McCrory is not the first Republican sore loser:
Few would have envisioned this moment back in November, when candidate Fletcher challenged candidate Atkinson’s 8,500-vote margin by questioning the legality of 11,000 out-of-precinct provisional ballots cast in the election, enough ballots to draw into question the outcome of the election and perhaps justify a court order for a new election.
The procedure followed by the General Assembly on August 23 was specially designed to fulfill the requirements of a provision of the state constitution that until then had escaped almost everyone’s notice: Article VI, Section 5. It says that a contested election for any of the ten Council of State offices (for the offices involved, see the sidebar on page 44) “shall be determined by joint ballot of both houses of the General Assembly in the manner prescribed by law.”
Bolding mine, because that date tells us many things. First, the General Assembly didn’t “rush” into making a decision about this race, it viewed such a decision as a last resort. No doubt they considered her 8,500 vote lead to be strong enough to stand on its own. That date also tells us the lengths that some people are prepared to go in an effort to undermine the will of the people. And the legal actions that took place in 2004 are eerily similar to what Civitas is trying to do now: