December 8, 2016 – Too often, we allow the media to define the purpose of a political request. Most recently, I filed two requests for presidential recounts; one in Wisconsin and one in Nevada.
The Wisconsin petition took on a life of its own when Jill Stein filed a second petition and Hillary Clinton’s joined camp with the Stein team to do battle in that state. The media has had a field day with that recount effort while I quietly withdrew because of the grossly disproportionate cost that would have been involved.
Nevada was a different example. It offered a partial recount at an acceptable cost.
My focus was to inspect how states address a presidential recount. There was nothing partisan about my intent, which is why I filed in states in which both President-elect Trump and former Secretary Clinton has won (i.e., Wisconsin and Nevada, respectively). Wisconsin erected an economic barrier that I was unable to clear; Nevada was more respectful of the process.
Here is a copy of my letter to Nevada’s Secretary of State once the recount concluded.
You will notice that I did not jump to any conclusions because the facts surrounding Nevada’s recount process require a thoughtful assessment. As soon as that review is complete, I will be in a position to respond intelligently with respect to whether the system is extremely well organized or subject to meaningful improvement.
While the media would have liked some “Breaking News” (either ridiculing the state or me), they will have to wait until some legitimate news actually exists.
Those are my thoughts. What are yours?
(Please feel free to express your opinion below. My only request is that you do so rationally rather than emotionally and in a civil manner that respects the rights of others to disagree.)