Democrat Lawyers Claim Voting Machines Stole Election for House Republican
I haven't spent much time covering the long miserable slog that was the NY-22 House race where a small number of votes divided the Republican winner and the Democrat loser resulting in an extended process that involved a judge personally going over the votes, Democrat attempts to challenge every vote, and that dragged on until now. NY-22 is a demonstration of what a long and grueling process a forensic examination of the votes in one House race looks like.
It's also been an extended class in Democrat election hypocrisy.
Brindisi's actions aren't anywhere as bad as Rita Hart in Iowa actually turning to Pelosi to challenge the election results at the worst possible time for Democrats.
The Rita Hart campaign filed a petition with the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday to contest Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ six-vote victory, saying the uncounted ballots will ensure Hart a lead.
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, also tweeted support for Miller-Meeks, writing “Congress and all of its members should make clear that it will not allow candidates to skip a judicial process for a political one. I know Iowans won’t accept it.”
But NY-22 is a reminder that skepticism about voting machines has always been bipartisan.
Democrat Anthony Brinidi's lawyers had been trying to argue that Justice Scott DelConte should pause certifying the election results because he and his lawyers want a hand recount. Brindisi's lawyers said several voting machines incorrectly counted votes and shorted the Democrat.
A legal filing shows the Democrat's lawyers are claiming that voting machines may have miscounted thousands of votes.
“In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi,” the candidate’s lawyers said in Monday filings.
Thousands is quite a number.
Democrats are obviously allowed to make such arguments without being accused of incitement, sedition, or being deplatformed. But that's always the case. We have two sets of rules. Those two sets of rules are becoming more obvious than ever and that's leading to a profound distrust in the system. If the pundits who keep talking about reality really want to zero in on the origin of conspiracy theories, they might start with their own double standards.