Yancey Wins Drawing In 94th. Does Simonds Have A Right To A Recount?

Dear Mr. Webster, I will readily acquiesce to your experience, wisdom and knowledge of the legal code (and I will readily admit, of these matters (and of many others,) that I am dumber than a box of rocks,) but I think the provisions that you mention can be understood in a different, but still reasoned fashion; and consequently, a different conclusion may be reached. First, it is not necessarily true that § 24.2-802 is in conflict with § 24.2-674, and therefore the principle of “lex posterior derogat legi priori” may not be applicable. The tie (in number of votes) that was discovered by the redetermination of the election necessitated a determination by lot. If you continue to read § 24.2-802, subsection D past “there shall be only one redetermination of the vote in each precinct,” you find [I have parsed the following text to what I believe is relevant,] “after determining all matters pertaining to the… redetermination of the vote… the court shall certify… the vote for each party to the recount and declare the person who received the higher number of votes to be… elected…” With this in mind, we can understand that the prohibition against more than one recount is based on the presumption that a redetermination will, in and of itself, provide the necessary information (i.e., who received more votes) to declare a winner. But this redetermination did not do that. It only determined that the election ended in a tie. It was the tie that necessitated the need for a new determination, (the determination by lot) that made the earlier redetermination irrelevant to the new determination and its results. Therefore, had the redetermination provided an election result that did not end in a tie, § 24.2-802 would hold. But since the recount only found a tie result (which in turn, afforded a determination by lot,) § 24.2-674 is germane, § 24.2-802 is irrelevant, and arguably, Ms. Simonds may be entitled to a second recount. Please accept my apologies for a fool’s strained logic and his incomprehension of the law. Cordially and Respectfully yours, N.B.

Troublemaker

Perhaps they should hold a drawing to determine whether there should be a recount.
- ✝️ 804hokie 🇺🇸
  
  haha
Warmac9999

Obviously, it should have been a coin flip. I am sure that Simonds will declare a paper drawing subject to all kinds of chicanery. By the way, I think Eric the half troll should now become a full troll.
- Jeanine Martin
  
  LOL!
  - Tom Mulrine
    
    And when the next recount ends in a tie, then we flip a coin, and then………😂😂😂
Downstater

How many non-citizens, dead people, or people registered in multiple jurisdictions voted for the freaking Dem? Why was that not examined?
- Jeanine Martin
  
  Just how would we do that?
Nicodemus Boffin

Dear Mr. Webster, I will readily acquiesce to your experience, wisdom and knowledge of the legal code (and I will readily admit, of these matters (and of many others,) that I am dumber than a box of rocks,) but I think the provisions that you mention can be understood in a different, but still reasoned fashion; and consequently, a different conclusion may be reached. First, it is not necessarily true that § 24.2-802 is in conflict with § 24.2-674, and therefore the principle of “lex posterior derogat legi priori” may not be applicable. The tie (in number of votes) that was discovered by the redetermination of the election necessitated a determination by lot. If you continue to read § 24.2-802, subsection D past “there shall be only one redetermination of the vote in each precinct,” you find [I have parsed the following text to what I believe is relevant,] “after determining all matters pertaining to the… redetermination of the vote… the court shall certify… the vote for each party to the recount and declare the person who received the higher number of votes to be… elected…” With this in mind, we can understand that the prohibition against more than one recount is based on the presumption that a redetermination will, in and of itself, provide the necessary information (i.e., who received more votes) to declare a winner. But this redetermination did not do that. It only determined that the election ended in a tie. It was the tie that necessitated the need for a new determination, (the determination by lot) that made the earlier redetermination irrelevant to the new determination and its results. Therefore, had the redetermination provided an election result that did not end in a tie, § 24.2-802 would hold. But since the recount only found a tie result (which in turn, afforded a determination by lot,) § 24.2-674 is germane, § 24.2-802 is irrelevant, and arguably, Ms. Simonds may be entitled to a second recount. Please accept my apologies for a fool’s strained logic and his incomprehension of the law. Cordially and Respectfully yours, N.B.
Pingback: Republicans Maintain Control Of The House Of Delegates – The Bull Elephant()
Pingback: Shelly Simonds concedes in the 94th District – The Bull Elephant()

Yancey Wins Drawing In 94th. Does Simonds Have A Right To A Recount?

Your life will be better if you click one of these