I must respectfully disagree with Jamie on this issue. Regardless of who has money and who doesn't, people were denied their civil right to vote in an election. Judge Vance reviewed all the evidence submitted and due to the length of time it took for her to reach a verdict, I'm confident that she saw proven discrepancies. It appears some want to blame the voters for not saying anything in the moment, when that is far from the truth! I know of several people who weren't allowed to vote in the city races and did bring it to the attention of the poll workers and were told that the map indicated they lived in county.

One went so far as to appeal in front of the election board on Election Day, and was told since she cast her ballot without the city races on it, that she forfeited her right to vote in those elections. If the maps, ballots, machines, or whatever were incorrect and anyone was denied the right to cast a vote, then a new election should be held. In my opinion this has nothing to do with how much money any of the candidates have or don't have and I don't see as to where Mr. Arnold as acted with entitlement. He has merely stepped up and asked for a wrong to be corrected. No one knows who will win if their is a new election. People are making this about everything but the fact that there was enough discrepancy for a Judge to overturn the election. --Amy Pike