This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/politics/north-carolina-election-fraud-republican.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
North Carolina Republican Leader Says He’s Open to New Election in Disputed District North Carolina Republicans Express Increasing Doubts on Disputed Election
(about 3 hours later)
ELIZABETHTOWN, N.C. — The executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party said Thursday that a new election may be appropriate in the state’s Ninth Congressional District, where allegations of fraud have cast doubts on the fairness and accuracy of the vote count. ELIZABETHTOWN, N.C. — North Carolina Republicans expressed mounting doubts on Thursday about a disputed congressional race that their candidate once seemed to have won, with one of the state party’s most influential figures saying a new election could be appropriate in the wake of fraud allegations.
If the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement can state “there was a substantial likelihood that the race could have been altered, then we would not oppose a new election,” said the executive director, Dallas Woodhouse. Lawmakers and strategists, effectively abandoning days of demands that state officials swiftly certify Mark Harris as the winner of the Ninth District’s House campaign, said they worried that absentee-ballot fraud may have infected both the November election and the Republican primary, which the incumbent, Robert M. Pittenger, lost in May. Mr. Pittenger has raised concerns about voting irregularities in the district.
The intensifying inquiry into the race led Democrats and Republicans in Raleigh and Washington to weigh Thursday how best to navigate the legal and political challenges of the disputed vote, and their calculations could well shift again before the state elections board holds an evidentiary hearing on or before Dec. 21. In Washington, Democrats, who will control the House beginning in January, including the likely House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, warned again that Mr. Harris might not be seated when the new Congress convenes. Some called for an immediate investigation.
State investigators have issued subpoenas and begun sifting through thousands of pages of records to determine whether absentee-ballot fraud gave an advantage to Mark Harris, the Republican nominee in the Ninth District. Preliminary returns, which state officials have refused to certify, showed Mr. Harris with a 905-vote lead over his Democratic opponent, Dan McCready. The Republican recalibration came as the Ninth District’s turmoil showed no sign of abating, especially before the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement holds a hearing this month. That proceeding, expected on or before Dec. 21, is likely to show the earliest fruits of an intensifying inquiry that has led to subpoenas and reviews of thousands of pages of records. The state board has not certified Mr. Harris as the winner of the election and has, for now, all but set aside preliminary results that give him a 905-vote edge over his Democratic opponent, Dan McCready.
But the validity of Mr. Harris’s margin has been called into question in recent days as witnesses have repeatedly described a voter-turnout operation that appeared to rely on at least one seemingly illegal tactic: collecting absentee ballots directly from voters. The operation led to mounting concerns over whether ballots had been improperly marked for Mr. Harris or discarded if they were to be cast for Mr. McCready. “They should lay out their cards so everyone knows fact from fiction and fact from innuendo,” said Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party. “If they can state with certainty that whatever bad behavior that took place could not have changed the race, then they should certify Mr. Harris. If they can state there was a substantial likelihood that the race could have been altered, then we would not oppose a new election.”
Under state law, the panel, which includes four Democrats, four Republicans and one unaffiliated member, may order a new election if it finds that “irregularities or improprieties occurred to such an extent that they taint the results of the entire election and cast doubt on its fairness.” The deepening concerns about the Ninth District center on Mr. Harris’s voter turnout operation, which partly relied on L. McCrae Dowless Jr., a political operative from Bladen County with both a felony record for fraud and an extensive history of working for Democratic and Republican campaigns. Witnesses have repeatedly described an effort that involved at least one seemingly illegal tactic: collecting absentee ballots directly from voters. The approach stirred worries that ballots may have been improperly marked for Mr. Harris or discarded if they were to be cast for Mr. McCready.
Democrats have warned that if the allegations about Mr. Harris’s campaign are not sufficiently resolved, they would be reluctant to allow him to be seated in January. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, Democrats’ nominee for House speaker, reasserted on Thursday that the House would have the final say on who was seated and whether to investigate the election itself. Mr. Dowless has declined to comment, and Mr. Harris and his supporters have denied wrongdoing.
“The House still retains the right to decide who is seated,” Ms. Pelosi said. “Any member-elect can object to the seating of, the swearing in of another member-elect, and we’ll see how that goes,” Ms. Pelosi said. Democrats have warned that if the allegations about Mr. Harris’s campaign are not sufficiently settled, they would be reluctant to allow him to be seated in January. Ms. Pelosi reasserted on Thursday that the House would have the final say on who was seated and whether to investigate the election itself.
“The House still retains the right to decide who is seated,” Ms. Pelosi said. “Any member-elect can object to the seating of, the swearing in of another member-elect, and we’ll see how that goes.”
If North Carolina officials are not able to resolve the allegations in an acceptable way, she continued, the House Administration Committee has the authority to investigate the matter itself and ultimately determine a winner. If it was unable to, she added, the committee could call for a new election. (The House has the constitutional authority to be “the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.”)If North Carolina officials are not able to resolve the allegations in an acceptable way, she continued, the House Administration Committee has the authority to investigate the matter itself and ultimately determine a winner. If it was unable to, she added, the committee could call for a new election. (The House has the constitutional authority to be “the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.”)
“We’re all in a close touch on that because this is bigger than that one seat, this is about undermining the integrity of our elections,” Ms. Pelosi said. “And what was done there is so remarkable, that person — those entities got away with that, even to the detriment of the Republicans in the primary.”“We’re all in a close touch on that because this is bigger than that one seat, this is about undermining the integrity of our elections,” Ms. Pelosi said. “And what was done there is so remarkable, that person — those entities got away with that, even to the detriment of the Republicans in the primary.”
Other congressional Democrats, including Representative David E. Price, the dean of the North Carolina delegation, have called for an emergency hearing into the allegations. Indeed, Republicans grumbled quietly among themselves after Mr. Harris defeated Mr. Pittenger this year. Mr. Harris’s 828-vote margin of victory, they suggested, may have been tainted by Mr. Dowless’s efforts in places like Bladen County, which has a notorious history of political chicanery. Mr. Pittenger said in an email on Wednesday that Mr. Dowless had offered his services when the congressman and Mr. Harris first faced off more than two years ago.
Mr. Price, whose district includes parts of Raleigh, wrote on Twitter on Thursday that he supported a hearing in Washington and that, amid the election board’s inquiry, “We must consider all remedies, up to and including a special election to ensure the voter’s voices are accurately heard.” “During the 2016 primary, I met with McCrae Dowless but quickly ended the meeting over personal concerns with his proposal,” Mr. Pittenger wrote. “We didn’t talk long enough for me to gather detailed information — I just knew I didn’t want to be involved with him.”
Mr. Woodhouse’s statements on Thursday appeared to reflect both the political realities on Capitol Hill and the mounting worries of North Carolina Republicans, who have spent years crusading against fraud and now see one of their candidates as a potential beneficiary. Without elaboration, he added, “Dowless’ efforts were widely known and we did share our concerns with several people.”
Until Thursday, Republicans had been publicly adamant that the state elections board immediately certify Mr. Harris’s victory. But Mr. Woodhouse said that an accumulation of media reports had concerned him. Mr. Woodhouse, the state party’s executive director, said in an interview on Thursday morning that he did not “really recall” any complaints from Mr. Pittenger’s allies, but said he did not dispute that the congressman’s supporters may have expressed concerns.
“We are as horrified as anybody about the news reports we’ve seen,” Mr. Woodhouse said. “We were horrified at the prospect, just the allegation that anybody’s vote was intercepted and manipulated.” “We often get people trying to get us to referee issues with Republican primaries, and we avoid that,” Mr. Woodhouse said. “If we had some kind of absentee ballot mail doing things that were illegal, we would have been the first people to call the authorities.”
A CNN segment, he said, had led him to vomit on Wednesday night. Republicans said Thursday that they were not forsaking Mr. Harris and his candidacy. Some even argued that Mr. Woodhouse, who said during a CNN segment that misconduct in the Ninth District had made him vomit late on Wednesday night, did not support a new round of voting.
Mr. Woodhouse was careful to say Thursday that the party was not abandoning Mr. Harris’s candidacy, and he expressed confidence in Mr. Harris’s character. And other Republican officials argued that Mr. Woodhouse, who repeatedly said in an interview that he was open to a new election if fraud may have tainted the outcome, did not support a new round of voting.
“We are not saying that,” said Robin Hayes, the chairman of the state party, who blamed the media for misreporting Mr. Woodhouse’s remarks. “We are saying that we want the investigation to be completed.”“We are not saying that,” said Robin Hayes, the chairman of the state party, who blamed the media for misreporting Mr. Woodhouse’s remarks. “We are saying that we want the investigation to be completed.”
Mr. Hayes, a former congressman, added, “At this point in the process, based on what we know, we think that Mark Harris has fairly and legitimately won the race,” but that “if the facts and the numbers support calling for another election, then we would support it.”Mr. Hayes, a former congressman, added, “At this point in the process, based on what we know, we think that Mark Harris has fairly and legitimately won the race,” but that “if the facts and the numbers support calling for another election, then we would support it.”
The Harris campaign was the subject of a subpoena this week, as was Red Dome Group, a Charlotte-area consulting firm that worked for Mr. Harris. The firm hired L. McCrae Dowless Jr., a political operative from Bladen County with both a felony record for fraud and an extensive record of working on voter-turnout operations. In Raleigh, where the Legislature on Thursday approved a new voter ID law that included new documentation requirements for absentee voting, Republican lawmakers said they were frustrated by the swirl of allegations in Bladen County. They urged Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, to appoint a task force to focus on years of potential election fraud here.
Mr. Dowless declined to comment. Mr. Cooper did not embrace the suggestion, which Democrats said could undermine the work of the state elections board, which includes four Democrats, four Republicans and one unaffiliated member.
Last week, Mr. Harris said on Twitter that he would “support any efforts to investigate allegations of irregularities and/or voter fraud, as long as it is fair and focuses on all political parties.” “Governor Cooper believes North Carolinians should have confidence in the integrity of elections and allegations of fraud and tampering must be investigated,” said Ford Porter, a spokesman for the governor. “There are multiple ongoing criminal investigations, and legislators should allow investigators and prosecutors to follow the facts and take appropriate action.”
But in his next tweet, posted within a minute, he wrote that the elections board “should act immediately to certify the race while continuing to conduct their investigation.” Mr. McCready on Thursday withdrew his month-old concession to Mr. Harris.
“I didn’t serve overseas in the Marine Corps just to come back home and watch politicians and career criminals attack our democracy,” Mr. McCready said in a video on his Twitter account. “That’s why today I withdraw my concession to Mark Harris.”