Monday, November 14, 2016

Anne Marie Yates and Watauga GOP Accuse Eight of Election Fraud

Anne Marie Yates attempts to block
videotaping during a Dan Soucek town hall
meeting in December 2013
The leadership of the Watauga County Republican Party has challenged the constitutional rights of eight Democratic and Unaffiliated Watauga County voters who cast ballots in the November 8 elections.

These eight voters appeared in person during the Watauga early voting period to register and vote on the same day. The election judges at the site approved their completed state voter registration forms and their state-required documentation of proof of residency before allowing them to cast their ballots.

Those who have challenged these voters’ constitutional right to vote assert that these eight voters cast fraudulent ballots because their “voter verification cards” were returned as undeliverable, since the voter had not included his/her mailing address on the registration form. State voter registration forms do not require a mailing address for a valid registration.

On or about November 5, Kelsey Wright (past Chair of the ASU College Republicans) submitted a public records request for copies of verification cards that had been returned to the elections board as undeliverable from voters who cast one-stop ballots.

The next day, Wright called the Watauga Board of Elections and asked that the list she requested be sent to Anne Marie Yates (Chairwoman of the Watauga Republican Party) instead of to her.

Nine names were provided to Yates as having verification cards returned. All were Democrats except for one Unaffiliated voter and one Republican.

On November 8, seven Republicans appeared before a notary with the Miller & Johnson, PLLC, law firm (a law firm in which Nathan A. Miller, the Vice Chair of the local Republican Party, is a partner). The notary signed and witnessed their "Notices of Challenge.” The Republican voter whose verification card had been returned was not challenged.

The names of the challengers who disputed the constitutional voting rights of these eight voters are a matter of public record: Kelsey Lauren Crum Wright, Linda D. Byrd, Kim Brackett, Richard Lee Woods, Mark Templeton, James Marshall Lawrence, and Elizabeth M. Rupp.

State law requires that the eight voters who were challenged be notified that their right to vote has been officially called into question and that they have a right to be heard at the local Board of Elections meeting on November 18.  The state requirement for notification to these voters is “achieved” by mailing them a notice of that challenge to the same address that has already been determined as “undeliverable.”

The challengers of these voters, we assume, will attend the November 18 hearing to explain under oath:

(1) Why they decided to challenge the constitutional rights of the particular voter they singled out to contest;

(2) Why and how they acted in a coordinated fashion to challenge these voters; and

(3) Why, considering their significant concerns with voter integrity, they decided not to challenge the Republican whose verification card was also returned as undeliverable.

Under state law, any person who knowingly makes a false allegation against someone else's right to vote can be found guilty of a Class I felony.


Anonymous said...

Horrible! These damned Republicans having the audacity to challenge questionable ballots through the established procedure.

Don't they know that the proper response is to march, riot, start petitions and post hate filled comments on local blogs?

Anonymous said...

Ah, our polyglot democracy, mobocracy, you might say -- a tyranny of minorities. Also, a system where the laws are selectively enforced.

Or two wolves and a sheep arguing over what's for dinner.

'Seen Soros or Ayers lately, Jerry ?

Anonymous said...

If you're going to challenge questionable ballots, it should - in a free and law-based society - be done equitably....ALL should have been challenged, not just the non-Republicans.

Pam Williamson said...

Anonymous, do you think they should have challenged the "questionable" ballots of all that they found? Or just single out the ones cast by Democrats and Unaffiliated voters?

Anonymous said...

I think they should challenge the ballots that they felt they needed to challenge. Of course that also means that if you (MRS WILLIAMSON) feel differently, you should feel free to challenge any remaining ballots you think appropriate.

Anonymous said...

There is either fraud, or there isn't. If one is concerned about fraud, ALL of it should be challenged.

Anonymous said...

What's the criteria for the know, just so we are all on the same playing field. Right now it seems strictly based on party affiliations.

Pam Williamson said...

The challenged ballots and the one ballot not challenged had been earmarked with the exact same issue. So again, why did they feel all the ballots didn't need to be challenged other than wanting to let the Republican ballot stand counted. I have no intention of challenging any ballots. I'm not in to voter suppression.

Anonymous said...

So, if a person is not eligible to vote in this county but does so anyhow, you consider it to be "voter suppression" to disqualify that illegal ballot? I am nos saying that these particular ballots are improper - the fact is, we don't know.

I have to say I did get a kick out of your letter to the editor on this topic. Did you try to keep a straight face when you accused the Republican party of being "partisan"?