NY-19: Hayworth’s Campaign Disputes Fraud Charges
[Ed. note: Be sure to read the first comment below with regard to any future communications by Hayworth’s campaign.]
In the interest of equal time, representatives of Nan Hayworth’s congressional campaign have contacted me and asked if I would publish their response to civil charges being filed by John Hall’s campaign, which I posted here. The core of progressivism is fairness, so I have agreed to allow them to answer these allegations and I am inserting them below as they were sent to me. The statements for publication are in blockquotes below:
Statements from Nan Hayworth campaign for NY-19, 08-13-10
The Hayworth campaign categorically and vehemently rejects the allegations that any campaign staffer, notary or others engaged in deliberate fraud regarding Independence Party petitions. Further, the only result of this action, if the Hall campaign is successful, will be to disenfranchise Independence Party voters who wanted to see a candidate on their line. If Nan Hayworth is prevented from running on that line, as the Hall campaign seeks to do, no one will appear. The real issues in the 19th District are jobs, a broken economy and a federal government whose spending is out of control, about which John Hall says little.
Statement by Douglas Cunningham, communications director, Nan Hayworth campaign, regarding John Hall court action:
"The allegation that John Hicks is somehow involved in and directed fraud is beyond the pale. Anyone who knows John Hicks, and I’ve known him for years, knows it’s laughable. This is nothing but desperation politics on the part of the Hall campaign. I hope they have miscalculated the mood of the district as badly as they’ve miscalculated John Hicks’ character. His reputation is beyond reproach, and the district has had it with the results that John Hall and his Washington buddies are serving up. We need to talk about jobs, and it’s here that the record of John Hall and his Democratic friends in Congress is miserable. Come November, voters will choose his replacement."
Statement by Guy Parisi, noted elections lawyer, of Westchester County, who is representing Hayworth:
"This is typical Washington hypocrisy. He’s attempting to impugn John HIcks, who’s an upstanding member of the community who pays his taxes, unlike John Hall’s friend Charlie Rangel, about whom Mr. Hall has remained silent. John Hicks is a lawyer of more than 30 years with an unblemished record. I have personally known Mr. Hicks for 20 years and his honesty and integrity are above reproach. These allegations are totally without foundation."
On the Independence Party signatures, the Hayworth campaign needed 968. We submitted 1527. Of those, 246 were disallowed by the Board of Elections for a variety of strictly technical reasons: unclear date, village instead of town, and so on. NONE was rejected for fraud or any similar reason.
That leaves 313 more than needed.
The Hall campaign, however, is unwilling to accept that, and is making spurious accusations of fraud and forgery, ones that are completely without foundation. Because the Board of elections won’t take up such matters, those issues must be decided by a court.
The Hall campaign is entitled to take the matter to court, but it is certain to lose.
Actualities from either Cunningham or Parisi can be arranged.