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/2018/12/11/us/politics/north-carolina-election-leak-.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Possible Leak of Voter Data Adds to Concerns in Disputed North Carolina Election After Possible Data Leak, North Carolina Edges Closer to a New Election
(about 3 hours later)
The chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party said Tuesday that a new election in the state’s Ninth Congressional District may be necessary after reports that early voter data was improperly leaked by the elections board in Bladen County, where state officials are already investigating possible electoral fraud.The chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party said Tuesday that a new election in the state’s Ninth Congressional District may be necessary after reports that early voter data was improperly leaked by the elections board in Bladen County, where state officials are already investigating possible electoral fraud.
Democrats allege that data was leaked exclusively to Republicans, giving them an advantage before Election Day.Democrats allege that data was leaked exclusively to Republicans, giving them an advantage before Election Day.
The statement by the chairman, Robin Hayes, appeared to bring state Republicans one step closer to acknowledging that the November election, which their candidate, Mark Harris, had apparently won by 905 votes, may need to be nullified and a new election called. Later Tuesday, Republican legislators proposed a measure that would ensure any new election also included a new primary — potentially giving Republicans a chance to replace Mr. Harris, a nominee many party officials now fear is tainted. The statement by the chairman, Robin Hayes, appeared to bring state Republicans one step closer to acknowledging that the November election, which their candidate, Mark Harris, had apparently won by 905 votes, may need to be nullified and a new election called.
“The voters will have the opportunity to start over by selecting a new candidate if they so choose,” said State Representative David R. Lewis, the chairman of the House’s Elections and Ethics Law Committee, at a news conference in Raleigh. For a few hours Tuesday, Republican legislators also proposed a measure that would ensure any new election also included a new primary — potentially giving Republicans a chance to replace Mr. Harris. But the language allowing for a new primary was taken out of the legislation by the end of the day.
The measure, which legislators are poised to consider this week, would widen the effects of any decision by the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement to order another round of voting. The board, which has not certified the results of the Ninth District’s general election, is planning an evidentiary hearing that will explore whether absentee ballots were illegally handled or even altered by a voter turnout operative who worked on behalf of Mr. Harris’s campaign in rural Bladen County. The possibility of absentee ballot fraud in the November election has taken center stage as the state elections board prepares for an evidentiary hearing in which they may decree that a new election be held. A date for the hearing has not yet been set, but it will likely be in the coming days or weeks.
But the possibility that data was leaked by county officials has also emerged as an issue. In recent weeks, Democrats released an affidavit by Agnes Willis, an assistant who worked at the local elections board, who said that on Nov. 3, the last day of early voting, the tape showing election results “was run after the polls closed, and was viewed by officials” who were not election judges. Investigators for the elections board are looking at whether a Bladen County voter-turnout operative who worked for the Harris campaign, L. McCrae Dowless Jr., or his employees manipulated, destroyed or illegally handled absentee ballots. Mr. Harris has denied wrongdoing, and a spokesman did not respond to a message on Tuesday.
But the possibility that data was leaked by county officials has also emerged as an issue.
In recent weeks, Democrats released an affidavit by Agnes Willis, an assistant who worked at the local elections board, who said that on Nov. 3, the last day of early voting, the tape showing election results “was run after the polls closed, and was viewed by officials” who were not election judges.
A lawyer for the Democrats later wrote to the state board, saying that Democrats had learned that Bladen County officials had illegally leaked absentee vote totals to Republicans, but withheld it from Democrats.A lawyer for the Democrats later wrote to the state board, saying that Democrats had learned that Bladen County officials had illegally leaked absentee vote totals to Republicans, but withheld it from Democrats.
On Tuesday, Republicans said that if such a leak occurred it would violate their core principles.
“We are extremely concerned that early voting totals may have been leaked in Bladen County as reported by The Charlotte Observer,” Mr. Hayes said in his statement, referring to a story that appeared in that paper on Monday. “This action by election officials would be a fundamental violation of the sense of fair play, honesty, and integrity that the Republican Party stands for. We can never tolerate the state putting its thumb on the scale. The people involved in this must be held accountable and should it be true, this fact alone would likely require a new election.”“We are extremely concerned that early voting totals may have been leaked in Bladen County as reported by The Charlotte Observer,” Mr. Hayes said in his statement, referring to a story that appeared in that paper on Monday. “This action by election officials would be a fundamental violation of the sense of fair play, honesty, and integrity that the Republican Party stands for. We can never tolerate the state putting its thumb on the scale. The people involved in this must be held accountable and should it be true, this fact alone would likely require a new election.”
He added: “Accessing early vote totals before the overall results are final can clearly give an unfair advantage to one candidate over the other.”He added: “Accessing early vote totals before the overall results are final can clearly give an unfair advantage to one candidate over the other.”
The voter turnout operative, L. McCrae Dowless, Jr., has a criminal history that includes felony convictions for fraud and perjury, and has been named as a “person of interest” in the state board’s investigation. At issue is whether he or his employees illegally handled or manipulated absentee ballots. Mr. Dowless has a criminal history that includes felony convictions for fraud and perjury, and has been named as a “person of interest” in the state board’s investigation. At issue is whether he or his employees illegally handled or manipulated absentee ballots.
Mr. Dowless has declined to comment, and his lawyer has not responded to messages.Mr. Dowless has declined to comment, and his lawyer has not responded to messages.
As concerns about the election began to emerge late last month, state Republicans initially threatened to sue unless Mr. Harris’s victory was certified immediately. But last Thursday, Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, said that Republicans “would not oppose a new election” if the state board showed “a substantial likelihood that the race could have been altered.”As concerns about the election began to emerge late last month, state Republicans initially threatened to sue unless Mr. Harris’s victory was certified immediately. But last Thursday, Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, said that Republicans “would not oppose a new election” if the state board showed “a substantial likelihood that the race could have been altered.”
Mr. Harris has denied wrongdoing, and a spokesman did not respond to a message on Tuesday.
But any successful effort to require a new primary could throw Mr. Harris’s fortunes into peril, perhaps opening the way for a political resurrection by Representative Robert M. Pittenger, whom Mr. Harris narrowly defeated in a primary in May.
Mr. Lewis depicted the Republican proposal only as an effort to provide uniform rules for new congressional elections. In the event of a representative’s death or resignation, he noted, a primary would be required.
“This is kind of uncharted waters, so we felt like it would be in the best interest of public policy, the best interest of the people to make the rules consistent, so that’s what we’ve done,” Mr. Lewis said.