They are still counting votes in NY-23. It turns out Hoffman might have prematurely conceded.

Washington — Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.As it turns out, neither was true.

The fact that this guy conceded so fast, and as it turns out possibly incorrectly, might be grounds to concluded that he has no business being in that job to begin with.

This line from the stroy was a real jaw dropper though:

…Owens still led by about 3,000 votes, and that the special election was not contested — two factors that legally allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to swear in Owens on Friday.

The Democrats must be over that whole Florida thing, because if memory serves, Al Gore conceded in 2000.

Question: While the removal from office of any Democrat Socialist is a very very good thing, why, if Hoffman conceded, is the State still spending money on this election? Is he, or any group, contesting the outcome? Perhaps the Republican Party should foot the bill.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin weighs in:

…let it be a lesson to conservative challengers not to concede until the last ballot is counted.

The nation’s health may depend on it.

Sage advice, indeed.


Comments

2 Comments so far

  1. ShyGuy on November 13, 2009 12:37 am

    First, I agree that anyone so stupid that he would concede based on info from the ACORN infested NY election officials doesn’t deserve to be a Congressman. He is an embarrassment to us Conservatives. Just look how hard the republicans fought to win the Minn Senate seat and Acorn still stole it. But not until the fight went all the way to the last faked ACORN ballot found in the trunk of a Minn election judge.

    Second, the election in NY-23 is NOT being contested since Hoffman cut and ran. The ELECTION is NOT OVER yet because all ballots have not even been counted yet.
    Election machines in three districts malfunctioned so they had to go to paper ballots. ALL paper ballots and absentee ballots are to begin being counted next Monday, Nov 16. Until then, the election isn’t over. The re-audit of the votes already counted is a standard procedure in any election before they can be certified as being correct by the Election Commission. So Hoffman’s concession automatically allowed Owens to be sworn in as Congressman even though he hasn’t won the election yet.
    So there is no bill to pay since no extraordinary measures have been taken yet in this election. If the count is close enough between Hoffman and Owens and Owens is still leading, Hoffman would have to pay for a recount. If Owens is behind, in order to keep from being removed from the Congress he will have to pay for a recount in hopes of gaining back enough votes to remain in Congress.
    In no case would there be another election unless Congress itself orders one to be held and then Congress (the American taxpayers) would have to pay for it.
    This has happened in the past so it is not impossible although with the General elections now less than 1 year away, by the time they would rule one way or the other the elections will be here so the seat would probably remain vacant since the only way they would want to rule on it is if Owens doesn’t get more votes than Hoffman.

  2. james on November 14, 2009 7:12 pm

    Theoretically Hoffman could petition the House if the final vote count shows him winning.

    Doesn’t legal precident matter anymore?

    According to the Republicans’ 2006, court-approved precedent, the voters and courts of NY no longer have a say in the matter. Hoffman would have to convince the U.S. House to unseat Owens and seat him instead.

    If Hoffman fails to timely file his election contest under the Federal Contested Elections Act within 30 days, he will lose.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

  • TOP OF THE STACK

  • Fleeing Statism

  • FOUNDING BLOGGERS ON BIG GOVERNMENT