2020 Elections

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Tennessee has joined Texas' lawsuit and 16 other conservative states that signed the amicus briefs that argues that 80,000 voters' ballots in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin should be invalidated. Tennessee's Attorney General said:
"The Tennessee Attorney General's Office has consistently taken the position that only a State's legislature has the authority to make and change election laws."

That is exactly what Pennsylvania's legislature did (noted above) with the leaders of both houses of their legislature applauding the bipartisan bill when it was signed into law.

Further, Michigan voters passed a Resolution with almost 67% of voters in favor in November 2018 on voting changes, which became part of their Constitution. Only part of that change to their Constitution was absentee voting.

So these eighteen states will argue other state legislature's laws and also part of one state's Constitution overwhelmingly passed are illegal and invalid. If Michigan or Pennsylvania brought a lawsuit on Texas to invalidate their voters choices, Texas would throw a fit.

How are any of these eighteen states injured or aggrieved and have any standing in any court?

Certainly, Georgia and the other three states deserve redress for their costs in defending their state's results from this frivolous lawsuit. Georgia's Sec of State Jordan Fuchs responded “Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen.” and that the conspiracy theories in the lawsuit “are false and irresponsible.”

Hmmm. Those who pushed the change in Pennsylvania election laws probably knew that they would need to amend their state constitution, and yet they chose not to. In Georgia, the Secretary of State signed a consent agreement with the Democrats to weaken the validation process of absentee/mail in votes. Which, like Pennsylvania, ignored its own state laws that required the such change to be approved by the legislature. What is the point of statutes/constitutions if they can be ignored?

 

[IrishLax]

Hmmm. Those who pushed the change in Pennsylvania election laws probably knew that they would need to amend their state constitution, and yet they chose not to. In Georgia, the Secretary of State signed a consent agreement with the Democrats to weaken the validation process of absentee/mail in votes. Which, like Pennsylvania, ignored its own state laws that required the such change to be approved by the legislature. What is the point of statutes/constitutions if they can be ignored?

Pennsylvania Republicans passed the law and said any constitutional challenges needed to be made in 180 days to avoid exactly this kind of situation. It was passed way before COVID, and they had elections with the law in place with no one challenging it.

In the Senate, where Act 77 passed 35-14, Republicans voted 27-0 in favor along with eight Democrats; all 14 dissenting votes came from Democrats. In the House, Republicans voted 105-2 in favor while Democrats were more divided — 59 against, 33 in favor.

In fact, shortly after Act 77 passed, Republican Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman pointed out to CNN that the introduction of no-excuse mail-in voting merely removed the formality of listing an excuse. “We never checked anyway,” he said. Absentee balloting was already legal for voters with a narrow set of excuses such as health problems, travel or attending school out of state.

Then voters do what the law says, and now sore losers want to throw out millions of valid votes from people who simply followed the law written by Republicans, and you don't see the issue with that? It's almost irrelevant that there is a 0.0% chance of the votes getting thrown out by court, the simple fact that some politicians are actively supporting a hamfisted attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters -- who did nothing wrong and nothing different than millions of voters before -- is tragic.

Like I've said, if someone wants to prove fraud I'm all ears and throw out all of the fraudulent votes. Only legal votes could be counted. But trying to disqualify millions of votes on specious legal arguments is downright un-American.

 

[Old Man Mike]

... and immoral

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Pennsylvania Republicans passed the law and said any constitutional challenges needed to be made in 180 days to avoid exactly this kind of situation. It was passed way before COVID, and they had elections with the law in place with no one challenging it.

Then voters do what the law says, and now sore losers want to throw out millions of valid votes from people who simply followed the law written by Republicans, and you don't see the issue with that? It's almost irrelevant that there is a 0.0% chance of the votes getting thrown out by court, the simple fact that some politicians are actively supporting a hamfisted attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters -- who did nothing wrong and nothing different than millions of voters before -- is tragic.

Like I've said, if someone wants to prove fraud I'm all ears and throw out all of the fraudulent votes. Only legal votes could be counted. But trying to disqualify millions of votes on specious legal arguments is downright un-American.

I don't think it should matter which party passed the law. In Georgia, the Secretary of State and Governor are Republicans. The question is the legality of the law. The Texas lawsuit has merit.

Regarding disenfranchising voters, I am all for common sense (ID, language test) obstacles to prevent morons and dimwits from voting. If you can't get an ID, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you can't speak our language, you shouldn't vote. America was founded by not riffs-raffs but landowners and pioneers voting.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

... and immoral

Render unto Caesar...

 

[Old Man Mike]

... apparently immorality is not important.

... for my generation within my experience, that was generally not true, nor ho-hum in any way.

 

[NorthDakota]

I don't think it should matter which party passed the law. In Georgia, the Secretary of State and Governor are Republicans. The question is the legality of the law. The Texas lawsuit has merit.

Regarding disenfranchising voters, I am all for common sense (ID, language test) obstacles to prevent morons and dimwits from voting. If you can't get an ID, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you can't speak our language, you shouldn't vote. America was founded by not riffs-raffs but landowners and pioneers voting.

Idk if it has merit or not but the Supreme Court isn't going to tell many thousands or millions of people that their vote doesn't count because the state legislature screwed up.

 

[Legacy]

Hmmm. Those who pushed the change in Pennsylvania election laws probably knew that they would need to amend their state constitution, and yet they chose not to. In Georgia, the Secretary of State signed a consent agreement with the Democrats to weaken the validation process of absentee/mail in votes. Which, like Pennsylvania, ignored its own state laws that required the such change to be approved by the legislature. What is the point of statutes/constitutions if they can be ignored?

A referendum gets it on the state Constitution, which 67% of Michiganders did.

As for Pennsylvania, they did go a different route working for years on the law. From my post above:

At the time of the signing of the Bill, the heads of both Houses:

Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R) said:

“The people of Pennsylvania have sent divided government to Harrisburg and, with that, this is what governing looks like. We are thankful for the governor’s willingness to work with us to enact the most historic change in how we cast votes since the election code was enacted in 1937. Compromise has given Pennsylvanians a modernized election code that preserves the integrity of the ballot box and makes it easier for voters to choose the people who represent them.”

Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Representative Bryan Cutler (R) said:

“This bill was not written to benefit one party or the other, or any one candidate or single election. It was developed over a multi-year period with input of people from different backgrounds and regions of Pennsylvania. It serves to preserve the integrity of every election and lift the voice of every voter in the commonwealth.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had previously rejected the (legal) challenge (by Rep Mike Kelly) saying,

“At the time this action was filed on Nov. 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both

the June 2020 primary election and the November 2020 general election,” the court said. “Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.”

You don't have to amend the state Constitution if you pass a law. The state House of Representatives advanced the bill in a 138-61 vote. Later that day, the state Senate approved it in a 35-14 vote. Both houses have a Republican majority.

Texas wants that part of the Michigan Constitution and the 2019 Pennsylvania election law declared illegal years later and the will of those states' voters nullified by the highest federal court.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Idk if it has merit or not but the Supreme Court isn't going to tell many thousands or millions of people that their vote doesn't count because the state legislature screwed up.

The Supreme Court based on the law should rule in Texas's favor, but I agree they will not. Even if they did vote in Texas's favor and grant Texas's request, as a remedy, to allow state legislatures to select the electors. There is no guarantee that those electors would select Trump, because the Republican party has been complicit in the poorly executed coup. The Republican party has so far been somewhat successful toeing the line but, if the Supreme Court does make the ballsy ruling in favor of Texas, then their treachery will be revealed.

 

[Legacy]

The Supreme Court based on the law should rule in Texas's favor, but I agree they will not. Even if they did vote in Texas's favor and grant Texas's request, as a remedy, to allow state legislatures to select the electors. There is no guarantee that those electors would select Trump, because the Republican party has been complicit in the poorly executed coup. The Republican party has so far been somewhat successful toeing the line but, if the Supreme Court does make the ballsy ruling in favor of Texas, then their treachery will be revealed.

I doubt SCOTUS will ever consent to hear the case as ridiculous as it is. Expect a one line decline. Every federal court and all the state courts have ruled against these worthless lawsuits because they present no evidence, have no merit, the petitioners have no standing and, for the federal courts, they have no interest in interfering in with state election laws.

To quote a couple of Wisconsin justices - in addition to those we have previously posted -
U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig nominated by Trump:

"It’s not lost on me that this is a political case, obviously, and that the relief that’s been requested, if that relief were granted, this would be a most remarkable proceeding and probably the most remarkable ruling in the history of this court or the federal judiciary."

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is controlled 4-3 by conservative justices. One of them, Justice Brian Hagedorn, has three times joined liberals in deciding against taking the Trump lawsuit and two others filed by Trump allies seeking to overturn the election.

Hagedorn wrote in their decision:

“The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.”

U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper dismissed a third lawsuit late Wednesday brought by William Feehan, chairman of the La Crosse County Republican Party. Feehan is represented by Sidney Powell, who was recently dropped from Trump's legal team after she made outlandish claims about hacked voting machines that are at the heart of Feehan's suit and others Powell has brought around the country

Pepper wrote:

"Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country. One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so."

 

[IrishLax]

I don't think it should matter which party passed the law. In Georgia, the Secretary of State and Governor are Republicans. The question is the legality of the law. The Texas lawsuit has merit.

Regarding disenfranchising voters, I am all for common sense (ID, language test) obstacles to prevent morons and dimwits from voting. If you can't get an ID, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you can't speak our language, you shouldn't vote. America was founded by not riffs-raffs but landowners and pioneers voting.

So if your state told you -- you, not some random person in State X -- told you "this is how you vote." And the law by which you vote had been on the books for awhile, had never been challenged, and was past the window for constitutional challenge.

And then you went and cast your vote how your were supposed to... and then a completely different state tried to throw out your legally cast vote, you would be OK with that? No, you wouldn't. Because that's not how elections work here or any civilized country. And that's why it's unthinkable that the Supreme Court would rule to disenfranchise millions of voters based on anything short of proven fraud or brazen violation of the law.

 

[NorthDakota]

So if your state told you -- you, not some random person in state -- told you "this is how you vote." And the law by which you vote had been on the books for awhile, had never been challenged, and was past the window for constitutional challenge.

And then you went and case your vote how your were supposed to... and then a completely different state tried to throw out your legally cast vote, you would be OK with that? No, you wouldn't. Because that's not how elections work here or any civilized country. And that's why it's unthinkable that the Supreme Court would rule to disenfranchise millions of voters based on anything short of proven fraud or brazen violation of the law.

That's why I'd think the solution is (assuming the state laws were wrong or whatever the allegation is), SCOTUS would just tell them to fix the law.

Otherwise yeah you are telling people who complied with a law that their vote doesn't count, and that's bad.

 

[IrishLax]

That's why I'd think the solution is (assuming the state laws were wrong or whatever the allegation is), SCOTUS would just tell them to fix the law.

Otherwise yeah you are telling people who complied with a law that their vote doesn't count, and that's bad.

The bolded is more or less what two judges indicated in Pennsylvania. While the vast majority of the judges in that state ruled that the law was fine and did not violate their state constitution, two of the judges basically said it was "worthy of consideration" whether there was a state constitution issue... but that even if there was, it would not affect any of the cast votes just future elections.

Regardless, I have a hard time seeing this case going anywhere for a myriad of reasons, and we'll probably know for certain tomorrow given that the electors are scheduled to vote on Monday. Five justices need to vote to allow Paxton to even file the suit and it's hard to envision that happening, but who the hell knows at this point.

 

[Irish#1]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The fact that Dems and Reps hate each other (affective polarization) is bad - but worse is that Republican leaders and voters are actively undermining democracy on a regular basis, and Democrats are trying to defend it. 2/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801929125646338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">17% of the electorate can elect a majority of the Senate. Republicans can win a majority of House seats with a minority of American votes. All of these imbalances benefit rural places - which are reliably Republican. Republican voters are super-voters. 4/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801930916597765?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This isn't accusing all Republicans of being racist. It's that most of them approve of a racist system and feel personally affronted at the idea of change - it represents a threat to their relative status in American society. 7/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801933605163008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Poor girl.

 

[GowerND11]

I don't think it should matter which party passed the law. In Georgia, the Secretary of State and Governor are Republicans. The question is the legality of the law. The Texas lawsuit has merit.

Regarding disenfranchising voters, I am all for common sense (ID, language test) obstacles to prevent morons and dimwits from voting. If you can't get an ID, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you can't speak our language, you shouldn't vote. America was founded by not riffs-raffs but landowners and pioneers voting.

Our language? You mean the national language? The one the doesn't exist?

 

[NorthDakota]

Our language? You mean the national language? The one the doesn't exist?

I mean, we have a de facto national language. You will be limited by not being able to speak English. I think even President Obama said its reasonable to expect folks to learn English.

That said, I'm not comfortable forcing folks to speak it in order to vote, though I'm pretty sure basically any American citizen can speak it at least in a limited manner.

But I dont agree with the concept of "oh we don't have a national language therefore we don't have a language."

 

[GowerND11]

I mean, we have a de facto national language. You will be limited by not being able to speak English. I think even President Obama said its reasonable to expect folks to learn English.

That said, I'm not comfortable forcing folks to speak it in order to vote, though I'm pretty sure basically any American citizen can speak it at least in a limited manner.

But I dont agree with the concept of "oh we don't have a national language therefore we don't have a language."

This is where I'm at. honestly, I'm surprised there hasn't been some legislation already (even before the shitshow of the last 12 years) to make English the national language.

 

[Legacy]

I don't believe any lawyer worth his salt would agree to take this case, which is probably why it ends up in Ted Cruz's lap. Jones-Day backed out for internal and external objections, mainly because it undermines our system of determining the President.

Further,
1. A case must have evidence. If you allege election fraud, where's the proof? Every case has been thrown out because none has been presented.

2. Who is aggrieved and how are they harmed? That would give them standing before the Court though the process is presenting your evidence in a lower federal court. Are they really going to present evidence before nine SCOTUS justices for the first time?

3. Why does Texas or any state allege harm rather than the President? An allegation of electoral fraud would supposedly harm Trump. Gore v Bush was brought for those reasons.

4. Why should a federal court intervene to nullify an election and voters' choices accoring to state laws? Every state court has upheld their laws as well as expressed their astonishment that such cases were brought before them and given the opportunity to them to present evidence.

5. What precedence would this set? The Texas GOP wants the state legislators to determine their states electoral votes in the future as they control the state legislature.

6. Trump called the Michigan GOP legislatures to be a part of this and they refused.

To me, this amounts to nothing but an attempt at a coup. Vladimir would be proud of that and what it will achieve - undermining our faith in our democratic process. If this damages the GOP in these four states permanently, that will be Trump's legacy. He and his GOP backers merely care about his four years and he would unleash his fury with a warped sense of how our government works. It also keeps him from facing federal and state lawsuits.

Outrageous.

 

[phork]

I don't understand why the voting process can't be a standard thing. It should be as easy as possible to vote with no one being able to shut down the post office or remove ballet boxes.
So just as an example in Canada in my area you have a designated polling station that is pretty much within walking distance to your house. You get a voter card. You go to the station you shown your ID, you are crossed of a list and given your ballot. In addition to mail in ballots.

I don't get why this is so hard.

 

[IrishLax]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: The Supreme Court has denied Texas' last-ditch effort to overturn the election results in four battleground states that voted for Joe Biden. <a href="https://t.co/tZ1Vepu0Oh">https://t.co/tZ1Vepu0Oh</a></p>— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1337540965771452416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishLax]

I don't understand why the voting process can't be a standard thing. It should be as easy as possible to vote with no one being able to shut down the post office or remove ballet boxes.
So just as an example in Canada in my area you have a designated polling station that is pretty much within walking distance to your house. You get a voter card. You go to the station you shown your ID, you are crossed of a list and given your ballot. In addition to mail in ballots.

I don't get why this is so hard.

Yes, Canada also does all paper ballots. The United States governmental structure is incredibly archaic... it was unbelievably well designed for its time and used as a model for countless democratic nations thereafter... but there is all kinds of clunky shit that could EASILY be streamlined for the better.

 

[NorthDakota]

I don't believe any lawyer worth his salt would agree to take this case, which is probably why it ends up in Ted Cruz's lap. Jones-Day backed out for internal and external objections, mainly because it undermines our system of determining the President.

Further,
1. A case must have evidence. If you allege election fraud, where's the proof? Every case has been thrown out because none has been presented.

2. Who is aggrieved and how are they harmed? That would give them standing before the Court though the process is presenting your evidence in a lower federal court. Are they really going to present evidence before nine SCOTUS justices for the first time?

3. Why does Texas or any state allege harm rather than the President? An allegation of electoral fraud would supposedly harm Trump. Gore v Bush was brought for those reasons.

4. Why should a federal court intervene to nullify an election and voters' choices accoring to state laws? Every state court has upheld their laws as well as expressed their astonishment that such cases were brought before them and given the opportunity to them to present evidence.

5. What precedence would this set? The Texas GOP wants the state legislators to determine their states electoral votes in the future as they control the state legislature.

6. Trump called the Michigan GOP legislatures to be a part of this and they refused.

To me, this amounts to nothing but an attempt at a coup. Vladimir would be proud of that and what it will achieve - undermining our faith in our democratic process. If this damages the GOP in these four states permanently, that will be Trump's legacy. He and his GOP backers merely care about his four years and he would unleash his fury with a warped sense of how our government works. It also keeps him from facing federal and state lawsuits.

Outrageous.

Amusing you refer to Ted Cruz as "not worth his salt"....dude clerked for the chief justice lol. Dude is a first round pick. Has done rather well for himself.

 

[Legacy]

Amusing you refer to Ted Cruz as "not worth his salt"....dude clerked for the chief justice lol. Dude is a first round pick. Has done rather well for himself.

You misunderstood me. More than his clerking, Cruz is a constitutional lawyer who has argued before SCOTUS a number of times, I believe. He hasn't though for years. He wouldn't have volunteered if every prominent legal firm who specializes in these with recent appearances before SCOTUS declined. I mentioned Jones Day not only because a couple of their lawyers backed out of a PA case, but also because Don McGahn, former Counsel to the President is a head of one of their branches.

Of course, there may be some animus in that McGahn allegedly told Mueller that Trump was asking him to do "do crazy shit" and Trump called McGahn a "lying bastard". Jones Day with McGahn's background of work for the Admin including his recommending Gorsuch would usually have been a logical choice.

 

[TorontoGold]

Yes, Canada also does all paper ballots. The United States governmental structure is incredibly archaic... it was unbelievably well designed for its time and used as a model for countless democratic nations thereafter... but there is all kinds of clunky shit that could EASILY be streamlined for the better.

The redistricting stuff is crazy too, we have some of that here but it's based on population size and done independently of partisan influence.

I'm guessing that's a states rights type issue that would have to be resolved at the state level?

Also the whole Dem/Rep Sheriff thing is bizarre to me too.

 

[BilboBaggins]

The redistricting stuff is crazy too, we have some of that here but it's based on population size and done independently of partisan influence.

I'm guessing that's a states rights type issue that would have to be resolved at the state level?

Yes. The Constitution gives states that power.

Also the whole Dem/Rep Sheriff thing is bizarre to me too.

It's bizarre that any county-level official is partisan. WTF is a "Republican" Auditor, Treasurer, Recorder, Engineer, Coroner?

Here in Ohio, village-level elections are 100% nonpartisan. That should be extended up to county-level matters in my opinion. It's especially ridiculous because 98% of the votes from the County Commissioners are unanimous after they've arrived at a decision.

 

[TorontoGold]

Yes. The Constitution gives states that power.



It's bizarre that any county-level official is partisan. WTF is a "Republican" Auditor, Treasurer, Recorder, Engineer, Coroner?

Here in Ohio, village-level elections are 100% nonpartisan. That should be extended up to county-level matters in my opinion. It's especially ridiculous because 98% of the votes from the County Commissioners are unanimous after they've arrived at a decision.

I really like the idea you get to vote on those positions in theory you'd vote based on job performance rather than party affiliation.

 

[Irish YJ]

I really like the idea you get to vote on those positions in theory you'd vote based on job performance rather than party affiliation.

FYI... while a lot of local elections don't list party on the ballot, the great majority are indeed party affiliated. Especially in larger towns.

 

[Blazers46]

Is Hunter Biden a story or still Russia disinformation?

 

[Irish YJ]

Is Hunter Biden a story or still Russia disinformation?

The intellectually dishonest will simply swipe left and ignore....

 

[NorthDakota]

I really like the idea you get to vote on those positions in theory you'd vote based on job performance rather than party affiliation.

I think people generally vote for that crap based on performance/name recognition

If I was running for one of those things, I'd just run as whatever party was more popular there anyway.