The citizens of Woodsboro, Maryland, were enraged after it was revealed that local politicians invalidated many votes based on a single legal opinion. In reaction, many are calling for the election to be redone in protest.
For context, conservatives, including Trump, have long sounded the alarm about the significant security issues in election security. However, the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have downplayed these concerns despite the mounting tide of evidence.
In any case, the scandal surrounded the election of David Williams, who was running for both a seat on the town council and for county commissioner. Brandy Peeples, the town attorney, directed election judges to invalidate any votes cast for Williams’ first race. Out of 225 ballots cast for the election, 78 were invalidated, leading many to cry foul.
Defending herself, Peeples wrote, “Because Maryland law expressly prohibits a person from being a simultaneous candidate for more than one public office, and because someone voting for the same person for several offices seems to neutralize his/her own vote the only fair way to address these ballots would be to render them invalid as the Florida courts have done,”
Continuing her opinion, she wrote, “It is not only confusing to the point of being unintelligible, but it produces a situation whereby a voter, by voting for the same man for several offices, would neutralize his own vote.”
Adding to the confusion, Heath Barne, who currently sits on the town council, defended the fact that this decision was not announced until after polls closed. He said, “Why would I post something that’s going to put Denise Hahn and Jesse Case’s campaign, who were running a legal and valid campaign, in jeopardy? That could have caused voters to not vote for them at all because they were upset over the whole finding,” adding. “I posted after the polls closed to avoid interfering with the election, as I was on the ballot.”
Enraged by the situation, Jesse Case decried the decision even though it benefited his campaign. He declared, “I think what happened was the town said, ‘Well, we can go ahead and we can kind of get rid of liability here and just invalidate them at the expense of the town, or we can not invalidate them, everybody gets to hear what the votes were, but then, the town leaves itself over to some possible liability,'” continuin,. “… I personally just think that probably we should not have invalidated these votes.”
"*" indicates required fields
Disturbed by the shady dealings, residents were unhappy with their politicians. One resident stated, “There seems to be a bit of an ethical problem here, when the burgess uses the town’s lawyer to get an opinion that is favorable to the burgess who is a candidate in that particular election, and apparently indirectly directed the election judges to invalidate the votes.”
Continuing his rebuke, the same man added, “I think this can justify an ethics investigation and should use an independent lawyer, because the current town lawyer was directly involved in this issue. … If the burgess is trying to violate a town code for his own benefit willingly, he should probably resign.”