The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (12 Viewers)

[Lapaz]

There is a lot of push-back from Trump on voting by mail, but most states allow it, and 1/3 allow it without any excuse. His rationale is that it will lead to vast fraud, but of course that isn't his real reason. His real reason is that he thinks it will be worse for conservatives, but studies have shown that states that have instituted much broader voting by mail haven't had any statistical changes in party voting.

Stanford study: Mail voting doesn't benefit one party over another

Coronavirus-spurred limits have intensified a push to allow more mail balloting in November.

www.politico.com

Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and other Voting at Home Options

Most states offer at least one method for any eligible voter to cast a ballot before Election Day. While some states provide early in-person voting, this webpage addresses absentee voting and all-mail voting.

www.ncsl.org

Although, normally voting by mail doesn't affect party votes, I bet it might this year if we have another resurgence of Covid, because I think the right is much more apt to discount the virus than the left. I know that is why Trump is against it.

Whether you're left or right wing, expanding mail in votes is the right thing to do to reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus, to expand voter participation, and to make it easier for those that do show up to stay distant. It will also allow any people with susceptibilities to remain safer. I think voting by mail could be made extremely secure by having people vote using traditional postal mail, coupled with requiring a confirmation either by phone, email or text. If done by phone, then voters can provide confirmation that can include confirming their form number. If done by email or text, it can include a picture of their form, and then confirmation that that was their form. Rather than staffers individually calling people, this can be automated by having voters call the number, text the number, or email the address provided to them on their form. A website can even be created with a database of those that have voted, and perhaps a link to allow people to confirm their vote was correctly registered. For people without computers, a site can include a means to access the database over the phone with some confirmation information. These types of systems are used extensively by banks and other sites that need security, so I think they are mature enough to use. We could even use such a site for people to confirm their vote on the day of the election.

 

[Taurus]

Q folk are discussing their plan and what this all means. Love the haughty “it should be obvious”. Lol.

Didn't the Post Office fail to deliver some percentage of ballots?
I'd be right curious to know what was on them. If it's what I suspect, the plan was to commit massive election fraud, claim victory and obstruct any investigation.

 

[Lapaz]

Good article on GSAs Emily Murphy who is holding up the transition
=======================

Heads of state are congratulating Joe Biden. President Trump’s national security adviser has promised the Democrat a “very professional transition.” The Georgia recount has kept the state in Biden’s column — and Trump’s legal efforts to overturn the election results are crumbling.


Yet more than two weeks after Election Day, the Trump appointee who officially acknowledges the next president — and starts the transition to a new administration — is marking time and in no hurry to make a decision, despite facing intense pressure as her boss works to subvert the election.


Emily Murphy, head of the General Services Administration, has refused to declare Biden the “apparent” winner, as the law requires for the transition to begin. And she still has not determined when she will, her aides and associates say, leaving the changeover in a vacuum that threatens essential functions of government.


Day after day, Murphy, a loyal Republican the president appointed three years ago, weighs her options but declines to say what fact or development she is waiting for. She has told agencies that the first step in the transfer of power, which would release millions of dollars and give Biden access to the government, may be weeks away...............

[A little-known Trump appointee is in charge of handing transition resources to Biden — and she isn’t budging]

Murphy’s silence has plunged a normally apolitical, ministerial process into precedent-setting territory as Democrats target her in nasty, personal tones and even some high-profile Republicans — among them former president George W. Bush, whose administration she served — urge her to get on with it.........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/murphy-trump-biden-transition-/2020/11/20/93c42044-29d2-11eb-92b7-6ef17b3fe3b4_story.html

Yet another norm being broken which will have to be addressed with the Trump/dictator-proofing legislation. The appointed GSA head should not have the responsibility to declare the apparent victor. That is a conflict of interest to essentially fire her own boss. This responsibility should fall elsewhere. I would put that responsibility with a body appointed by the Senate, House, and Supreme Court. I would allow the president to have veto power over the House and Senate members, and then allow over-riding that veto with a Supermajority vote of congress. I would not make the Supreme Court nominee subject to the congressional approval, but would require the Supreme Court to approve of its own member by a super majority of the Supreme Court. If no agreement is reached on these appointees, then the most senior career officials should hold the position until the position is officially filled. I would have these positions filled for 4 year periods offset by 2 years from the presidential election, which essentially prevents a president's appointee from voting to keep him in office.

 

[Lapaz]

I'm amazed that the courts have maintained their integrity. I'm wondering how many of the lawsuits have been thrown out by Trump appointed judges? I was very concerned that Trump had packed the courts sufficiently to assure success of his lawsuits. Does anyone have information on that? Even if Trump's appointees have not been involved to date, will that be the case 4 years from now when Trump's appointees have gained more seniority? Does seniority even affect how judges are appointed to cases? Here is an article discussing the craziness of the lawsuits in an effort to find a favorable judge. This system is tenous.

The Trump Campaign Can’t Find a Judge Who Will Ignore Facts — but It’s Trying

The Trump campaign’s legal strategy has come down to this: Even as judges dismiss lawsuits as baseless, it files nearly identical ones in new courts, hoping for more favorable judges. Failure has not slowed it down.

www.propublica.org

 

[MT15]

Article from Detroit Free Press about the certification in Michigan today, it’s opinion but expert opinion

Refusing to certify legitimate votes is a felony | Opinion

Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes criminal penalties for officials who refuse to report legally cast votes

www.freep.com

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Disenfranchising yourself to own the libs.

 

[superchuck500]

Yet another norm being broken which will have to be addressed with the Trump/dictator-proofing legislation. The appointed GSA head should not have the responsibility to declare the apparent victor. That is a conflict of interest to essentially fire her own boss. This responsibility should fall elsewhere. I would put that responsibility with a body appointed by the Senate, House, and Supreme Court. I would allow the president to have veto power over the House and Senate members, and then allow over-riding that veto with a Supermajority vote of congress. I would not make the Supreme Court nominee subject to the congressional approval, but would require the Supreme Court to approve of its own member by a super majority of the Supreme Court. If no agreement is reached on these appointees, then the most senior career officials should hold the position until the position is officially filled. I would have these positions filled for 4 year periods offset by 2 years from the presidential election, which essentially prevents a president's appointee from voting to keep him in office.

I don't think the Supreme Court should be involved, that would be a new kind of responsibility and activity for the Court, at least as far as I'm aware. I think there's a bit of an oversell of the GSA administrator's role - it doesn't fire the president, it only allows federal agencies the authority to participate in the transition process, which is mostly a matter of providing the president-elect's team with some financial resources, and access to information. None of that really impinges on the sitting president in any way. I don't think it has ever been controversial until this election, and most of that is being driven by the toxic, destructive personality of Donald Trump.

It does seem like it needs some tightening. Perhaps a more defined standard (for "apparent victory") would be effective without having to reconstruct the process.

 

[Complex Kid]

 

[superchuck500]

This is where we are now, three weeks after the election: Republican state officials are voting against certification, even in counties that Trump won by large margins.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This is where we are now, three weeks after the election: Republican state officials are voting against certification, even in counties that Trump won by large margins.

 

[MT15]

It just defies logic and reason. At least it appears that there are three Democrats and two Rs in each county. The Ds are voting to certify even the counties that Trump won.

 

[Booker]

This is where we are now, three weeks after the election: Republican state officials are voting against certification, even in counties that Trump won by large margins.

 

[superchuck500]

Interesting (and probably accurate but hard to enforce) take: Refusing to certify without a legitimate reason is a crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

Refusing to certify legitimate votes is a felony | Opinion

Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes criminal penalties for officials who refuse to report legally cast votes

www.freep.com

 

[Sandman]

Interesting (and probably accurate but hard to enforce) take: Refusing to certify without a legitimate reason is a crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

Refusing to certify legitimate votes is a felony | Opinion

Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes criminal penalties for officials who refuse to report legally cast votes

www.freep.com

Maybe hard to enforce, but I think examples need to be made. You want to play politics with certification, fine. Have a criminal lawyer on call. A few true-believers will still do it, but most people don't want to have a criminal proceeding hanging over their heads.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Maybe hard to enforce, but I think examples need to be made. You want to play politics with certification, fine. Have a criminal lawyer on call. A few true-believers will still do it, but most people don't want to have a criminal proceeding hanging over their heads.

Hey, Lansing is in a county where Biden won by 47,000 votes. Maybe the DA has some clout with the US attorney there...

 

[Taurus]

It just defies logic and reason. At least it appears that there are three Democrats and two Rs in each county. The Ds are voting to certify even the counties that Trump won.

It's logical if the end goal is to throw out the whole election and have a do-over. One which Trump will have authority to schedule and control.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Interesting (and probably accurate but hard to enforce) take: Refusing to certify without a legitimate reason is a crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

Refusing to certify legitimate votes is a felony | Opinion

Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes criminal penalties for officials who refuse to report legally cast votes

www.freep.com

This may be a stupid question, considering they are referring to the '65 Voting Act but, are the laws they are citing still intact since SCOTUS ruled that parts of that law was unconstitutional during Obama's term?

 

[Lapaz]

Interesting (and probably accurate but hard to enforce) take: Refusing to certify without a legitimate reason is a crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

Refusing to certify legitimate votes is a felony | Opinion

Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes criminal penalties for officials who refuse to report legally cast votes

www.freep.com

Well I hope that Biden's team attempts to enforce the law, rather than letting them get off for the violation. The example of the Alabama sheriff paying by no longer holding public office is an inadequate consequence. Officials need to expect real consequences, not just a slap on the wrist.

 

[superchuck500]

This may be a stupid question, considering they are referring to the '65 Voting Act but, are the laws they are citing still intact since SCOTUS ruled that parts of that law was unconstitutional during Obama's term?

Not a stupid question.

The 2013 decision invalidated the Act's section that requires "preclearance" of voting procedure changes. Preclearance was a tool to keep the problematic states (i.e. South) from being compliant and then moving away from compliance with changes to state law. So their changes had to be cleared with a federal review before coming into effect. The Court in 2013 found that section unconstitutional. But the Act's other provisions (codified into statute) are still in force.