At a press conference in Richmond moments ago, late on the third day of a three-day “recount” process in Virginia, state Sen. Mark Obenshain (R) conceded this razor-thin race against state Sen. Mark Herring (D) for state Attorney General.
Herring will replace VA’s outgoing, far right Republican AG Ken Cuccinelli who lost his own battle for the Governor’s office last month.
Obenshain’s concession this afternoon comes after what had previously appeared to be the closest statewide race in history. Just 165 votes out of more than 2.2 million cast had separated the two when the November 5th race was certified by the State Board of Elections late last month. But, by yesterday, Herring’s lead had widened to more than 800 votes after two days of what passes for a “recount” in VA (there is no “recount” on touch-screen electronic voting systems used by most voters in the state and most of the paper ballot localities simply re-run the bulk of paper ballots through optical-scan systems again, as per state election code.)
Obenshain’s decision means that Democrats will take control of all three statewide offices — Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General — for the first time in the Old Dominion since 1969 and the first time in twenty years that a Democrat will control the AG’s office there.
It also means that a potentially divisive election contest — described by some as the “nuclear option” — will not be invoked by the Republican candidate. Once the “recount” is fully complete on Friday, and all of the very few “challenged ballots” are adjudicated by a three-judge special recount panel in Richmond, Obenshain would have had until Monday to file a contest. Unlike similar post-recount contests elsewhere, in Virginia the matter is not decided by a court of a law, but rather by a majority vote of a joint session of the state legislature, which is currently dominated by Republicans.
With both candidates currently serving as state Senators, a special election to replace either winner of the AG race was going to happen no matter the outcome of the “recount”. The only question was which state Senator would need to be replaced. Obenshain’s district is believed to be solidly Republican and likely would have stayed that way had he won the AG election. Herring’s district, however, is currently seen as a toss-up. While the VA House is predominantly Republican, a GOP victory in the special election to replace Herring in the state Senate would swing the balance of that chamber over to Republicans as well.
Given the way Virginia forces the majority of voters to vote on 100% unverifiable electronic voting systems, and that the majority of votes cast on paper ballots are first tallied and then “recounted” by electronic optical-scan computers (either correctly or incorrectly, who knows?), we’ll never know who voters really wanted to win this year’s AG race. But this, apparently, is, as they say, “close enough for government work”. Voters in VA deserve, and should demand, a much more transparent and overseeable system for the most crucial element of their system of self-governance.
Barring any surprises, Herring will be sworn into office in January, along with Democratic Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe and Lt. Governor-elect Ralph Northam.
Previously related #VAAG coverage at The BRAD BLOG…
• E-Voting Trouble Reported During Today’s Elections in Virginia, New York, and Elsewhere [11/5/2013]
• ‘Recount’ in Virginia AG Race? Good Luck With That. (But, Perhaps You Can Help) [11/6/2013]
• BREAKING: Thousands of Votes Discovered ‘Unaccounted For’ in Virginia AG Race [11/7/2013]
• Tallying VA’s ‘Missing’ Op-Scan Votes; And Other Surprises in the Incredibly Close VA AG Election [11/8/2013]
• Down to the Provisionals: 55 Vote Margin (or less) Out of 2.2 Million Cast in Virginia AG Race [11/9/2013]
• BREAKING: Democratic Candidate Takes Lead in Razor-Thin VA Attorney General Tally [11/11/2013]
• Provisional Votes Tallied in Fairfax County, VA – Last Ballots Before Certification of the Razor-Thin VA AG Race [11/12/2013]
• BREAKING: Democrat Mark Herring ‘Wins’ VA Attorney General Race by 164 Votes Before Final State Certification, Almost Certain ‘Recount’ [11/12/2013]
• VA AG Race: About That 500+ Vote Republican Pickup in Bedford County [11/20/2013]
• Yes, Santa Claus, There is a Virginia: ‘Recount’ and Potential ‘Contest’ Still Ahead in VA AG Race [12/3/2013]
• Democratic Candidate Margin Widens in Virginia’s Attorney General ‘Recount’ [12/18/2013]
What if they didn’t have the papare ballots they did recount. Who would have won, how long contested…..I can’t believe they don’t hand count recount like MN did in Franken Coleman senate race. Coleman fought for 6 months.
Maybe his first case will be prosecuting Liz Cheney’s husband for “voter fraud”:
(Liz Cheney’s Husband Registers to Vote in Two States? Is That “Voter Fraud”?). A tortured narrative family hysterics out in the plains where the Buffalo roam.
Understanding that a recount is just a rehash of the computer code, how could they have been 800(or any hypothetical number?)votes off from the first report? Only because it was so close did they conduct this “recount”. How does this not further discredit electronic voting systems? So far we’ve learned that they’re not more accurate, noticeably slower, prone to the same human errors that a manual/paper system would be and result in more historically, against-the-odds close races- besides all the other belabored points made on this blog. Are the bulk of our BOE’s so disconnected that they fail to see the obvious? What insulates these failures from the world’s default democratic voting model?
Michael G. asked @ 3:
You may need to read this article (as well as most of our previous ones on this) a bit closer. As noted here many times, most of the ballots cast in this race were via 100% unverifiable touch-screen systems. However, hundreds of thousands of votes were cast on paper ballots (tallied by optical-scan systems). Those paper ballots were mostly re-scanned during the “recount”, though those which reflected no votes in the AG’s race, according to the scanners, were then examined by hand. So many ballots read as “under votes” were found, as usual, to actually contain a vote which, as is often the case, humans were able to discern the intent, while the computer op-scanners could not.
It does. At least for those of us who believe that the intent of the voter should actually be verifiably confirmed by human beings.