is always some possibility for appeal (e.g. an Article 79 lawsuit if a FOIL request is denied). That's our system, and it is a good one.

So what is unclear to me from Brands' mushily-written ruling is whether he is treating Tedisco's request for guidance on these ballots as formal appeals of those rulings now, or saying (incorrectly) that the candidate's can't appeal the unanimous ruling of two Commissioners. The former would make a little more sense, but he hasn't heard specifics on those appeals yet.

Moreover, there is effectively no difference under the law between two Commissioners both rejecting a challenge, and a split decision on a challenge -- either way, the challenge is not upheld. Therefore I don't see what basis there is for treating these differently.

One possible explanation is that the Tedisco folks may have screwed up in the manner of their challenges (or individual BOEs may have mishandled these). The proper procedure as I've always seen it play out is for the Commissioners to rule; and if a challenge is not upheld, the aggrieved candidate lodges a formal complaint which prevents each challenged ballot from being immediately opened, and then goes to court with a detailed case, with explicit evidence, about why the Commissioners made an error.

It seems to me that the above procedure has been leapfrogged several times here along the way.

In the short term, Brands' ruling on this matter would appear to aid Murphy. But I'm not sure he's actually right on the details of the law, which could mean that Tedisco in theory could drag this through the courts for a long time going after any procedural errors by the judge.

In short, I would like to see these ballots opened posthaste, but not if it introduces some serious error in the process that keeps Tedisco's hopes alive via endless legal appeal of some technical procedural errors.

---

by: Hudson @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 11:14:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

P.S. (4.00 / 1)

To clarify: Tedisco's people inverted the process by pre-emptively filing a lawsuit in Brands' court, in order to go "judge-shopping," and then may have screwed up by belatedly by challenging peoples' absentee applications rather than filing a timely challenge of their individual ballots. This creates an unholy mess to untangle with the election law.

I'm starting to wonder if Judge Brands is more clueless than corrupt...

---

by: Hudson @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 12:04:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]