A local judge has issued an order requiring the two election-denier Republicans on the Waynesboro Electoral Board to certify the local 2024 election in accord with their duties under state law.
“The personal beliefs of members of a local board of elections cannot derail the electoral process for the entire Commonwealth,” Waynesboro Circuit Court Judge Paul A. Dryer wrote in his ruling in the voting-rights case, which was issued late in the day on Monday, on the eve of the Nov. 5 election.
The long and short of it: yes, Waynesboro, and yes, also, Virginia, your votes will count.
“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for the voters of Waynesboro. This attempt to avoid certifying the election results has been stopped in its tracks,” said John Powers, director of Advancement Project’s Power and Democracy Program.
“Today also marks a major win for our democracy. Election certification has long been a settled issue of American law, and today’s ruling reaffirms that fundamental principle. Our election system only works if officials honor their duty and respect voters’ right to have their votes counted,” Powers said.
Advancement Project, a Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit, partnered with a D.C.-based law firm, Crowell and Moring, and Thomas Hendell, a partner at the Charlottesville–based Tremblay & Smith, to bring a suit on behalf of five Waynesboro voters – disclosure: I am among the five – against Curt Lilly, the chairman of the Waynesboro Electoral Board, and Scott Mares, the board’s vice chair.
ICYMI
- Waynesboro: Judge seems to tip hand in suit over Nov. 5 election certification
- Waynesboro voters seek court order requiring Nov. 5 vote certification
- Waynesboro Republicans file suit to pre-emptively challenge Nov. 5 vote count
- Waynesboro Republicans who don’t want to certify Nov. 5 election were … recruited?
- Waynesboro Republicans file suit to pre-emptively challenge Nov. 5 vote count
Lilly and Mares had themselves filed suit on Oct. 4 to assert their right to withhold certification of the 2024 election, claiming that the use of machines to count the vote was a violation of the Virginia Constitution.
The suit filed on behalf of the voter group asked the Waynesboro Circuit Court to issue an order to Lilly and Mares to fulfill their legal duty.
At risk was not just the votes cast in Waynesboro in the early-voting period that began in September and ended on Saturday, and the votes to be cast on Election Day, but also, potentially, votes cast across Virginia.
A former state election commissioner, Edgardo Cortes, testified in a hearing in Waynesboro Circuit Court last week that a holdup in Waynesboro resulting from Lilly and Mares withholding certification of the local election results could prevent the State Board of Elections from being able to certify the statewide vote for president and for the U.S. Senate, and the final result in the Sixth District congressional race.
The plaintiffs argued that by not having their votes counted, they were effectively being deprived of the right to vote, a key point on which Dryer agreed.
“If Plaintiffs’ votes are not ultimately counted by VSBE due to the WBE failing to certify the results of the election, or otherwise if their votes are counted late, resulting in a delay in seating elected officials to the offices to which they were elected, this will result in considerable harm to the Plaintiffs. Namely, that they will be disenfranchised from their right to vote, because a vote cast that is not counted is no vote at all,” Dryer wrote in his ruling.
The harm to the defendants, Lilly and Mares, meanwhile, is “slight,” Dryer wrote.
“If the Defendants, in good faith and good conscience, cannot certify the results due to their contention that they cannot truthfully attest that the results are accurate (due to their inability to hand count the votes), then they can resign their position instead of violating their conscience and sincerely held beliefs,” Dryer wrote.
The order from Dryer included a preliminary injunction that “enjoins Defendants from violating the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to have their votes legally counted.”
“The Defendants are ordered to certify and sign the abstracts of votes based on facially valid returns provided by officers of elections,” Dryer wrote.
Share
Chris Graham
