A Louisiana Supreme Court justice has overturned the results of a Nov. 18, 2023, runoff election that was decided by a single vote. And while this case may seem like small potatoes, it could indicate that a sorely needed trend is beginning to emerge in the United States. Namely, unfairly defeated candidates are refusing to accept flawed elections, and more importantly, courageous judges are doing the right thing when faced with clear proof that shenanigans affected the outcome of an election.
The Louisiana election for the position of Caddo Parish Sheriff pitted Democrat candidate Henry Whitehorn against Republican opponent John Nickelson. Whitehorn prevailed by a single vote.
“The unofficial results of the sheriff race between me and my opponent indicated a one-vote margin out of more than 43,000 votes,” observed Nickelson at the time. “That’s something that hasn’t happened as far as we can tell in more than a century in this country, it’s truly unprecedented.”
Furthermore, “Many, dozens at a minimum, in the small sample of ballots we were able to inspect in the short time we had of these certificates had no signatures at all,” claimed Nickelson. “In other words, ballots had been submitted without a voter signing it,”
A recount was performed, which added three new votes to each candidate's tally, leaving Whitehorn the victor again by a single vote. Mickelson then filed suit, contesting the results and calling for a new election.
On Tuesday, Louisiana Supreme Court justice Joseph Bleich ruled that the election results were null and void. “It was proven beyond any doubt that there were at least 11 illegal votes cast and counted,” explained Bleich, and therefore, it “is legally impossible to know what the true vote should have been.”
In an interesting side note, Bleich had to come out of retirement to serve as judge "ad hoc" after four justices recused themselves, citing personal friendships with Democrat candidate Whitehorn. This story could have ended like a classic "good ol' boys" corrupt setup where it's impossible to achieve justice because everyone is a crony. But instead, everyone did the right thing, and now a new election will be held.
This is the second noteworthy voided election this year. These cases are blazing a trail forward that other plaintiffs and judges can follow when close elections have been provably affected by voter fraud, ballot harvesting, faulty machines, or other shenanigans or irregularities.
I have also been following the race for mayor of Bridgeport, Conn., for PJ Media:
The background to this case is that, in Bridgeport's Democrat mayoral primary on Sept. 12, challenger John Gomes was ahead of incumbent Joe Ganim (a felon who has served time for corruption) after the Election Day machine count. But after Bridgeport's famous "midnight magic," Ganim "won" by 251 votes. Shortly thereafter, video emerged of a Ganim ally, Wanda Geter-Pataky, stuffing a ballot box with mad stacks of votes. And to his credit, Gomes refused to be railroaded and vowed to fight.
Gomes took his case to court, and Connecticut Superior Court Judge William Clark overturned the primary results and ordered a new primary. "The court finds the plaintiff has met its burden of proof and established violations in the placing of absentee ballots into drop boxes by partisans who were not designated to handle such ballots and that the volume of ballots so mishandled is such that it calls the result of the primary election in serious doubt and leaves the court unable to determine the legitimate result of the primary," Clark wrote in his judgment.
Although the Bridgeport general election proceeded per state law and Ganim was declared the winner, the new primary will be held on Jan. 23, 2024. If Gomes defeats Ganim, then a new mayoral election will be held with Gomes as the Democrat nominee.
Read my original report on Bridgeport: Maybe This Latest Blatant Ballot Box Stuffing Scandal Will Be the Last Straw
"Big deal, Caddo Parish Sheriff and mayor of Bridgeport — who ever even heard of those places?" you huff. Bear in mind that both these cases now involve the highest law enforcement in their respective states. They are one step away from the regional Federal courts. They are significant matters, and they are being watched closely by people who are involved in other campaigns.
Democrats are doing their best to smear anyone who doesn't swallow their "securest election EVUH!" narrative as "deniers" and traitors, and they are actively trying to jail former/possibly future President Donald Trump for daring to question the 2020 results. But sooner or later, the widespread issue of unsecured elections — of illegal ballot harvesting and invalid ballots being counted — will have to be addressed. These small-potatoes cases today may well become the blueprint that addresses big, valid claims of election fraud tomorrow.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member