The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (11 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.

 

[DaveXA]

Kinzinger is working over time trying to debunk rumors on voting issues... He's one of the few Republicans doing this.

More people with a little sanity like this please!

 

[Eeyore]

It's just wrong. To resort to death threats because your guy loses an electron is just wrong.

And I pray the courts continue to see how frivolous these attempts to stop the count are.

I see what you did. Trump lost an electron and tested positive.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't think we came close to a coup - not really. The lawsuits are going to be dismissed and Biden will be inaugurated Jan. 20. But the damage done to the country, both here and abroad, is very real, due in large part to the selfishness and cowardice of Republican "leaders" who feel the need to feed the ego of a big baby and are scared to death of the baby's cult followers.

One of the major problems with what Trump is doing is breaking previously accepted norms. In past elections any of the candidates would have conceded by now. Hell, if the roles were flipped, Biden would have conceded by now. Trump just ignores tradition and marches to the beat of his own drum. Barely acceptable in the private sector, and downright unethical in his position.

I don't necessarily think he's committed any crime here. But he's potentially imperiled a peaceful transfer of power, which is part of the beauty of our government. We didn't want dictators or monarchs. We wanted someone representative of the people of our country. Trump is the antithesis of that representation. It's always been about him. That not the kind of character we want in our President. I mean, this makes me miss the days of Reagans, Clintons, Bushes and Obamas. We may not agree with them, but I can say confidently that all of them love the people of our country. Trump only loves those who love him. Everyone else is expendable.

 

[brandon]

McConnell and company don't believe that - they know Trump lost. They're willing to encourage and inflame those who do believe in a stolen election, however. And no amount of reason and logic is going to convince those people otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, McConnell and company are no better than traitors.

McConnel laid the blueprint with Merrick Garland.

If there’s no threat of force from the executive branch, there’s no one to enforce the rule. So if you don’t like the rule, just ignore it. You don’t have to change it legislatively. You don’t have to get the courts to overturn it. Just ignore the parts of the law you don’t like.

It’s like if there were speed limits but no police to ever enforce them.

So if they want Trump to remain in power, they can just ignore the election results and keep him in power. If there’s no threat from the executive branch, then there’s no reason, other than norms and a code of ethics, to cede the presidency.

It all comes down to the military. And if the military leadership allows themselves to be fired or resigns in protest, then they’re doing Trump’s work for him. Without any good military leaders, Biden has no one to make Trump leave. No one.

 

[Bolo]

One of the major problems with what Trump is doing is breaking previously accepted norms. In past elections any of the candidates would have conceded by now. Hell, if the roles were flipped, Biden would have conceded by now. Trump just ignores tradition and marches to the beat of his own drum. Barely acceptable in the private sector, and downright unethical in his position.

I don't necessarily think he's committed any crime here. But he's potentially imperiled a peaceful transfer of power, which is part of the beauty of our government. We didn't want dictators or monarchs. We wanted someone representative of the people of our country. Trump is the antithesis of that representation. It's always been about him. That not the kind of character we want in our President. I mean, this makes me miss the days of Reagans, Clintons, Bushes and Obamas. We may not agree with them, but I can say confidently that all of them love the people of our country. Trump only loves those who love him. Everyone else is expendable.

It doesn't bother me that Trump is contesting the election. It is his right to contest it, just as it was Al Gore's right to contest it back in 2000. I'm not sure what is going to come of it or what evidence he thinks he may have to support his cause. I assume he knows things we don't know but I do think its a big uphill battle to overturn multiple state results. He would need 56 EC votes to go from 214 to 270, that is a tough tough hill to climb at the moment.

Until this goes 38+ days, it is not something unprecedented since Gore contested 2000 for 37 days. Makes no difference to me as an independent that voted 3rd party, but I do love a nice good ol' fashion shirtshow. 2022 is where the real battle begins, regardless of whether or not its a Biden or Trump victory.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

As soon as someone compares this to 2000, I stop reading. Either they don’t know what happened in 2000 or they are being intentionally dishonest. That’s the only two possibilities for drawing such a false comparison.

 

[SystemShock]

It doesn't bother me that Trump is contesting the election. It is his right to contest it, just as it was Al Gore's right to contest it back in 2000.

If memory serves me right, Al Gore contested one State in which the difference was less than 700 votes, and Florida fumbled the recount for a month.

I assume he knows things we don't know

No, he doesn't. There is no widespread fraud.

Makes no difference to me as an independent that voted 3rd party, but I do love a nice good ol' fashion shirtshow.

And this is the type of mentality that has helped get us where we are.

 

[DaveXA]

As soon as someone compares this to 2000, I stop reading. Either they don’t know what happened in 2000 or they are being intentionally dishonest. That’s the only two possibilities for drawing such a false comparison.

Agreed. 2020 is absolutely nothing like 2000. Biden has leads in 5 different states that are orders of magnitude larger than Florida. The difference was only 500 votes, which is absolutely razor thin. The closest one currently is Georgia with a well over 10k vote difference. Gore was absolutely correct to let the process play out. This 2020 election should have ended and been conceded on November 4th when it was clear that Trump was not going to maintain his early leads in those states.

It's time for Trump to accept that a clear majority people have spoken and accept Biden as our new President. It's imperative that he work with the Biden transition team to help them get their arms around the federal pandemic response and also up to speed regarding global and national security issues. The longer they keep stringing things along, the more untenable the situation will be for the Biden administration. And the responsibility for that falls squarely on Trump. He can end all of this in an instant. But no, he'd rather punish everyone for not marching in lock step with him.

 

[Dragon]

They're stalling and when the investigations are still "ongoing" when the clock runs out the GOP governors are just going to appoint GOP electors and it is all going to be good and legal.. That has been their backup plan all along and why they were talking Election fraud months before the actual election to "prepare the ground"

(I truely hope that I'm wrong but that is what my suspicious mind tells me)

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Agreed. 2020 is absolutely nothing like 2000. Biden has leads in 5 different states that are orders of magnitude larger than Florida. The difference was only 500 votes, which is absolutely razor thin. The closest one currently is Georgia with a well over 10k vote difference. Gore was absolutely correct to let the process play out. This 2020 election should have ended and been conceded on November 4th when it was clear that Trump was not going to maintain his early leads in those states.

Even more important than that is there was no insane accusation of voter fraud in 2000. It was about the intent of the voter on punch-card ballots. The infamous "dimpled ballots" and "hanging chads". Even if 2000 had been the same number of votes as 2020 nobody was making stupid claims about dead people voting and whatever other nonsense they are spewing (I can't even figure out what their claims actually are).

 

[DaveXA]

They're stalling and when the investigations are still "ongoing" when the clock runs out the GOP governors are just going to appoint GOP electors and it is all going to be good and legal.. That has been their backup plan all along and why they were talking Election fraud months before the actual election to "prepare the ground"

(I truely hope that I'm wrong but that is what my suspicious mind tells me)

I can assure you, that's not going to happen. They can't just run the clock out like that. And Congress and maybe even SCOTUS would get involved before it got to that point. Regardless, none of that will happen before the states certify the results which iirc doesn't happen for another month at least.

Even more important than that is there was no insane accusation of voter fraud in 2000. It was about the intent of the voter on punch-card ballots. The infamous "dimpled ballots" and "hanging chads". Even if 2000 had been the same number of votes as 2020 nobody was making stupid claims about dead people voting and whatever other nonsense they are spewing (I can't even figure out what their claims actually are).

Indeed. I'll never forget watching those people looking at those ballots and trying to figure out the intent of each voter when examining them. Remember those butterfly ballots? I always wondered who the genius was that came up with that design. Lol.

 

[superchuck500]

It doesn't bother me that Trump is contesting the election. It is his right to contest it, just as it was Al Gore's right to contest it back in 2000. I'm not sure what is going to come of it or what evidence he thinks he may have to support his cause. I assume he knows things we don't know but I do think its a big uphill battle to overturn multiple state results. He would need 56 EC votes to go from 214 to 270, that is a tough tough hill to climb at the moment.

Until this goes 38+ days, it is not something unprecedented since Gore contested 2000 for 37 days. Makes no difference to me as an independent that voted 3rd party, but I do love a nice good ol' fashion shirtshow. 2022 is where the real battle begins, regardless of whether or not its a Biden or Trump victory.

Because 2000 is the most relevant election to this one, I agree with you that it's a potentially valuable example - but any examination of it should conclude how different they are rather than alike. So let's take a look at what happened in 2000.

First, Al Gore did not 'contest' the 2000 election in any way. Based on Florida statute, the state was mandated to conduct a recount because the margin of victory was within half of a percent (.05%). After the machine recount, Bush held a lead of 327 votes in total across the state. Based on Florida's recount law, a candidate can request manual recount on a county-by-county basis should he/she choose. Gore availed himself of this statutory provision and requested a manual recount in four counties.

Florida law (like nearly every state) has a "safe harbor" provision that required that all recounting be done within seven days of the election - and the counties responded that they could not meet that deadline. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the counties could report their result but then revise it after the count was completed (effectively removing the statutory deadline). On this and concerns that the manual recount was happening without standards or consistency across those counties, Bush appealed directly to the US Supreme Court to intervene on the basis of equal protection and the electors clause of the US Constitution. In a now famous and controversial decision, the Court ruled that the manual recount process sanctioned by the Florida Supreme Court violated equal protection and was contrary to state election law. So the manual recount was suspended and the machine recount ruled final by Florida officials. Bush won by just several hundred votes and became president.

Trump's "litigation strategy" is very different. Rather than using state election law recount devices or even challenging the procedures used under a single-state's laws for counting votes in the event of a slim margin of victory, Trump is broadly asserting that every vote cast in six states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia) is inherently suspect and must be shown to be legal instead of illegal. His margin of defeat in those states is 148K, 45K, 36K, 20K, 17K, and 10K, respectively . . . but the total votes cast there are in the 10s of millions. And despite the fact that every vote was conducted within the processes provided by state legislatures and managed by election officials of both parties in accordance with law and systems in place for elections that happen routinely in America, Trump (and now other Republicans) assert that every vote is suspect until confirmed to be "legal."

But it doesn't work that way. Those votes are presumed to be legal, not illegal, because they were cast, received, and counted in accordance with those procedures. Where states have applicable recounting laws, they can be used for recounts where applicable. But the statement that a losing candidate can broadly demand an audit of the entire vote simply because "it's his right" is not accurate under American law. Where an election result comes through those state election procedures and no recount is available under state law, the candidate's only recourse should be through a lawsuit shown to have merit on a specific protection under applicable law.

I don't have a problem with Trump or his campaign filing lawsuits on allegations that state a legitimate prima facie case that includes some basis in reality. But filing lawsuits with the ambition of simply opening up the state's entire ballot count as a fishing expedition to challenge the election result is a very dangerous precedent and I only hope that the judges in these cases recognize that.

 

[DaveXA]

Because 2000 is the most relevant election to this one, I agree with you that it's a potentially valuable example - but any examination of it should conclude how different they are rather than alike. So let's take a look at what happened in 2000.

First, Al Gore did not 'contest' the 2000 election in any way. Based on Florida statute, the state was mandated to conduct a recount because the margin of victory was within half of a percent (.05%). After the machine recount, Bush held a lead of 327 votes in total across the state. Based on Florida's recount law, a candidate can request manual recount on a county-by-county basis should he/she choose. Gore availed himself of this statutory provision and requested a manual recount in four counties.

Florida law (like nearly every state) has a "safe harbor" provision that required that all recounting be done within seven days of the election - and the counties responded that they could not meet that deadline. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the counties could report their result but then revise it after the count was completed (effectively removing the statutory deadline). On this and concerns that the manual recount was happening without standards or consistency across those counties, Bush appealed directly to the US Supreme Court to intervene on the basis of equal protection and the electors clause of the US Constitution. In a now famous and controversial decision, the Court ruled that the manual recount process sanctioned by the Florida Supreme Court violated equal protection and was contrary to state election law. So the manual recount was suspended and the machine recount ruled final by Florida officials. Bush won by just several hundred votes and became president.

Trump's "litigation strategy" is very different. Rather than using state election law recount devices or even challenging the procedures used under a single-state's laws for counting votes in the event of a slim margin of victory, Trump is broadly asserting that every vote cast in six states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia) is inherently suspect and must be shown to be legal instead of illegal. His margin of defeat in those states is 148K, 45K, 36K, 20K, 17K, and 10K, respectively . . . but the total votes cast there are in the 10s of millions. And despite the fact that every vote was conducted within the processes provided by state legislatures and managed by election officials of both parties in accordance with law and systems in place for elections that happen routinely in America, Trump (and now other Republicans) assert that every vote is suspect until confirmed to be "legal."

But it doesn't work that way. Those votes are presumed to be legal, not illegal, because they were cast, received, and counted in accordance with those procedures. Where states have applicable recounting laws, they can be used for recounts where applicable. But the statement that a losing candidate can broadly demand an audit of the entire vote simply because "it's his right" is not accurate under American law. Where an election result comes through those state election procedures and no recount is available under state law, the candidate's only recourse should be through a lawsuit shown to have merit.

I don't have a problem with Trump or his campaign filing lawsuits on allegations that state a legitimate prima facie case that includes some basis in reality. But filing lawsuits with the ambition of simply opening up the state's entire ballot count as a fishing expedition to challenge the election result is a very dangerous precedent and I only hope that the judges in these cases recognize that.

A fishing expedition is an excellent way of describing Trump’s legal strategy. Nice summary of what's happening here compared to 2000.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Article saying there is no basis for these suits
==================================

President Donald Trump's campaign launched its broadest challenge yet to the results of the election that appears destined to push him from office, accusing Pennsylvania officials of running a "two-tiered” voting system — in-person and mail — that violates the U.S. Constitution.

Legal experts said the case has little chance of succeeding, for a variety of reasons: Courts are wary of invalidating legally cast ballots. The issues raised, even if true, don't represent a constitutional question. And mail voting, used in many states, is both common and constitutional.

The suit has "lots of complaints about different things, and it’s not easy to see how they all fit together," said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who focuses on constitutional law.

"This has a very 'throw it all at the wall and see what sticks' feel," he said.

The lawsuit alleges the state's mail voting system, used in a general election for the first time last week, was fatally flawed by mismanagement and improper changes or interpretations of election laws, which enabled votes to be cast and counted with virtually no oversight.

It claims Trump campaign observers were blocked from the access needed to detect and challenge inadequate verification of voters' identities and other alleged improprieties.

But as with other lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its allies, the federal complaint offered little evidence to back its claims.............

MSN

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

On social media, i have a lot of MAGA friends and family who are exiting platforms like Facebook and Twitter, and joining right-wing platforms such as ‘Parler’ and ‘MeWe’... it’s totally their right to do that, i guess... But, if somehow the will of the people is ignored, and the GOP electors and/or Supreme Court install Donald Trump as President for a second term- then forget leaving social media, i am then calling for certain states to not recognize this travesty of justice, and to recognize Joe Biden as our new President , as the will of the people dictates... Whichever states are willing to do that, whether it’s the West Coast and/or the New England states, or any others- I’ll gladly relocate to one of them.. and if all of this results in a Civil War, it’ll be unfortunate , but it will be the most justified reason for a Civil War in the history of humanity.

 

[wardorican]

It doesn't bother me that Trump is contesting the election. It is his right to contest it, just as it was Al Gore's right to contest it back in 2000. I'm not sure what is going to come of it or what evidence he thinks he may have to support his cause. I assume he knows things we don't know but I do think its a big uphill battle to overturn multiple state results. He would need 56 EC votes to go from 214 to 270, that is a tough tough hill to climb at the moment.

Until this goes 38+ days, it is not something unprecedented since Gore contested 2000 for 37 days. Makes no difference to me as an independent that voted 3rd party, but I do love a nice good ol' fashion shirtshow. 2022 is where the real battle begins, regardless of whether or not its a Biden or Trump victory.

So far, the problem is that they have little to no evidence. Just a lot of hearsay. Many cases have already been tossed in court or ruled against them.

I think the real issue is that his 'contesting of the election' is seemingly devoid of evidence based facts. That's the fundamental difference here.

I mean, you have Lindsey Graham out there on Fox saying that if this many people vote, Republicans can't win.. so lower the vote? Nah... appeal to voters.

 

[DaveXA]

On social media, i have a lot of MAGA friends and family who are exiting platforms like Facebook and Twitter, and joining right-wing platforms such as ‘Parler’ and ‘MeWe’... it’s totally their right to do that, i guess... But, if somehow the will of the people is ignored, and the GOP electors and/or Supreme Court install Donald Trump as President for a second term- then forget leaving social media, i am then calling for certain states to not recognize this travesty of justice, and to recognize Joe Biden as our new President , as the will of the people dictates... Whichever states are willing to do that, whether it’s the West Coast and/or the New England states, or any others- I’ll gladly relocate to one of them.. and if all of this results in a Civil War, it’ll be unfortunate , but it will be the most justified reason for a Civil War in the history of humanity.

Let's allow the process to run it's course before going there. I suspect the courts are pretty much across the board going to throw these suits out as being frivolous and when the states certify the election results, we'll be good to go.

 

[wardorican]

Article saying there is no basis for these suits
==================================

President Donald Trump's campaign launched its broadest challenge yet to the results of the election that appears destined to push him from office, accusing Pennsylvania officials of running a "two-tiered” voting system — in-person and mail — that violates the U.S. Constitution.

Legal experts said the case has little chance of succeeding, for a variety of reasons: Courts are wary of invalidating legally cast ballots. The issues raised, even if true, don't represent a constitutional question. And mail voting, used in many states, is both common and constitutional.

The suit has "lots of complaints about different things, and it’s not easy to see how they all fit together," said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who focuses on constitutional law.

"This has a very 'throw it all at the wall and see what sticks' feel," he said.

The lawsuit alleges the state's mail voting system, used in a general election for the first time last week, was fatally flawed by mismanagement and improper changes or interpretations of election laws, which enabled votes to be cast and counted with virtually no oversight.

It claims Trump campaign observers were blocked from the access needed to detect and challenge inadequate verification of voters' identities and other alleged improprieties.

But as with other lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its allies, the federal complaint offered little evidence to back its claims.............

MSN

Seems to be without merit.

And Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law expert at Harvard Law School, said the lawsuit "fails to allege facts sufficient to support a conclusion that the relief sought would alter the election's result — a key difference between this complaint and the submission leading the Supreme Court to intervene in the state recount in Bush v. Gore."

As of Monday, Biden led in Pennsylvania by more than 45,000 votes — greater than Trump’s lead when he won Pennsylvania in 2016.

“Neither Trump nor (Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton) raised questions then,” Becker said. “We literally have done mail-in voting all over the country for almost 200 years. This is not a new thing.”

“Are they complaining about mail-in voting in Utah where President Trump won and which has always done mail-in voting?” Becker asked. “Are they complaining in other states, such as Ohio and Florida, which saw massive amounts of mail-in voting?”