SC House Will Decide Scarborough’s Fate
The S.C. House of Representatives officially has a political hot potato in its lap.
As we reported yesterday, Wallace Scarborough – the former and possibly future GOP Representative from Charleston – has decided to appeal an Election Commission ruling which upheld the results of his narrow November 4 defeat at the hands of Democrat Anne Peterson Hutto.
The only twist? Scarborough is appealing the decision to his former colleagues, which in the words of one prominent Democrat “guarantees a federal lawsuit in the event this election is overturned.”
Nevertheless, FITS obtained the following statement from Scarborough attorney Butch Bowers:
“Today, on behalf of Rep. Wallace Scarborough, I have filed an appeal of last week’s decision by the State Election Commission regarding the general election for House District 115. It is my strong opinion that the Commission made an error of law in this matter, and it must be corrected on appeal. Allowing it to stand would undermine the integrity of the electoral process for years to come.
Of the nearly 800 voters who were originally identified as casting improper votes, solid and direct legal evidence was presented to prove that well over 300 votes were cast in this election by ineligible voters, far more than the 211 vote margin between the two candidates. Therefore, as a matter of state law, a new election is required to be set. By ignoring that law, the Commission has trampled upon the rights of the thousands of voters who correctly cast their ballots and has allowed their legitimate votes to be diluted by hundreds of illegally cast votes. Today’s appeal is on behalf of those voters, and all voters who follow the law.â€
We spoke briefly with Peterson Hutto’s campaign, which is issuing a statement momentarily.
In fact hey! Here it is …
Today, Mike Meehan, who was the manager of Representative-Elect Anne Peterson Hutto’s successful campaign for State House of Representatives, made the following statement regarding Wallace Scarborough’s decision to appeal his loss to his former colleagues in the SC House.
“Anne Peterson Hutto was elected on November 4th by a victory large enough that no recount was needed. Her victory was certified by the Republican-controlled Charleston County Election Commission and by the Republican-controlled South Carolina Election Commission. Last week, Wallace Scarborough’s baseless protest was unanimously rejected by the SC Election Commission.
So let’s be clear — Mr. Scarborough is asking legislators to ignore the will of the voters and just install their buddy in his old office again.
Mr. Scarborough is asking his former GOP colleagues to ignore the results of the election, ignore the certification of the Charleston County Election Commission, ignore the certification of the SC Election Commission, ignore the 5-0 protest ruling, and simply declare him the winner anyway.
This would be an outrage and an embarrassment to South Carolina, and the ultimate in good old boy politics.
Mr. Scarborough is understandably unhappy that he lost the election. But that’s no excuse for asking his former legislator buddies to ignore the decision of the voters and throw out the election.
That’s a complete disregard for democracy and a slap in the face of every voter on James Island and Folly Beach.
Mr. Scarborough’s clear contempt for the voters is something that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents should speak out against.
This is not the old Soviet Union. The government does not pick our elected officials, the voters do. And the voters chose Anne Peterson Hutto.”
FITSNews … we report, you decide. For once, anyway.
We promise not to make it a habit.
Comments
By Jim on December 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
This is pathetic. Wonder if Bobby Harrell will show leadership and call BS on this?
By rick not Quinn on December 11th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
OK Democrats this is a serious question that I want a serious answer for.
If the law says that you MUST be a resident of the district to vote, and more people than the margin of victory voted but LIVE OUTSIDE the district, than should the law the law be upheld and a new election ordered? Now, you dont have to prove who they voted for, you just have to prove that these people moved outside the district (proven by 4% home tax bills, drivers lic, ect) and came back to the district to vote. If the law is clear that you must reside in the district, than how do you not order a new election?
Now forget that WS is being a pain for putting everyone through an ordeal, just answer the question based on the law.
By the way Bobby Harrell is pissed at Wallace because he is scared to take a stand. What a wimp.
By Bob on December 11th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Now is the time for SC GOP Legislators to show some backbone and finally stand up to this joker. Any legislator who supports this appeal does not support democracy. Wonder how many fascists there are in the state house?
By Old Bike Dude on December 11th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
If Scarborough gets his seat given back to him, I’d hope the Gen Ass would at least present Ms Hutto with a $200 gift card to Bits O Lace. I mean isn’t that what Scarborough gave the other women he screwed.
By rick not Quinn on December 11th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Bob: READ my above post. If the law was broken then HOW is the election supporting Democracy. Are you saying Democracy is made up by elections where the law is not upheld? Again, forget for a minute that its wallace we are talking about. This is about the law not him. Dont get pissed, I’m posing these as serious thoughts and questions.
By Philip Branton on December 11th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
LOL…..Lets have a REVOTE..!! I will personally get OUT and walk all over FOlly Beach to make sure everyone knows who SHOWED up for the DEBATE at James Island High School and WHO didn’t…!!! Wallace….I did NOT see you at the Parker’s Ferry LANDFILL hearing the other night..??? You sure are acting like YOU are looking out for the people of this STATE..???
What is your STAND on the Jasper ..”Wildlfe Habitat” award for WASTE Management..??
Did you call out Mr. Hardee for his actions …??
Have you gotten in BOB PEELER’s …FACE..?? …to protect Cherokee County residents….or AT least inform them that they have a CHOICE about the landfill being snookered IN..??!?!
I’ve not heard ONE peep from you about the “NECK AREA NOOSE” being squeezed around taxpayers WALLETS…??
The LEAST you could do would be to get a powered “SawZall” and get out in the waterways and take care of some of these abandoned…boats..??
I’ve been down to James Island City Hall to have chats and offer advice …and HECK..I live on Folly..!!!! I didn’t see YOU..??? When is the LAST time you talked to Mary CLARK to see what you could do to help her fight off Riley’s “Hoard”….????
WHAT…..??? WE WANT TO KNOW..!!!
By WMD on December 12th, 2008 at 12:40 am
The Speaker who is real power cannot be fooled Sic(KKK) Your fake power ploy will never work. We know what you are trying to do so forget it.
By hmmmm on December 12th, 2008 at 4:08 am
What no one even talks about is that of those 300 “illegal by Butch Bowers I’m a Nelson Mullins Whore for the Right” is that how many of those were for Wallace? I mean he did live out of the district for a while
By rick not Quinn on December 12th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Dear Bob: You people through out flaming words jusy to hear yourself type. Like your use fascists and pondering how many there are at the statehouse. That is stupid. Do you know what that big word means. Probably not but it sounded like a good bomg to through. There are NO fascist at the statehouse, liberals maybe, but not fascist. Stupid comments like that show that you have nothing much to say.
And for the rest of you, how about thinking about the legal questions asked above. Again, forget about Wallace being the one involved and answer according to the law, or is that to hard for you Bob?
By Silence the Noise on December 12th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Please Bobby opps I mean Representative Harrell oops I mean Hitler….give Fits more fuel for the fire……keep up your shenannigans.
If you give Wallace his seat back you can rest assured your fate will be sealed……anything short of ordering a “revote” or “special election” and you’re done.
By DA Manos on December 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I have heard of sore losers, but this takes the cake.
What a shot in the dark! Oh, sorry, I forgot, that is his standard of operation.
Hey, Slick Willie, how’s that for a frivolous piece of lawyering? Wasting the taxpayers’ time and money by tying up the business of the State House on something that hasn’t got a chance in the world to succeed.
By Gen. Longstreet on December 12th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Dear rick not Quinn,
First, you have an odd name, sir.
Next, “facist” is not that big a word, and its intended meaning is plain in the context of Colonel Harrell’s treatment of the two rebels.
Recall, sir, that the term “fascism” derives from the Latin word “fasces,” which in turn refers to a bundle to rods. The symbolism of “bundling” was meant to suggest strength through unity (a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break).
Anyone remotely familiar with Colonel Harrell’s view of politics realizes why the term “fascist” is apt. He believes that the House Republican Caucus must speak as one voice in order to be strong and that diffident factions must be punished for the good of the herd.
My compliments, sir. Did I mention that you have a strange name?
Gen. Longstreet
By Extra Point on December 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I’ve been wanting to see a Democratic-controlled House, maybe this will spark that fire.
By Bill on December 12th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Note to the Legislature…
ARTICLE XV.
IMPEACHMENT
SECTION 1. Power of impeachment; vote required; suspension of officer impeached.
The House of Representatives alone shall have the power of impeachment in cases of serious crimes or serious misconduct in office by officials elected on a statewide basis, state judges, and such other state officers as may be designated by law. The affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members elected shall be required for an impeachment. Any officer impeached shall thereby be suspended from office until judgment in the case shall have been pronounced, and the office shall be filled during the trial in such manner as may be provided by law.
SECTION 2. Trial of impeachments; judgment; proceedings no bar to criminal prosecution; impeachment of Governor.
All impeachments shall be tried by the Senate, and when sitting for that purpose Senators shall be under oath or affirmation. No person shall be convicted except by a vote of two-thirds of all members elected. Judgment in such case shall be limited to removal from office. Impeachment proceedings, whether or not resulting in conviction, shall not be a bar to criminal prosecution and punishment according to law.
By Gene E. Nowak on December 12th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
This article and discussion should be about the accuracy of the complaint and the remedy available under the law. The name calling that is supposed to shut up the opposing points of view is typical of those whose minds are closed to the truth.
Those that oppose the review have not addressed this issue, They just raise spurious issues. Another attempt to win by threats what you can not win by honest debate or in the ballot box.
If 300 ineligible voters voted and the margin is less than that; it is reasonable to assume that the will of the voters may have been circumscribed.
In that case the remedy is a do over.
By DA Manos on December 15th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Whose mind is closed to the truth?
http://jonesonpolitics.com/2008/12/15/wallace-scarborough-has-lost-his-ever-lovin-mind/
This is an odd fellow indeed. Not the kind of person I want making laws in my state.
Trackbacks