Thursday update: Bombshells, contradictions and charges in 9th District hearing

Published February 21, 2019

by  Tom Campbell, NC SPIN producer and moderator, February 21, 2019.

John Harris, son of Dr. Mark Harris, testified Wednesday that in April 2017 he warned his father and mother, in strong terms, that there was a likelihood that McCrae Dowless’ absentee ballot activities in Bladen County were illegal. You could almost feel the air sucked out of the room, since this admission ran counter to what Dr. Harris and his campaign have maintained since the question of voter fraud first surfaced. The first surprise was that nobody, not even his father and mother, suspected John, an attorney working for the U.S. District Court, was going to be put on the stand. His testimony was obviously stressful and highly emotional, as most every picture of Wednesday’s hearing revealed in the face of Dr. Harris.

Wednesday night and early Thursday morning documents a flurry of documents flew back and forth, as new information was revealed to the board and attorneys, prompting the counsel for Dan McCready to question whether they were part of a deliberate campaign to withhold evidence or an oversight. For whatever reason there appears a lack of total candor in the production of evidence in this matter.  

The issue became quite heated when the Harris campaign was asked if all communications between the campaign manager and finance director to the campaign and the candidate had been produced. The board was told that since these were not actual employees of the campaign. but contract employees for Red Dome consulting. their communications were not thoroughly searched or produced. This  discrepancy obviously rankled Chairman Bob Cordle, other board members and McCready’s counsel.  

Mid Thursday morning here are some conclusions we’ve reached:

  1. There won’t be a decision this week. In fact, given the request for further documents it is almost a certainty that the hearing won’t conclude by Friday afternoon. Board Chair Cordle warned everyone that the hearing room was not available to them next week so a new venue and new date for hearings would likely be necessary.
  2. Even with the contradicting testimony, bombshell revelations and suspicion over whether all relevant documents involved in this election have been submitted there has been no clear documentation that the apparent fraudulent absentee ballot activity resulted in enough tainted ballots so as to have changed the outcome of the election. That doesn’t have to be the final measure the board uses but that is where the issue stands Thursday mid-day.
  3. This board consists of 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Assuming votes will adhere along party lines there would need to be 1 Democrat to vote with Republicans to certify Harris. It is highly unlikely this will happen. To certify Harris’ victory at this point will call into questioning the integrity of the new board. But in order to declare a new election, 1 Republican must side with the three Democrats. It is hard to get a reading as to the likelihood for this decision.
  4. If Harris is certified there is a strong possibility he will not be seated in Congress. That body could call for a new election.

There is no question this election is tainted. Our new elections board needs to demonstrate, as much as possible, they can be nonpartisan and stand firmly for clean elections. The odds strongly favor overturning the outcome of the November General Election in the 9thDistrict and declaring a new election.

That begs the question as to whether there will be a new Primary election or just a re-do of November’s General Election. The legislature passed a law saying that if a new election was declared, it must be both a Primary and General contest, but legal experts tell us this is highly problematic, since the Primary election outcome was certified by the previous Board and is considered Constitutionally legal. The resultant court case could further tie up the outcome of this election.

If there will be a new 9thDistrict election there is speculation as to who will run. Mark Harris, after the bloody hearing and resultant smearing of his reputation, might decide not to run. There have been names offered but nobody is firmly declaring a candidacy as a Republican. Democrat Dan McCready, we’re told, is raising money in anticipation of another run.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome it is obvious our election laws need to be reviewed and revised, with harsh penalties for those violating those rules.