Sources: Scarborough Will Appeal Election Ruling
He may have cleaned out his office at the S.C. State House, but Wallace Scarborough isn’t throwing in the towel just yet.
In fact, a lawmaker close to the James Island Representative … err, former Representative (for the moment) … tells FITS that Scarborough is “leaning strongly” toward taking the next step in a high stakes game of political poker.
Other sources tell us that Scarborough’s decision has already been made, and that he will announce on Friday that he is appealing a controversial Election Commission ruling and taking his case directly to the House of Representatives.
The drama began over a month ago when Scarborough – a fourth-term Republican – was narrowly defeated by Democrat Anne Peterson Hutto in his bid for reelection to House District 115, which includes Folly Beach and James Island.
Hutto won the election by 211 votes (out of nearly 18,000 votes cast), although Scarborough’s attorneys are alleging that at least 365 votes were cast illegally.
The Election Commission refused to grant Scarborough’s request for a new election last week, but the House of Representatives could void the results of the current race if they find the evidence compelling, thus creating a vacancy that would require the Speaker of the House to set a date for a new election.
Apparently, there has been widespread confusion within the House chamber (surprise) as to what their options are, with many members mistakenly believing that they are being asked to seat Scarborough over Peterson Hutto.
“His biggest problem is many members of the body think they are being asked to ignore the results of an election,” said one of the lawmakers we spoke with. “No one wants to do that. No one is going to just install him into the seat.”
Scarborough’s support in the chamber improves dramatically when members realize that their choice is whether or not to void the election results based on the evidence presented, the lawmaker said.
Should Scarborough’s appeal come Friday, it would be taken up when the House reconvenes in January.
First it would be heard by the House Judiciary subcommittee on Election Law, which is chaired by Rep. Alan Clemmons. Evidence would be presented before that panel, with another hearing before the full Judiciary Committee. If both bodies submit a recommendation to void the election, then the full House votes up-or-down on that recommendation.
In addition to speaking with his colleagues and attorneys, FITS has also have learned that Scarborough had a meeting with House Speaker Bobby Harrell yesterday to discuss the situation.
Needless to say, stay tuned …
Comments
By C'mon People on December 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
dude, give it up. you lost, get over it. run again in 2010 and win it back.
By From Chucktown on December 11th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Wallace, you used questionable tactics to take the from Lynn Seithel. It’s only fair that you lose. Save the taxpayers some money, you lost, get over it.
By Captured on the internet on December 11th, 2008 at 11:00 am
MEMO
Date: December 10, 2008
From: Nelson Mullins
To: Will Folks
Subject: Scarborough spin
Please post the following procedural precis immediately in a blog favorable to our client’s appeal of the November 4 election in House District 115: “First it would be heard by the House Judiciary subcommittee on Election Law, which is chaired by Rep. Alan Clemmons. Evidence would be presented before that panel, with another hearing before the full Judiciary Committee. If both bodies submit a recommendation to void the election, then the full House votes up-or-down on that recommendation.”
Publish that precis word for word. Under no circumstances — repeat, NO circumstances — should you make any reference to the fact that the House would be hearing our client’s appeal as an appellate body and, as such, is not a finder of fact and must accept as true the findings made by the state board of canvassers when it upheld the election, or to the fact that the House can only void the election if it finds that board clearly committed an error of law. Also avoid any reference to the fact that an elected body throwing out a valid election that has been already beeen confirmed by the state board of canvassers, which heard evidence firsthand in a lengthy hearing — is unheard of.
Finally, in order provide cover for Republicans in the House who would like to void the election, but fear public retribution at the polls next time around, include in your post this quote from an anonymous legislator: “Scarborough’s biggest problem is many members of the body think they are being asked to ignore the results of an election. No one wants to do that. No one is going to just install him into the seat.” Then have that “legislator” say something along these lines: “Scarborough’s support in the chamber improves dramatically when members realize that their choice is whether or not to void the election results based on the evidence presented.”
Under no circumstance should you make any reference to the fact that any legislator with an IQ above 80 could possibly think the House had the power to “just install Scarborough into the seat.” That must seem to be a plausible mistake that any legislator could make in order for the spin to work. But then, I am telling you something you already know. Just do what you do best.