Comments on: Mathieson selectively shines light

By: Sam

Sam — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:10:25 +0000

Well, it is an opportunity to shine light on the process – for example, the box of ballots that only turned up after nearly half an hour of looking for them in Martinsville during the Perriello-Goode recount (the numbers did check out on those ballots, for the record), but as far as overturning the election results, it’s definitely a possibility, especially when dealing with absentee ballots that were folded. The Opti-Scan machine doesn’t like those; we got a radically different result on Martinsville absentees, something like Goode +39 and Perriello +11 (in a universe of 800 ballots or so), while the other precincts had mostly been 1 or 2 votes either way. The Opti-Scan machine just did not read those ballots the first time through.
We did have a one precinct that gave Perriello +11 or so, so it’s definitely possible for one precinct to overturn the results, especially since we are “voter intent” state here in Virginia. It’s possible that the doofuses who can’t fill out their ballots right will decide the election (for example, circling the candidate’s name, putting a check mark in the oval instead of filling it in, crossing out the other guy’s name, circling the little black tick marks on the sides of the ballot, I could go on…)
The electronic voting machines is simply a recheck of the results, so there’s no chance of those numbers changing, provided they were read correctly during the canvass. Overall, it’s definitely a possibility, but Villanueva shouldn’t be losing sleep.

By: Not Tim Murtaugh

Not Tim Murtaugh — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:16:20 +0000

Vivian, how the hell do you know that the SBE told him to report ZERO cash on hand? That makes no sense. No one has the authority to tell a candidate to break the law – and the law in this case is very clear. Knowingly filing a false campaign report is against the law – even for Democrats! There was a cash on hand balance with his bank account and that is what he should have reported. Duh!!

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:32:02 +0000

Vivian, I don’t care if he was listening to Jeff McWaters. The citizens have a right to know his cash on hand during a campaign.

And I don’t have as much experience with embezzlement cases than obviously Democrats do, but if it takes two months to investigate one person was stealing money from one account, no wonder government can’t build a road in under 20 years.

By: JR Hoeft

JR Hoeft — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:20:12 +0000

Brian,
Not sure I exactly concur with your assessment on Mathieson’s transparency (or lack thereof), but I do wonder why he has requested this recount on the taxpayer’s dime, especially when there is a group out there called “Mathieson for Congress.”

If he has other motives, this seems to me to be an extreme waste of taxpayer dollars.

However, he does have a shot at picking up a few votes given the new mode of recounting optical scan ballots. Check out this post from the William and Mary Election Law Blog for a detailed review of the new law which went into effect last year.

By: Vivian J. Paige

Vivian J. Paige — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:00:22 +0000

Brian – Mathieson followed the instructions of the SBE on how to report the cash balance.

As for the embezzlement investigation, once Mathieson made the report, the State Police take over the investigation. They do all of the leg work and then turn over the evidence to the Commonwealth’s Attorney, who handles the indictment. It is obvious that you’ve never followed an embezzlement case before. I, unfortunately, have. The process is the process and it is out of the hands of the person filing the complaint to do anything.