Judge OVERTURNS Election Over Too Many Illegal Votes

Three days ago, over in Louisiana, enough evidence of illegal voting was uncovered such that a state Supreme Court judge completely nullified the results of an election. His rationale was that enough ballots were cast illegally to actually change the outcome of the race and therefore the entire thing had to be scrapped and redone. And the details of this case are wild. Let me quickly give you a backstory here. To start with, in case you're not aware, over in Louisiana, instead of having counties, they have what are known as parishes. They're basically the exact same thing as counties, but because of the unique history of Louisiana, they're instead called parishes. And about three weeks ago, on November the 18th, there was an election for sheriff held over in Caddo Parish, located in the northwestern part of the state. And in this race, you had two prominent candidates. You had Henry Whitehorn, the Democrat, and John Nicholson, the Republican. And so election day came, about 43,000 people voted. And after all the dust settled, the official results showed that the Democrat, Mr. Henry Whitehorn, had won the election by a margin of just a single vote. Now, by law, that slim of a margin requires an automatic recount. And Mr. John Nicholson, for his part, he was pushing for the recount to be done by hand. However, the local board of elections claimed that a hand recount would just take too long. And so instead, they opted for a machine recount instead. This machine recount, it discovered three extra votes for both candidates, meaning in practical terms that the recount still showed the Democrat winning by one. However, perhaps smelling something was fishy, Mr. Nicholson, the Republican, he pursued the case further. And in so doing, he filed a lawsuit over in the district court seeking to challenge the results. Here's what he said in terms of his rationale during a press conference. The unofficial results of the sheriff race between me and my opponent indicated a one vote margin out of more than 43,000 votes. 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. He then went on to say that among the absentee ballots that were counted, many of them, according to his investigation, had missing voter signatures. Quote, many dozens at a minimum in the small sample of ballots were able to inspect in the short time we had of the certificates had no signatures at all. In other words, ballots had been submitted without a voter signing it. He then further laid out that both him and his team, they discovered many other discrepancies as well, such as voters being counted twice, as well as votes being counted from those who had actually died before election day. He concluded his press conference by saying that we know from looking at the certificates that we inspected that many ballots that again, weren't even signed. I mean, what would happen if you tried to go vote at the polling place and you said, I'm not signing or I'm not giving an ID so you can prove who I am. You wouldn't be allowed to vote. We can't count votes that are not verified in the way the law requires. If the zone of uncertainty, if you like, is greater than the difference between the two candidates and unofficial results, there is no way to ascertain the winner of the election. And that being the case, a new election is the only way to make sure that the will of the people is respected. And so Mr. Nicholson was suing to make sure that lawful votes were counted while unlawful votes were not. And he was well within his rights to do so because over in Louisiana, according to state law, candidates can ask for new elections and a judge can order a new election if he or she determines that quote, it is impossible to determine the result of election or the number of unqualified voters who are allowed to vote by the election officials was sufficient to change the result of the election if they had not been allowed to vote. And so Mr. Nicholson was suing for exactly that. Now, after he filed his lawsuit, the four justices on the bench, they all decided to recuse themselves because they all have prior friendships with Mr. Nicholson, who just for reference before the election, he was a former member of the city council. And so because the judges all had to recuse themselves, the Louisiana State Supreme Court, they came in and they assigned a former state Supreme Court justice to take up the case, Mr. Joseph Blake. And after going through all the evidence, Justice Blake, he nullified the election because enough illegal votes were discovered to call into question the actual results. Here's part of what he wrote in his 12 page ruling quote, it was confirmed by witness testimony that two individuals voted twice or double voted and that at least four individuals who were then and currently fully ineligible to vote cast ballots in person the day of the election. It was further confirmed by testimony that several accepted absentee or mail-in ballots did not comply with Louisiana law and should have been rejected. This runoff election involved a one vote margin. It was proven beyond any doubt that there were at least 11 illegal votes cast and counted, meaning in practical terms that the judge found that at the very least 11 votes were cast illegally enough to change the margin of victory. And he therefore wrote this quote, it is legally impossible to know what the true vote should have been. A new election is necessary not only for the candidates but also to ensure the public's right to untainted election results. And as such, he nullified the results of the election and he ordered that a new election be held this upcoming March. Now, as you would imagine, Mr. Nicholson, the Republican, he was quite pleased with the decision. Shortly after it was made, here was a statement that he released quote, the court's ruling is a victory for election integrity and we should all be confident that in March the voters of Caddo Parish will make their voices heard definitively on who should be the next sheriff of our parish. I plan to work doubly hard to make sure that every voter knows why our vision for Caddo Parish as a safer, stronger community is worthy of their vote. On the flip side however, the Democrat in the race, Mr. Whitehorn, well he was not too pleased with the ruling to say the least. In fact, he expressed his disappointment in his own statement writing this quote, I was always taught that the person with the most votes wins, even if that's by a thousand votes or by one vote. I was also taught that when we go to school and get an education, gain experience in our chosen field and become qualified in what we do, we will have the best opportunity to be successful. But it seems as though the rules of the game are different depending on who the players are. I won the sheriff's race not only once but twice. My opponent conveniently chose to question the integrity of the election only after he lost, not once but twice. In elections, you should not be given a redo simply because you are unhappy with the results. Oddly, in the statement there were no mention of the illegal votes. Regardless, Mr. Whitehorn, he also said that he plans to appeal this decision with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. However, he also added a caveat in the statement saying that if his appeal were to fail, he will run again. Quote, but if we are unsuccessful at getting a reversal and forced to have a special election, my faith in God and my belief in the great people of Caddo Parish assures me that for a third time, I will win the sheriff's race. And so that is where this case currently stands. The judge found enough illegal votes cast to throw away the results and order a new election as per the Republican candidate's request, while on the flip side, the Democrat candidate is appealing that decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And if the appeal doesn't work, the new election will be held on March 23rd of next year. If you'd like to go deeper into this particular case and read the full 12-page ruling for yourself, which by the way, I would highly recommend. I think it's very good. It lays out the evidence quite well point by point. And if you want to read it, I'll throw the link to the PDF version of it down into the description box below if you happen to be the type of person who likes to dig into the weeds. And all I can return is that as you're making your way down there to the description box, take a super quick detour to smash those like and subscribe buttons. Smashing that like button will ensure that this video reaches ever more people via the YouTube algorithm, while that subscribe button will ensure that every time we publish a new video, it'll hit your newsfeed, well, every time we publish it. And now, a quick word from today's sponsor. All right, today's sponsor is a little bit different than usual. You might already know how about half of all Americans are now considered obese, and people are naturally looking for quick and easy ways to slim down. So it's really no wonder that a hot new weight loss treatment called Azempic is sweeping the nation, since it promises rapid weight loss. It's an injection that works by essentially slowing down your digestion and telling your brain that you're already full. However, this drug was not invented for weight loss. It was actually developed to treat type 2 diabetes. And yet still, millions of people across the country are lining up at clinics to get their weekly shots, which is exactly why Dr. Amy Lee, who is a bariatric physician, she decided to pull back the curtain and inform the public about some uncomfortable truths regarding this drug. Now, whether or not you and your doctor ultimately decide to try it, well, that's up to you. However, before you make that decision, consider watching Dr. Amy Lee's informational video. In her presentation, she lays out some lesser known facts about Azempic, as well as some simple steps that you can take at home to lose weight without these injections. You can check out her informational video over at 3harmfulfoods.com forward slash Roman. I'll throw the link to it. It'll be down in the description box below. And then lastly, if you're watching this episode and you're thinking to yourself, man, I love this type of content. I just wish Roman would publish more episodes every single week. Well, you're in luck because I do. Over on Epic TV, our awesome no censorship video platform, I publish anywhere between one to three exclusive episodes of Facts Matter, usually on topics that are, well, quite frankly, too spicy for here on YouTube. And so if you'd like some extra episodes every single week, including a huge backlog from the last three years, well, now's a great time to check it out because the Epoch Times is running an awesome sale, better than the sale we were running before. And that is during this holiday season, you can sign up and try the Epoch Times for six full months for just a single dollar. This is really the type of sale that's meant to get you to try the Epoch Times with almost no commitment at all. You can even cancel any time if you're not fully satisfied with the content. However, I do hope and something tells me that you'll fall in love with the content and be a subscriber for a long, long, long time to come. I'll throw a link to the sale page. It'll be right there at the top of the description box below. You can just click on that link. It'll take you to the sale page where you can try the Epoch Times for, again, six months for just a single dollar. So again, that link is right there at the top of the description box below. Hope you check it out. And I hope that you join us over at the Epoch Times website. And until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times. Stay informed. Most importantly, stay free.