The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (9 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.

 

[superchuck500]

ETA: This woman (the real one) is named Melissa Carone. She's currently trending on Twitter. Besides her bombshell "testimony" yesterday in Michigan, it appears she went on Lou Dobbs to lie some more. I haven't found the extent of her lies, but it looks like she told Ol' Lou that she had to take down her social media accounts without knowing that her FB was set to public at the time and, of course, the internet had found that out like 3 seconds after she made the claim. I'm about to go down the Melissa Carone rabbit hole on twitter for a few minutes. Seems like a good time.

Did you find this yet?

Explore Talent | Profile

Find Acting, Modeling Agencies, Modeling Auditions & Jobs

www.exploretalent.com

 

[wardorican]

Did you find this yet?

Explore Talent | Profile

Find Acting, Modeling Agencies, Modeling Auditions & Jobs

www.exploretalent.com

Other than the Jersey Shore thing....

to channel my inner BobE...

I would.

 

[CoolBrees]

I don’t find these people funny, nor never have I.

I think they should be systematically, and to the person, publicly shamed and ridiculed for their actions. They should be put on display for all to look at, point and laugh.

The only way imo to combat the lunacy is to expose it and laugh at it. To show that anyone associated with this mess is a crazy person detached from reality.

 

[superchuck500]

What do you think about all of this Chuck?

It's an interesting question, just a year late.

So yes, it appears there are two primary questions, the first of which is timeliness. The PA Supreme dismissed on laches which is a common law doctrine requiring diligent pursuit of redress for legal harm known to the pursuer. I haven't read the decision in full but it's certainly sensible that the Act was known to Kelly and the relief Kelly seeks (rescinding PA's certification and invalidating all PA's mailed-in ballots that were authorized by Act 77) is so destructive, when a pre-election challenge would have been far more civil. I don't know the caselaw the court cited but laches exists for the equities involved - it's not 'justice' when one party can wait on a remedy should know they must pursue and then come in a late hour and kick over the whole apple cart. I think this question is very important for the SCOTUS to get beyond before any consideration of the merits. Kelly argues that it dismissing it on laches the PA Supreme violated federal constitutional rights.

Then there is the merits: Kelly is arguing that Act 77 is unconstitutional under PA's constitution. That's typically not a question for the SCOTUS, but a question for PA Supreme. The Court could, however, analyze the argument in the context of the federal Constitution's elector's clause that provides that electors are chosen in the manner in which the state legislatures shall establish. But even that is murky for the Court, because Act 77 was properly enacted PA legislation - which takes it back to the question of whether it violated PA's state constitution. And I don't think the Court would aim to resolve that question.

Seems like these are the possible scenarios:
1. Court declines to hear the case, it's a question of PA state law and the laches ruling did not violate the federal Constitution;
2. Court decides to hear it but rules that the question is really one for the PA Supreme and that court has already ruled on it so that's the answer;
3. Court decades to hear it and rules that the question is one for the PA Supreme and send it back to PA for resolution on the merits instead of laches/timeliness (which was either improperly decided or violated the federal Constitution); or
4. Court decides to hear the case and decides that laches was improper and Act 77 is invalid as a demonstration of legislative intent for the federal Elector's Clause (Art. II) because it was unconstitutional under state law. This would get the relief that Kelly seeks.

I really don't see 4 happening. I think 1 or 2 are most likely (same result basically, only 1 is the Court declining the application, and 2 is the Court taking it up). I also don't see how there's time for 3, and I think that matters.

 

[MT15]

I saw some tweets yesterday about a 90 second clip from GA, I think, showing what is supposed to be ballot fraud in action. All three Fox News opinion hosts ran with it. The GA Secretary of State’s office has weighed in with the good Mr. Sterling. Such irresponsible behavior, which we have come to expect from Fox. There should be consequences.

 

[MT15]

I sent excerpts from the following opinion piece to both my senators and my representative this morning. It’s worth a read and distills my thoughts pretty well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-it-isnt-too-late-to-stand-up-for-the-nation/2020/12/03/85ab971c-3580-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html

 

[insidejob]

Did you find this yet?

Explore Talent | Profile

Find Acting, Modeling Agencies, Modeling Auditions & Jobs

www.exploretalent.com

LOL. I did see a screenshot of her profile from that. She likes to paint herself orange just like Trump. no wonder she likes him so much. But after clicking your link and seeing this, It appears that she's into the fake tan even more than he is.

Wow.

 

[efil4]

LOL. I did see a screenshot of her profile from that. She likes to paint herself orange just like Trump. no wonder she likes him so much. But after clicking your link and seeing this, It appears that she's into the fake tan even more than he is.

Wow.

so no one told her that her fake pinky nail had fallen off before this photo???

 

[insidejob]

I saw some tweets yesterday about a 90 second clip from GA, I think, showing what is supposed to be ballot fraud in action. All three Fox News opinion hosts ran with it. The GA Secretary of State’s office has weighed in with the good Mr. Sterling. Such irresponsible behavior, which we have come to expect from Fox. There should be consequences.

And, of course, this video was being touted as absolute proof of fraud yesterday by the Trump cult. Every single day since the election there seems to be some new "checkmate" instance of fraud that ends up being a whole bunch of nothing. One would think that if ANY of these things were tantamount to actual evidence that it would be - really, would have been - presented as evidence in court. Without even having the explanation given from Georgia officials, I knew that it couldn't be what they were claiming it to be because it would just be the sloppiest, most inefficient way to commit fraud possible.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

It's probably been said already, but just to make it clear: the Pennsylvania law allowing for voters to request mail-in ballots without having to provide any excuse or reason why they could not vote in person was passed unanimously by all GOP legislators in Pennsylvania in 2019, with not a single one of them expressing any concern at the time about the act being unconstitutional. They are now attacking the constitutionality of the act only after the election took place and Donald Trump lost. You don't need to be a legal scholar to know that their argument after the election had already taken place is both (1) too late and (2) complete bullshirt of the baddest faith imaginable.

 

[Taurus]

It's probably been said already, but just to make it clear: the Pennsylvania law allowing for voters to request mail-in ballots without having to provide any excuse or reason why they could not vote in person was passed unanimously by all GOP legislators in Pennsylvania in 2019, with not a single one of them expressing any concern at the time about the act being unconstitutional. They are now attacking the constitutionality of the act only after the election took place and Donald Trump lost. You don't need to be a legal scholar to know that their argument after the election had already taken place is both (1) too late and (2) complete bullshirt of the baddest faith imaginable.

And yet here they are and none of them will face any consequences whatsoever.
Welcome to the Gerrymandered States of America

 

[efil4]

It's probably been said already, but just to make it clear: the Pennsylvania law allowing for voters to request mail-in ballots without having to provide any excuse or reason why they could not vote in person was passed unanimously by all GOP legislators in Pennsylvania in 2019, with not a single one of them expressing any concern at the time about the act being unconstitutional. They are now attacking the constitutionality of the act only after the election took place and Donald Trump lost. You don't need to be a legal scholar to know that their argument after the election had already taken place is both (1) too late and (2) complete bullshirt of the baddest faith imaginable.

the GOP is boxing itself in - pretty soon, if it doesnt subside, they will implode.

 

[FullMonte]

It's probably been said already, but just to make it clear: the Pennsylvania law allowing for voters to request mail-in ballots without having to provide any excuse or reason why they could not vote in person was passed unanimously by all GOP legislators in Pennsylvania in 2019, with not a single one of them expressing any concern at the time about the act being unconstitutional. They are now attacking the constitutionality of the act only after the election took place and Donald Trump lost. You don't need to be a legal scholar to know that their argument after the election had already taken place is both (1) too late and (2) complete bullshirt of the baddest faith imaginable.

My thinking is this. Without a doubt, they have a valid case that the law is improper, and should have been done through a constitutional amendment. However, the relief they are seeking (tossing all of the ballots that fell under the law) isn't the correct relief. Not one of those ballots was fraudulently cast. They were all cast in line with the law, so they shouldn't be thrown out.

What should happen is that the law should be struck down, and the legislature should have the option to redo it the proper way.

 

[insidejob]

He's only got about $200 million left to spend, right?



Not even trying to hide the grifting in what's supposedly been spent "legitimately."

 

[insidejob]

Man, whoda thunk that Kellyanne "I coined the phrase alternative facts" Conway would be one of the first from Team Trump's (former) inner circle to come out and say that she believes Biden was elected - and will be sworn in as - the 46th POTUS? (Pretty sad that I actually have to make the distinction of both "elected" and "sworn in as" considering,, well, America.)

Kellyanne Conway acknowledges that Joe Biden ‘will prevail’ against Donald Trump despite legal challenges – Raw Story

 

[Booker]

He's only got about $200 million left to spend, right?



Not even trying to hide the grifting in what's supposedly been spent "legitimately."

So it's really just a giant slush fund? I'm shocked!

 

[Saintamaniac]

Wasted words falling on deaf ears of integrity sacrificed at the alter of power out of fear of a tweet from DJT. The only Republicans who this would mean anything to are former Republicans

 

[insidejob]

This is so accurate that it hurts.