I posted yesterday on Davis’ accusations and many are questioning whether or not Davis actually has a case. I still say…maybe.
Although election law experts are saying Davis’ case is weak at best, simply because it hinges on the intent of the voters (which is difficult, if not impossible, to prove), one still must look at the possibility that there was a concerted effort from the Democratic Party to influence the election. This, again, wouldn’t be any different than what Rush Limbaugh did during the presidential primary, and even his actions weren’t deemed worthy of overthrowing an election.
While Davis can’t, at this point, challenge the intents of the individual voters, could he, perhaps, challenge the actions of those who sought to falsely influence the election, and, if so, what would be the result?
The only thing that could be done, if it was proven that there was an effort on the part of groups or individuals to influence the outcome of the primary in a way that is deemed illegal, is to throw out the results of the election. We, of course, couldn’t possibly throw out the results in every county in the First Congressional district, so, I suppose, it would have to be determined in which counties these efforts had the most impact. Then, of course, we’re talking about an obscene amount of money needing to be spent to hold another vote…and to what result?
I don’t doubt that there was an effort on the part of Democrats in our district to influence this election in a questionable manner. Even Democratic candidate, Rob Russell, heard of such efforts and argued against them. The question is: what in the world can be done about it? It still seems that the “thought police” would have to come out in force and somehow get people to admit that they were influenced by the robocalls, emails, and encouragement to vote in the Republican primary without the intent of “pledging allegiance” to the party. Otherwise, it could be argued that the efforts by the Democrats had no impact on the election whatsoever.
Regardless of the outcome of the case, Davis has ruined his career. Even if he were to challenge the results and succeed in forcing a new election in one or several counties, my guess is that even more people are going to vote for Roe – or not bother voting at all. Should Davis have just rolled over and accepted the shadiness of this election? If he ever wants to hold public office again – yes. Folks still see Al Gore as a cry baby and now Davis is going to be painted with the same brush.
So, while I’m thrilled with this little bit of election excitement, Davis is going to regret this challenge. Even if he wins, he still loses.
August 14, 2008 at 8:50 am
“Does Davis Have A Case?”
A mental case, maybe…
August 14, 2008 at 8:54 am
The point about Russell (or perhaps I shold say, the Tennessee 1st Congressional Democratic Primary) that you have not fleshed out here Jama — as Davis as also failed to do in his public fraud allegations — is that there were two (2) Democratic primary candidates for district Democrats to elect.
August 14, 2008 at 10:19 am
[...] SEE ALSO: Josh Arrowood Joe Powell Jama Oliver [...]
August 14, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Dear Jama:
I hope all is well with you. I must state that the Congressional race is over and just like me in 2006 and Davis in 1996, Davis has lost in 2008.
Openly, I am a Phil Roe supporter. That said, over is over. I urge a smart, common sense woman like yourself to get to Davis before he ruins his entire career and have him concede. As you so rightly acknowledge above, all legal experts not on Davis’ payroll recognize the futility of his objections.
I hope your family is well and I look forward to seeing you soon.
Last on your ballot but No. 1 in your heart,
Vance
Vance W. Cheek Jr.
August 14, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Vance,
I respectablydisagree. He has a case under Bush v. Gore and the equal protection clause. If his allegation are true then I don’t know how you could think differently. I personally think the allegations are false and he wont gain the traction needed. However to claim he doesn’t have a legal issue is quite presumptive.
August 14, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Dear Eric:
The basis for my opinion is that unlike Bush/Gore, this matter does not involve the issue of the disenfranchised voter. The crux of Bush/Gore was the alleged violation of the “one person, one vote” Constitutional guarantee.
Here, Davis’ claim is that the Primary was “overly franchised” (my term, not the Davis Campaigns). The Davis argument is that too many people voted in the Primary; namely Democrats and Independents with an alleged view to skew the Republican outcome. With a statutory right to an open Primary system, I fail to see the legality of any objection. Of course, something might surface to change a lot of opinions, albeit doubtful.
Nevertheless, your objection to my original statement is taken respectfully as this retort is intended. We all enjoy the debate.
Thank you also Jama for allowing us the forum to have this discussion.
All the best to you both,
Vance
August 14, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Tenn is a open primary state you can vote in which every primary you want and vote for who you want.
David Davis beat himself ,Dr phil Roe won by hard work.
Butch Carr