The News Sentinel reports this morning that Judge Blackwood, in a re-run of an earlier election hearing, yesterday denied Joe Lee’s petition to void the results of the 7th District County Commission race based upon errors and complications that occurred in the race that Lee lost to John Shuey by one vote.

It was essentially a repeat of the ruling in David Stuart’s earlier case, with a couple of twists: Lee’s attorney had affadavits from three people who had stood in line long enough to obtain ballot applications, but had to leave before reaching the end of the line to vote. All three swore that they planned to vote for Lee, which would have given him a two-vote victory.

Unlike the individuals who allegedly threatened election officials to obtain paper ballots, these three were not given the opportunity to vote by alternate means.

Lee’s attorney also presented that the vote tally, machine results, and certified results did not match, but echoing his earlier ruling in the Stuart case, Blackwood opined that absent evidence of fraud, errors and ommissions don’t matter.

Neither candidate sought to have the result reversed; each asked only for a re-vote in November. A firm precedent exists in the 7th District County Commission race from just four years ago, and the November repeat yielded a solid victory for Jerry Creasey.

If the law only applies when fraud can be proven, why should election commissions anywhere follow an inconvenient law? For that matter, why should anyone?
I respectfully disagree with Judge Blackwood, and hope that both Stuart and Lee pursue appeal.