NC-9 absentees: Signed unsealed & undelivered?
by Tom Sullivan
North Carolina's 9th Congressional District stretches from Charlotte to Fayetteville along the SC border (via Wikipedia)
N.C. State Elections Director Kim Strach opened Monday's formal hearing into election fraud allegations in the 2018 NC-9 congressional race by announcing investigators had uncovered a "coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme" in Bladen and Robeson counties on the eastern end of the district.
It was the first of what could be three days of testimony into the country's last unresolved 2018 congressional race. To summarize (from a December post):
At the center of it all, a political operative named McCrae Dowless, 62, hired by Republican Mark Harris's campaign and other candidates to assist voters with absentee ballot requests. Convicted of insurance fraud in 1992, Dowless is now a person of interest in the state's investigation into an alleged absentee ballot "harvesting" operation.
On Election night, Harris led Democrat Dan McCready by 905 votes.
— Michael Stolp (@StolpWSOC9) February 18, 2019At the center of Monday's hearing was Lisa Britt, one of the crew Dowless paid to both help rural voters request absentee ballots. Britt's mother was married to Dowless in the early 1990s. Both were living at his home at times during 2018.
Britt admitted that if she had not realized at first this operation was illegal, she soon did, but continued out of loyalty to Dowless. "Mr. Dowless has been a father figure to me for 30 years," Britt said. Others witnesses confirmed that many of the ballots collected came from relatives, friends, and neighbors impacted by Hurricane Florence.As we await the start of @ncsbe's NC09 hearing, here's a data viz of the alleged election fraud in action. This video shows the locations and dates of absentee ballots requested but never returned across NC09, breaking out in Robeson & Bladen counties like sore wound. #ncpol pic.twitter.com/NSGJbawLoV
— EQV Analytics (@AnalyticsEqv) February 18, 2019
The preview of evidence alone shows state investigators found a lot we haven’t heard yet. pic.twitter.com/MCs9cSVmTy
— Michael Stolp (@StolpWSOC9) February 18, 2019
— Michael Stolp (@StolpWSOC9) February 18, 2019Britt testified that Dowless called team members to his home in December after the State Board refused to certify election and he coached them to "stick together" and to not admit collecting ballots, as he'd paid them to. Britt admitted she had lied in an interview with WBTV when she denied collecting absentee ballots. A convicted felon herself, Britt was ineligible to vote in 2018.
Dowless when called refused to testify without a grant of immunity.Britt says Dowless told her: “They don’t have anything on us.”
— Democracy NC (@democracync) February 18, 2019
And then there’s this text Dowless told Britt to give to her mother and say at this hearing today. #nc09 #ncpol pic.twitter.com/QwQ3yCdl1v
(1) Ineligible voters sufficient in number to change the outcome of the election were allowed to vote in the election, and it is not possible from examination of the official ballots to determine how those ineligible voters voted and to correct the totals.After so much G.O.P. legal and rhetorical caterwauling over the need for sweeping voter law changes to fight the scourge of widespread-yet-undetected voter fraud, the party is minimizing the impacts of the Dowless operation paid for by a Republican candidate. Republicans argue Dowless' regrettable activities were insufficient to change the outcome of the election (3). Democrats argue the entire election is tainted (4) and new election is required. Under this level of state and national media scrutiny, Republicans may have the tougher case to make.
(2) Eligible voters sufficient in number to change the outcome of the election were improperly prevented from voting.
(3) Other irregularities affected a sufficient number of votes to change the outcome of the election.
(4) Irregularities or improprieties occurred to such an extent that they taint the results of the entire election and cast doubt on its fairness.
Adding to the partisan currents, the state elections board requires a supermajority of four votes to call for a new election. With three Democrats and two Republicans, the board will not have the votes to take any action if its members vote along partisan lines. That would turn attention to Congress, which also has the power to order a new election.One seat in the hearing room bore the tag, “U.S. House counsel.” It was occupied.