You mean candidate Margaret Chan is ahead of candidate David Cohen by a mere 49 votes and thus there is a retabulation of the machine vote, not to mention the counting of absentee ballots.

Wonder if it will be as close as Judge Feinman's race a while back when he won by a mere 15 votes after the "recount"?

No 11:31: There would be a retabulation, or rather a tabulation regardless. Let's understand what happened on election night. An election inspector, average age 97, took the vote down, reading small numbers  in a poorly lit gym. Then those numbers were handed to a cop who didn't care, who read them over the phone to another cop who didn't care. They were then entered into a computer. In most races, the mistake don't matter, but when it's close, human error can alter the results.

But, a few days after the election, fulltime Board employees (not a group which inspires confidence, but better than the inspectors) counts the results in every race for real. This process can be monitored by concerned candidates, who can also independently raise any discrepancies for further discussion, something which invariably happens in any race in which the count is in dispute. The  count of valid paper ballots is also added in. As Skurnik points out, this is not a recount, but the first and only real count.  

There are so many purported irregularities in this race that I believe a recount is more than in order, and perhaps an investigation into campaign practices by Judicial candidates. 

To know that a person running for judge used anything less than ethical means, is to know that the person may not be qualified to serve us on the bench.  Requesting money on palm cards handed out by the candidate?  Taking official positions on matters that one may have to judge one day in newspaper articles and public forums held in conjunction with the race?  Holding a forum instructing tenants how to beat their landlords in court, Paying poll workers of another campaign to abandon their posts?  Punching a constituent while campaigning? Hiring thugs as poll watchers in certain EDs, jamming machines in opponent strongholds?

 These are not acceptable as normal campaign practices, but for a potential judge?  I find it outrageous that we stand for it and allow people who do this to pass through.

Time will tell whether this was a straight election or not.

Rumors throughout the district are that Margaret A. Chan’s narrow lead in yesterday’s vote for Civil Court Judge in Manhattan’s Second District is mired in irregularities and may be challenged by one or both of her opponents, David Cohen and Andrea Masley.

http://loho10002.com/ 

One of my former colleagues was approached on Tuesday by people who said they worked for Ms. Chan's campaign and she was offered $80 to throw Judge Cohen's palm cards away and leave the polling site.  Sadly, she took the money and ran - and then told people about it - go figure?

If they were indeed workers for Chan, and if you call that a brilliant campaign tactic, than sure - she campaigned better.  I just call it underhanded and would never want a person who condones that kind of activity to be in a position to judge me on any matter.

All of these disturbing allegations are well and good, but inconsequential if no one is willing to investigate this candidate further and if a judicial committee simply waves these off as sour grapes from supporters of the losing candidates.

If the Observer, Daily News or even better, Jon Hicks at the Times would just take a few hours of their day to see what , if any at all, is true or not, this can be settled prior to Ms. Chan being sworn in.  There is enough to look at.  Chan may even face disbarment for some of her callous actions toward the judiciary. 

Josh Benson, Ben Smith, David Seifman, Stephanie Gaskell, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Hicks – there may be a bigger story here than coordinated nonsense on a blog.  I don’t see people making stuff like this up about a potential judge if some were not truly real.  Be the star, make a name, take a look and bring her down – if that is what the evidence finds. 

I know rumors are your best friends especially when you have some dirt on a candidate, but please don't insult our intelligence!!! for instance Margaret "Punching a constituent while campaigning" Submitted by Martin Olivia (not verified) on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 1:23pm. is riduculous - if she did, wouldn't she be arrested made a specticle of by her opponents right away.

Who in their right mind would annouce their from a certain campaign before paying a constituent off to leave - as Submitted by Mary Sherman (not verified) on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 5:37pm.

Twisting the facts are great "Holding a forum instructing tenants how to beat their landlords in court," again Submitted by Martin Olivia (not verified) on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 1:23pm. Ask yourself would you promote a forum like that if you where running for judge? Fact is it was a very commendable forum on "How to save your home" to people facing these hard issues.

Please, we are smarter than that, to believe these accusations would minimize our intelligence.

The only IRREGULARITY here is that Margaret Won.

Though she was not Shelly Silver's choice - She was the PEOPLE"S CHOICE

I think this city needs new blood instead of the usual Sheldon Silver machinery that's been around for so long.  District 2 really showed who they wanted for judge.  The people know who will best serve their community. This judicial race shows that you don't need a whole lot of money or a bunch of big names to back your campaign in order to win an election.  Good for Margaret Chan!

Right, you don't need money to win.  Margaret spent close to $100,000, Andrea spent about $50,000 and David spent $80,000.  This was as of the 11 day pre-primary filing.

If anything thinks that Margaret spent less money than Shelly they are sadlly mistaken.  She's really rich.  She sold some swanky penthouse apartment in Manhattan to run for judge.  Chan spent MORE money than the Silver candidate.

I'm all for people pushing their platforms and being aggressive.  But it's hard for me to see how Chan can be a real impartial judge.  The "forum" she did on the Lower East Side ADVERTISED "how to beat your landlord."  If that's not taking a position, I don't know what is.  The posters are still up all over Rivington, Stanton, Norfolk, Suffolk, so people can read them and judge for themselves if "beating your landlord" means being impartial.

And as for taking positions in the newspapers, well, just go look at the newspapers.  Just go look at her own web site, where she takes positions.

People are smart enough for themselves to decide if all this blog talk is the work of a losing party or just people who are deeply disturbed that Chan seems to have done a lot of stuff that's rather unbecoming for a potential judge.

The person who said there were "irregularities" in the race between Chan and Cohen was certainly correct.  After the machine tabulation today, Margaret Chan is UP by over 130 votes! 

 And all the time you had opponents spreading wild false rumors about her, and she still won.

 Come on!

Yes, I agree people are smart enough to n=know ANY candidate who pulls any of this stuff could not win this race Thus Congrats margaret.

How do you know she's rich or sold "a swanky penthouse" Yeh, your not involved with the losing team

What if Andrea and David had their expenses "donated" to them in lieu of monetary donations?  With all the people and connections David has - i'm sure he got lots of favors!  no need to pay back for that

What if Chan got $50k in cash from Diamondstone?  You didn't see the other two candidates hand out endorsement palm cards with candidates seeking political office. 

What if Chan got her office workers to donate their labor?  Please, don't start talking about connections and donations.  Word on the street is that Chan took thousands of dollars in cash contributions from the Chinese community. 

But that's just speculation, just like someone speculating what Cohen and Masley received in contributions.

And if you bothered to go look up property records, you'll see that any sale of real property in the city can be traced.

Point is, this was a JUDICIAL election.  Hence the standards are different than in any ole political race. 

Except when it's a "win at any cost" campaign.

I'm sure Chan thinks she's untouchable because she's got deep connections in the DA's office to keep her safe.  She must be very very good for him to keep protecting her after all the crap she pulled on primary day.

You seem to think you know so much about the in's and out's of the Chan operation.  I wonder how you have so much of this speculative information? Do you have a personal vendetta against Chan?  Seems it. 

Maybe I'm a Masley supporter who saw so much of this go on in the street.  Maybe I'm a Cohen person.

Maybe I'm a reporter who gets calls about this stuff.

Maybe I'm a district leader.

Maybe I'm just a voter who lives in the East Village.

Maybe I'm sick of yet another Chinese candidate who promises the community the world only to get caught up in stupid stuff that makes everyone look bad and have to hear about being indicted for voter fraud every other day.

Maybe I'm a Diamondstone operative who's PISSED OFF at Chan for not making good on her promise to deliver us Chinatown.

Or maybe, just maybe it doesn't matter who anyone is, because a whole lot of people have an opinion on this race.

After all, it doesn't matter who ends up winning this race, it's very apparent that it was messed up from the start and like a test that was graded wrong, they should just do the election all over again but this time the right way.  I for one would want to prove to the world that I won fair and square and get the stench of whispered allegations off my candidacy.

But who really cares, right? Are any of us really affected by who wins this race? Does it matter?  People will forget about this by next week, when there's some new item to blog about.

GO HOWARD!!!

Oh did Shelly mess up this one!  His guy lost AND he lost his own ED!

The Speaker ain't as powerful as he used to be....

If you want the "stench of whispered allegations off" the candidacy then why don't you stop with all the gossip and rumors!

Sure everyone's entitled to their opinions but making up LIES is just not that. 

    First of all, David is losing the Board count, I was just told from the campaign people.  They probably don't have enough to get it into court.  Look, people are already dancing on Shelly's grave on this one.  We gotta do something!

     We need to be like the republicans: keep throwing dirt and some of it will stick.  Yeah, there's no evidence, but maybe we can get people poking.  First, we have to get someone to make the accusations in public.  None of us are willing to do that, so let's see if we can get Masley to file an ethics complaint or something.  

    Masley has a liberal rep, so this is how we can get liberals on the side of something not so liberal like attacking a minority woman judge.  

    Get cracking people! 

Right on!  And maybe we can get to the issue that I really want to talk about: father's rights.  Because the reason I pulled all of Chan's signs down is because she is just another one of these woman judges who castrate men by jailing them for their child support, in the name of the "best interests of the child."  And the reason I worked for Pagan is because if he took office, he was going to try to inject some sanity into the law and make sure that child support can be conditioned on making sure the mother is doing her part.

I'm not only a father's rights advocate, I'm an ex-cop.  And I have been through the court system myself (that's how I know this child support stuff).  And let me tell you, if you can accuse the other side of violence and file a police report, you already have an advantage, even if nothing is eventually proven.  My ex has done it on me many times.  

So that's what we do with Chan; keep up with the violence rumors.  Because the other losers in the race are looking to blame somebody for their poor showings, and a rumor repeated becomes a fact.  I even got Michael Ferrin to repeat that story about Chan!  And I hate Ferrin, because he tried to knock Pagan off the ballot. 

I got liberal, lefties, women libbers, and even reporters who would never talk to me before to get on my bandwagon, even though they agree with Chan on everything!  I even have Masley repeating all these rumors -- and she is the exact same type!  I got them like crabs in a barrel, all pulling each other down. 

so now after the dust cleared... is there a real ethics complaint filed?

or was it rumor after all?

C'mon...you know ALL that crap you've heard was just exactly that - GOSSIP AND RUMORS reported by everyone who were sore-losers or who just had personal vendettas against Chan. They just didn't accept the fact that she won because they want nothing else than for her to rot in hell.  Gimme a break - who'd believe she hired gangsters to attack people and intimidate voters? or any of the other nonsense posted on here?  Only small-minded people who'd believe ANYTHING juicy to keep their boring lives interesting. So get a life!