Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Defeated S.C. candidate Vic Rawl calls for investigation into Alvin Greene win

Updated 3:17 p.m.
By Garance Franke-Ruta
The candidate defeated in the South Carolina Senate Democratic primary last week by an unemployed political novice called for an investigation into the results and filed a formal protest with the state Democratic Party.

"There is a cloud over Tuesday's election. There is a cloud over South Carolina, that affects all of our people, Democrats and Republicans, white and African-American alike," retired judge Vic Rawl, who was defeated in the primary by Army veteran Alvin Greene, said in a statement posted on his website Monday. "At this point, the people of our state do not have the basic confidence that their vote will be counted."

Greene, who lives with his elderly father, won the contest with nearly 60 percent of the vote. Primary elections in South Carolina are administered by the political parties, not the state.

The complaint now goes to the 92-member South Carolina Democratic Party executive committee, which will consider the protest at a public hearing Thursday in Columbia at which Rawl's attorney, F. Truett Nettles II of Charleston, will present the campaign's case. Greene or a representative for him may also attend and present evidence, though he is under no obligation to do so.

It is unclear how many members of the executive body will attend and vote on whether to dismiss Rawl's case, overturn the election or call for a new one, and there is no quorum number the body must reach before proceeding.

The burden of proof at the hearing will be on Rawl. "To overturn an election is a very high threshold even for this committee," noted Jay Parmley, Executive Director for the SCDP.

Rawl pointed to what he called "the strange circumstances surrounding Tuesday's vote," including "irregularities" in the election returns; anecdotes from poll workers and voters about "extremely unusual incidents while trying to vote and administer this election"; and "the well-documented unreliability and unverifiability of the voting machines used in South Carolina."

Those machines "were purchased surplus from Louisiana after that state outlawed them," Rawl said.

But the election returns from last Tuesday show fewer voters casting ballots in the Democratic Senate primary than the party's gubernatorial race, arguing against a surge in GOP crossover voting in the race -- a specter raised by some.

"Let me be clear: regardless of the outcome of this protest, a full and unblinking investigation of this election and the overall integrity of South Carolina's election system must go forward. Whether our protest is upheld or not, I intend to bring my full energies to electoral reform well into the future," Rawls said.

Rawl also addressed himself to the mystery man who defeated him.

"I would like to speak directly to Mr. Greene and say: 'Sir, this is not about you, and it's not about me. I wish you and your family nothing but the best in the weeks and months ahead,'" Rawl said.

The last protest hearing before the SCDP executive body took place two years ago and concerned a mayoral race in Florence.

By Garance Franke-Ruta  |  June 14, 2010; 3:17 PM ET
Categories:  2010 Election , 44 The Obama Presidency , 50 States  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: No apology from Fiorina for comment on Boxer's hairstyle
Next: Deal would exempt NRA and others from campaign finance disclosures

Comments

'Those machines "were purchased surplus from Louisiana after that state outlawed them," Rawl said.'

Louisiana? Well, that explains everything, then. LOL!

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]

Posted by: libertyatstake | June 15, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

to sarafina; you are a presumptious a88hole. dems ain't my guys and repubs ain't my guys. i ask a legit ? and you think you know what's in my heart and head. you can kiss my a88.

Posted by: bruce30 | June 15, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

to sarafina; you are a presumptious a88hole. dems ain't my guys and repubs ain't my guys. i ask a legit ? and you think you know what's in my heart and head. you can kiss my a88.

Posted by: bruce30 | June 15, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

It is a shame that we have waited this long to implement open source/ paper ballots systems like those demonstrated at LinuxWorld in 2008- The solutions are available- now let's embrace them. Mandatory paper ballots- perfectly printed to eliminate voter intent issues- coupled with open source software like the Air Force uses.. see www.openvoting.org. We must act now to insure the incoming EAC appointees are open source savvy..

Posted by: UnderdogUSA | June 15, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT BLACK VS WHITE, OR RICH VS POOR, OR REPUBLICAN VS DEMOCRAT, OR LOSER VS WINNER. SOMETIMES IT'S JUST ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, GO HERE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF:

http://www.examiner.com/x-44755-Charleston-County-Elections-2010~y2010m6d15-Doubt-grows-in-South-Carolina-election-results

Posted by: politicalanalyst75 | June 15, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT BLACK VS WHITE, OR RICH VS POOR, OR REPUBLICAN VS DEMOCRAT, OR LOSER VS WINNER. SOMETIMES IT'S JUST ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, GO HERE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF:

http://www.examiner.com/x-44755-Charleston-County-Elections-2010~y2010m6d15-Doubt-grows-in-South-Carolina-election-results

Posted by: politicalanalyst75 | June 15, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

For all the conspirators who believe that somehow Greene stole the election when he defeated Rawl, I have just one question. In the latest Rasmussen Reports SC poll (6/10), Greene has the support of 21% of the people. How can this be if Greene's election was rigged as so many MSM stories have implied?

Posted by: Conservator | June 15, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Would Rawl's be worried about the voting irregularities if he had won the election?

I have also noticed that for liberals there are only two kids of general elections. Ones they win and ones that are stolen!

Posted by: heathergreeneyes | June 14, 2010 11:47 PM | Report abuse

The media continue to misrepresent this story. The claim that because he never campaigned must mean that voters could not know who he was, what he represented, or that he was black is just false! Local media presented him, his politics and his picture in newspapers in S.C. Here is one example:

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100525/NEWS/305250032/Former-judge-newcomer-challenge-for-Senate

The MSM are simply sore losers because Mr. Greene didn't fit their idea of a candidate who "could win," and they blew him off. Just like they do thousands of candidates nationally every two years.

Posted by: infuse | June 14, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

The media continue to misrepresent this story. The claim that because he never campaigned must mean that voters could not know who he was, what he represented, or that he was black is just false! Local media presented him, his politics and his picture in newspapers in S.C. Here is one example:

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100525/NEWS/305250032/Former-judge-newcomer-challenge-for-Senate

The MSM are simply sore losers because Mr. Greene didn't fit their idea of a candidate who "could win," and they blew him off. Just like they do thousands of candidates nationally every two years.

Posted by: infuse | June 14, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Vic Rawl commissioned polls that showed him competitive with DeMint and way ahead of Greene. So it's no surprise he focused on beating DeMint and saved his money for that.

Second, a Republican operative named Ron Sheahy planted a candidate in 1990 -- an unemployed black man, in this case a shrimp fisherman named Benjamin Hunt Jr. He was later convicted, but he's still out there.

Given all that, it's no wonder Clyburn and Rawl are up in arms about a possible plant. And if the vote has been tampered with, as now seems likely, you have the whole plan -- discredit Rawl, SC Democrats, black politicians generally, and even Obama.

Posted by: michele3d | June 14, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse


"How could a black man possibly have $10,400?"

Typical Liberal Democrat


Posted by: screwjob16 | June 14, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

The filing fee $$ will be traced to a Republican operative and you won't hear word one from any of the regular rightwingnut posters.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 14, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Vic Rawl is soooo out of touch. He can't believe he lost, so it must be a GOP plant. No Rawl, you didn't convince your constituents that you were the better candidate. Matter of fact you didn't convince your constituents of anything, because like Greene, you didn't actually campaign. You thought you would ride to the nomination on the strength of your party's backing alone.

Posted by: annmarie2 | June 14, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Hmm! A hint of racism here folks? The democratic party no less!! Maybe Mr. Rawl will now see that the voters are TIRED OF POLITICIANS!! Hint to the rest of you!!

Posted by: wheeljc | June 14, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

For Pete's sake, this is the same party that elected 'Blago' governor in Illinois; the same party that elected Hank Johnson (fearful of our sinking Guam) from Georgia; the member of congress from North Carolina who was caught on tape assaulting a student; and let's not forget the other notable from North Carolina -- John Edwards. Isn't this just par for the course for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's congress??

Posted by: wheeljc | June 14, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious that something is not right. The guy didn't have money yet could pay the 10K, didn't campaign yet got the most votes..
got more votes in certain disctricts that the number of voters..and if you heard any of his interviews he can't speak..it is definitely worth an investigation..

Posted by: evelyn3091 | June 14, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

it would make some sense to at least figure out how a guy with felony charges against him who has so little money he qualifies for a public defender would take 10 grand to run for public office. If it's his own money, he's a lunatic, and maybe a fraud (what did he declare to qualify for the PD?). If it's not, then we have a story. either way, no reason not to do a little digging.

Posted by: JoeT1 | June 14, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Just count the votes, make sure you used the best voting machines from DIEBOLD, like Bush did. lol

Posted by: waltip | June 14, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse


"We think the way to win in November is to destroy our nominee for Senate who won a 60-40 landslide one week ago."

Dazed Confused Dim

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 14, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse


Rawl the weasel who lost in a 60-40 landslide because he is an incompetent doofus who ran a rotten campaign, cries into his beer.

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 14, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party in Illinois provided the electorate with Scott Cohen.

The Democratic Party in South Carolina provides the voters with Alvin Greene.

Why can't the Democratic Party properly vet their candidates prior to an election?

I guess that the answer is it's George W. Bush's fault as everything else is a failure by "W"!

Posted by: mwhoke | June 14, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

bruce30, cut out the racist teabagging.

Greene won, your Good ol' Boy lost.

Get back to burning crosses like you're best at.

Posted by: seraphina21 | June 14, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

there is definitely something other than a legitimate election going on here. why would an unemployed, prctically broke individual with virtually no chance of winning, even think once about putting up $10,000.00 to have his name on the ballot? if something looks wrong, it probably is wrong. can't wait to see what's really going on here.

Posted by: bruce30 | June 14, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

there is definitely something other than a legitimate election going on here. why would an unemployed, prctically broke individual with virtually no chance of winning, even think once about putting up $10,000.00 to have his name on the ballot? if something looks wrong, it probably is wrong. can't wait to see what's really going on here.

Posted by: bruce30 | June 14, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Greene was such long shot, I doubt if the lobbyists have even tried to buy him. For that alone, I'd probably vote for Greene if I were in South Carolina.
Sterling Greenwood/Aspen

Posted by: AspenFreePress | June 14, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

there is definitely something other than a legitimate election going on here. why would an unemployed, prctically broke individual with virtually no chance of winning, even think once about putting up $10,000.00 to have his name on the ballot? if something looks wrong, it probably is wrong. can't wait to see what's really going on here.

Posted by: bruce30 | June 14, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Whitey got owned.

Posted by: seraphina21 | June 14, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

This is the Balloon Boy all over again. I put a thousand dollars down to all betters this was a con job! Anyone in these here United States want to put their money where their mouth is? You get a thousand dollars if the Balloon Boy of South Carolina is telling the truth as testified by the Judge. Any takers for my $1000.00 bet?

Posted by: steve_real | June 14, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

This is the Balloon Boy all over again. I put a thousand dollars down to all betters this was a con job! Anyone in these here United States want to put their money where their mouth is? You get a thousand dollars if the Balloon Boy of South Carolina is telling the truth as testified by the Judge. Any takers for my $1000.00 bet?

Posted by: steve_real | June 14, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Alvin Greene won the primary fair and square. The fact that he did not even campaign makes it the most honest election of the past 50 years. He did not entice voters to vote for him with lies. He did not smear or misrepresent his competition. He is the one candidate the voters voted for without any pressure one way or the other. Any maneuvers to take away this win are a total disregard for the voices of the voters. The voters do not need anybodys permission to vote for any candidate. No matter how weird or strange this outcome is, it it the outcome the voters decided on.
The Whitehouse involvement in the Sestak and Romanof elections deserves an investigation. Instead people demand an investigation into the Greene primary election win when the only thing strange about it is who won. Mr Greene has a heck of a nerve to win without the Dem party permission. The voters must also have a lot of nerve to vote for Greene without prior approval of the Dem party. This result and the consequential uproar clearly demonstrate how the political parties have controlled the election proces and removed it from the voters. The Dem party obviously feels that they are entitled to decide who can run for office and who is allowed to win.
Another one of our "freedoms" going down the drain.

Posted by: duif100 | June 14, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

ooops I apologize for the multiple posting.

Posted by: annmarie2 | June 14, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Instead of investigating Alvin Greene, Vic Rawl needs to explain to his donors why he didn't campaign himself. Why didn't he challenge any of his Democratic opponents to a debate and why didn't he convince his constituents that he was the better candidate. Seems to me like Vic Rawl got a case of Entitlement Fever, now he has to answer to his donors as well as the high profile Democrats who backed him

Posted by: annmarie2 | June 14, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Instead of investigating Alvin Greene, Vic Rawl needs to explain to his donors why he didn't campaign himself. Why didn't he challenge any of his Democratic opponents to a debate and why didn't he convince his constituents that he was the better candidate. Seems to me like Vic Rawl got a case of Entitlement Fever, now he has to answer to his donors as well as the high profile Democrats who backed him

Posted by: annmarie2 | June 14, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Instead of investigating Alvin Greene, Vic Rawl needs to explain to his donors why he didn't campaign himself. Why didn't he challenge any of his Democratic opponents to a debate and why didn't he convince his constituents that he was the better candidate. Seems to me like Vic Rawl got a case of Entitlement Fever, now he has to answer to his donors as well as the high profile Democrats who backed him

Posted by: annmarie2 | June 14, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company