Perhaps I shouldn’t comment on the vote-buying case heard today by the State Board of Elections. Since I haven’t been to Caldwell County, I haven’t read the documents in the case, and I haven’t talked to any of the principals involved – all I know about the case is what I have read in the newspapers – perhaps I shouldn’t presume to have an informed opinion on the subject.
Then again, when has that ever stopped me?
I think that the State Board of Elections failed in its responsibility today to set things right in Caldwell via a new election. Because it was a party-line vote, with the three Democrats calling for a new election (of Republican officeholders, unfortunately needless to say) and two Republicans saying no, the fault for not taking appropriate action lies with the Republicans (according to the rules, a supermajority was needed to order new elections).
Here’s the skinny on the case. Caldwell County’s election board heard credible testimony last month that 15 residents had received money in exchange for their votes for a Republican candidate for sheriff and two Republican candidates for county commissioner. In all, the investigation found that as many as 250 may have sought to sell their votes. Out of more than 22,000 votes cast in the November election in Caldwell, even a wide-ranging conspiracy to buy votes would likely have involved a tiny fraction of the total. But no one will ever really know the scope of the scandal, and some of the local races were settled by only a few hundred votes.
Because no party in the case seemed to be disputing the existence of some bought voters here, the questions were of magnitude and remedy. Is it likely that the outcome of any race was affected? Would a new election serve the public interest or simply overturn the legitimate votes of thousands of honest people?
I think these are serious questions, but my view is that we should err on the side of caution here. A single corrupt vote, or a small handful, could possibly be written off as insufficient to justify a disruptive remedy. But the very real prospect that hundreds of voters were involved in the Caldwell case seems to me to argue for a do-over.
So argued the Democrats on the State Board of Elections. I commend them, and can only assume that if a similar set of credible charges comes their way about electoral corruption benefiting members of their own party, they will come to a similar conclusion.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.