Republican in-fighting is reaching a fevered pitch in Mississippi. The recent primary defeat of establishment candidate Thad Cochran by TEA party activist Chris McDaniel spawned a run-off election held June 24. While it is perfectly legal to cross party lines and vote in the “other” party’s primary in Mississippi, voters may not legally vote in the primaries of both parties.
True the Vote, an elections “watchdog” organization and target of an unscrupulous IRS, is leading a case with thirteen other plaintiffs alleging the aforementioned “double voting” in the run-off election surprisingly won by Thad Cochran, loser of the initial primary. The lawsuit is necessary to obtain voting records from the Mississippi secretary of state.
Seven thousand votes separated Thad Cochran and Chris McDaniel in the final race, and officials from the McDaniel campaign claim evidence of more than 1,000 illegally cast ballots in one county alone. Investigations are underway in 75 counties in Mississippi. It appears poll workers are freely disclosing observed irregularities in the recent election.
As if race bating were not sinister enough when Democrats do it, there is evidence that Cochran supporters made public claims that McDaniel would defund entitlements supported by African Americans in an effort to elicit crossover voting. Republicans should really abstain from such derisive tactics, it’s unbecoming of the party who freed the slaves and passed civil rights legislation.
According to Mississippi law, the voters who participated in both primaries are the criminals in this case. Common sense, however, would appoint those who attempted to terrorize said voters with misinformation as co-conspirators who should be held liable for their actions. The “faith and credit” of all politicians becomes suspect under these circumstances.
It begs the question, would photo ID requirements at the polling place have prevented any “double voting”? Are entitlements so firmly engrained in some populations that they create dependency sufficient to cause illicit behavior by otherwise law abiding citizens? Would term limits encourage political figures to genuinely serve the interest of constituents and not a quest for power? Okay, this case begs more than one question. Republicans and Democrats need to more intensely scrutinize those they elect to “represent” them as well as their own motives in supporting elected officials. “What’s in it for me?” is an inappropriate question when it comes to our government.
H/T: Conservative Tribune