Rick Jore’s website has 7 votes that were not marked strictly according to instructions, but which seem to show intent to vote for Jore. Nevertheless, the Montana Supreme Court invalidated all of these 7 votes.
Jore’s webpage also shows 2 votes that were not marked strictly according to instructions either, but which seem to show intent to vote for the Democratic candidate. These two ballots were, indeed, counted for the Democratic nominee.
It seems to me that #6, #8, and #10 are pretty obviously intended to be votes for Jore, while #7 and #9 are for Windham.
Unless there are eraser marks–I can’t tell from the PDFs except where it is mentioned in the description–I don’t know who the voter intended on ballots #1 through #5. Does putting an “X” on one of the ovals mean “count this one” or “don’t count this one”?
Scribbling out the oval, crossing out the name, trying to erase–those are obvious. But on a ballot, “X” could have either of two very different meanings.
I disagree with the court on exactly how many votes should have been counted for each candidate, but I agree that there are not enough votes there for Jore without making a real leap of faith in trying to guess voter intent on five of the ballots.
I find the preceedings of the Montana Supreme Court utterly rediculus. Enough of this bipartisan BS.
Regardless, it should have been a local decision. The Lake County elections board consists of 1 Dem, 1 Rep, and 1 Independent. There’s nothing biased about that.
It seems the Democrat Party wants the courts to decide everything. Perhaps they should consider renaming themselves to the Judiciacrat Party?
It is time to go back and inspect all the dems ballots, Im sure ther are 6 or 7 of those that are odd also . DO NOT GIVE UP !!!
There seems to be some confusion as to understanding these ballots. The Supreme Court did NOT disqualify eight ballots. They reviewed only the seven that were contested by Windham. Of those seven, they simply said “one or more is invalid.” No opinion, no rationale.
There were four double marked ballots that were counted for Windham. Jore did not contest any of them because the rules make it clear (please read them) that if “voter intent is determined and agreed upon by a majority of election board, the votes must be counted.”
The recount board (bipartisan) was unanimous on the seven ballots that the Supremes inspected. There was no hesitation, even with the Democrat on the board. Also, keep in mind that over 70 other ballots were marked similiarly in other races and counted.
We have updated the explanation of the ballots on the website. Another factor in determining voter intent is to apply a consistency test with how the voter marked the ballot in other races. Judge the entire ballot and how it was marked.
Rick Jore
Mr. Jore, do you plan on appealing?
You’d have a good chance of winning.
Elections are supposed to be YES/NO mathematical with ZERO guessing games about what is a LEGAL VOTE — regardless of MORON law makers, MORON election officals and MORON judges and even MORON voters.
See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
When in ANY doubt, the default is NO.
And if there is a rule that says:
“When in ANY doubt, the default is NO.”
Then, the ruling party/parties will CREATE doubt to make it in their favor. People cheat in our country on purpose, both Republicans and Democrats. To cast a blind eye and put down a blanket rule that’s selectively applied by people that have power and have something riding on the outcome is both arrogance and stupidity.
Thanks Demorep1. Then I guess that means Dino Rossi is the legitimate governor of Washington. Do you disagree with me? If so, then you’re a hypocrite. But then, either way, you’re still an asshole.
Rick; Please appeal, Please Please stay in the fight !! thank you Larry in Iowa
Хм… Рмне кажетÑÑ, минуÑÑ‹ в Ñтом Ñлучае прилично превоÑходÑÑ‚ плюÑÑ‹.