Scott Brown’s election certification will be delayed to allow temporary Senator Paul Kirk to vote for the Health Care Bill. Sound familiar? Nancy Pelosi did just the opposite in November 2009, to allow just elected Representative Bill Owens to vote for the House version of the Health Care Bill.
Reported here yesterday, January 9, 2010.
“From The Boston Herald, January 9, 2010.
“Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform”
“It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.
The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.”
MA Democrats will delay Scott Brown’s certification
Nancy Pelosi chicanery from November 12, 2009
“John Charlton of The Post & Email just brought a breaking story to our attention.
“It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.
As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State of New York has not certified the election, in which Dough Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head, after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district.”
“It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215. The election fraud therefore puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.””
Nancy Pelosi swears in Bill Owens before he is certified
On November 19, 2009 we learn of election night irregularities and voting machine viruses
“We already knew there were election night irregularities in the New York District 23 congressional race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens and that Nancy Pelosi prematurely certified Owens as the winner. Now we find out that some of the voting machines had computer viruses.
From The Gouverneur Times, November 19, 2009.
“VIRUS in the VOTING MACHINES: Tainted Results in NY-23″””
New York voting machines had viruses
The Democrats have a history of using the voting process not as it was intended, to echo the will of the people, but to further their own agenda.
From CBS News, October 17, 2007.
“Niki Tsongas Wins U.S. House Race”
“Tsongas said Wednesday that she expected to be sworn in on Thursday, and was eager to participate in the House vote scheduled for that day to override President Bush’s veto of expanded funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance program.”
From Fox News, October 18, 2007.
“Massachusetts Democrat Niki Tsongas Sworn In as Congresswoman”
“Shortly after being sworn in to the seat her late husband Paul Tsongas held in the 1970s, she joined her Massachusetts colleagues in voting to override President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The effort failed by 13 votes.”
Here is a recent letter addressed to John Kerry, Niki Tsongas and Paul Kirk.
“Are Massachusetts Democrats planning to obstruct the voice of the people?
Sen. John Kerry
Rep. Niki Tsongas
Sen. Paul Kirk
January 9, 2010
I read in today’s Boston Herald that the Massachusetts Democrat organization is now planning to delay the certification of the January 19th election to keep Scott Brown out of the Senate until a health reform bill can be rushed through Congress.
This is unacceptable and I hope that you will take a strong stand AGAINST it.
When Sen Brown wins the election, the people will have spoken, and their voice must be heard, not stifled underneath layers of obstruction.
Rep Tsongas was voting in Washington ONE DAY after winning her special election.
So why is Massachusetts Sec. of State Galvin’s office saying that they will not certify the Jan 19 election for 10 days because that is the rule for ALL special elections?
This is CLEARLY NOT TRUE.”
From the Massachusetts Election Statutes
“PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VIII. ELECTIONS”
“CHAPTER 50. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES AND ELECTIONS
DETERMINATION OF RESULTS
Chapter 50: Section 2. Results of election; determination
Section 2. In elections, the person receiving the highest number of votes for an office shall be deemed and declared to be elected to such office; and if two or more are to be elected to the same office, the several persons, to the number to be chosen to such office, receiving the highest number of votes, shall be deemed and declared to be elected; but persons receiving the same number of votes shall not be deemed to be elected if thereby a greater number would be elected than are to be chosen. Except as otherwise provided, this section shall apply to all nominations and elections by ballot at primaries or caucuses. Nothing herein shall derogate from the provisions of chapter fifty-four A.”
“CHAPTER 56. VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION LAWS
PENALTIES ON OFFICERS FOR OFFENCES IN THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES, CONVENTIONS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 56: Section 12. Misconduct of officers; failure to perform duties
Section 12. An officer of a primary, caucus or convention who knowingly makes any false count of ballots or votes, or makes a false statement or declaration of the result of a ballot or vote, or knowingly refuses to receive any ballot offered by a person qualified to vote at such primary, caucus or convention, or wilfully alters, defaces or destroys any ballot cast, or voting list used thereat, before the requirements of law have been complied with, or refuses or wilfully fails to receive any written request made as thereby required, or refuses or wilfully fails to perform any duty or obligation imposed thereby shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months.”
Election Day Legal Summary by William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth
The process of counting the ballots differs depending on the type of voting equipment used. However, the basic requirements are the same. The clerk must record the final register number on the ballot box. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). A count must be made of the voters on both the check in and check out lists, and the voting lists must thereafter be sealed in an envelope. Id.; see also G. L. c. 54, § 107 (1998 ed.) (procedure for sealing voting lists and ballots; applicable to all of the materials required to be sealed as indicated below). The escrow ballots must be counted, placed in an envelope, the number placed on the outside of the envelope, and the envelope must then be sealed. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).
The election officers shall canvass and count the ballots if paper ballots are used, and otherwise, the election officers shall read the vote totals from the counting device after the polls close, either by a printer mechanism or otherwise. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The ballots not able to be read by the machines must be hand counted. Id. Election officers may not hold a pen or any other kind of marking device during the counting of the ballots, except for the person actually recorded the votes. G. L. c. 54, § 80 (1998 ed.). Furthermore, such election officials may only use red pencils or red ink to record or tabulate votes. Id. For the purpose of ascertaining the results of a state election, city election, or a town election where official ballots are used, or of question submitted to the voters, the election officials must use the blank forms and apparatus provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. G. L. c. 54, § 104 (1998 ed.).
The unused and spoiled ballots must also be counted, placed in a container under seal, and the clerk must record the numbers. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The counted ballots are placed into a designated container, which is then sealed a certificate is affixed thereto stating that only ballots cast and no other ballots are contained therein. Id. The total tally sheets are placed in an envelope, sealed, and the warden and clerk also sign the outside of the envelope. Id. In communities using a central tabulation facility, the ballots will then be transported thereto, and then transmitted to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, § 105A (1998 ed.). In all other communities, the sealed envelopes and containers will be returned directly to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).”
From the MA State Ethics Committee
“Section 23 contains standards of conduct applicable to all public employees.”
Section 23(b)(2) provides that a public employee may not use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions of substantial value for himself or others. This prohibition has been applied by the Commission to restrict a number of political activities involving, for example, campaign use of public resources, campaigning on the job, and certain types of solicitation and fundraising.”
“Section 23(b)(3) Appearances of a Conflict of Interest”
“Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a public employee from knowingly, or with reason to know, engaging in conduct which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that any person or entity can improperly influence the employee or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, or position of any person.
For example, issues may arise under this section if a matter involving a non-immediate family relative, a close friend or business associate, or a civic organization in which a public employee is a member comes before the public employee in his official capacity, even if the public employee is not otherwise required to abstain under G.L. c. 268A, sections 6, 13 or 19. The public employee’s private relationship with such an individual or organization creates an impression that he could be biased in his official actions as a result of the private relationship.”
“Supplemental provisions; standards of conduct.”
“Section 23. (a) In addition to the other provisions of this chapter, and in supplement thereto, standards of conduct, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby established for all state, county and municipal employees.”
“(3) act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. It shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion;”
William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, is responsible for elections
Given the MA statutes, state ethics laws and the precedent of swearing in Representative Niki Tsongas one day after the election, the Democrats have a major problem trying to perpetrate another illegal act, especially after they have advertised it ahead of time.