- Dołączono
- 12 Lip 2019
Some updates out of GA and PA. The ride never ends, does it?:
2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.
- Twórca wątku Pickle Dick
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Status
- Dołączono
- 1 Wrz 2019
what's the difference between 9 years ago and now if they violate the constitution?
WhimsicalTrolli
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 20 Cze 2019
Fang fang cooked me some yummy noodles, I think ill be okay in untied states of China.
Dr J
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 13 Lis 2020
- Dołączono
- 26 Sie 2018
Right now CNN is claiming Biden has 306 electoral votes, though this claim is disputed. PA is 20 electoral votes and GA is 16. 306-36 is 270.
- Dołączono
- 1 Wrz 2019
If incomplete addresses were sufficient, why did clerks modify them? and as the dissent notes, there is no law allowing clerks to modify ballots but there are laws that state what clerks can do with those ballots (cure, toss out). like the dissent notes, they majority doesn't address any of it, hiding behind laches.
i'm so glad the WISC hashed out the issues instead of dismissing on laches.
- Dołączono
- 21 Wrz 2019
Enjoy the Dem party strain of herpes. I hear it makes you colorblind!
- Dołączono
- 12 Lip 2015
That it was unchallenged for 9 years, is only being challenged now, and only in regards to what, two counties? If they truly believed it to be unconstitutional, they would have sued about it years earlier, such as in 2016, or 2012. That they’re only suing now raises questions as to if they actually believe this is unconstitutional and that indicates that they had the opportunity to claim damages and present their case a long time ago and chose not to.
- Dołączono
- 6 Cze 2020
Wanting to slience news sites you don't like. Well you Democrats certainly know how preserve Democracy all right. Whats next kill all those who made fun of you
WhimsicalTrolli
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 20 Cze 2019
Not the passed around fangfang, china got me a new agent.
- Dołączono
- 16 Maj 2020
They're not "traitors" and anyone pretending differently or that they were scared to take on the case doesn't know what they are talking about.
This faggot below is technically correct in that Texas failed to properly lay out in their case why they had grounds to sue.
AND IT'S REALLY SAD THAT I HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE EVERYONE ON THIS SITE SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS TYPE OF DISMISSAL.
- Dołączono
- 12 Lip 2015
That wasn’t the focus of the suit and if the suit could indeed be even heard. Laches matters a lot in a case like this, because you’re throwing the rights of a lot of people into the trash.
- Dołączono
- 1 Wrz 2019
in other words, there is no difference.
It's either constitutional or it isn't. it doesn't hinge on the motives of the plaintiff for it to be constitutional.
it's one of the 4 issues raised.
Reisen Storm
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 25 Kwi 2019
c'mon, Arizona, don't you cuck on us.
Inventor of the Telephone
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 29 Wrz 2020
Top Michigan Republicans shut down prospect of overturning result for Trump as Electoral College meets
The two top Republican officials in the Michigan state legislature on Monday made clear the state would not award its electors to President Trump as tensions bubble in the state ahead of its formal Electoral College vote.
Top Michigan Republicans shut down prospect of overturning result for Trump as Electoral College meets
There were 'flaws' that 'require fixing', but that can be attended to at a later, unspecified date. We promise that the next election will be totally upright and valid! Trustus.
'voting irregularies' - that dude should be in stocks in some town square for weeks for saying such shit.
If we don't certify these verifiably and indubitably dubious results then we will lose our country forever.
- Dołączono
- 1 Wrz 2019
since scotus didn't explain why, there's only speculation.
- Dołączono
- 25 Maj 2020
You would address that BEFORE doing so in a clear attempt to simply invalidate hundreds of thousands of votes you didn't like so as to win by fiat, or you would get the laches.
You are literally advocating for disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of ballots, specifically because you know it will give an unfair advantage to the loser. Legal issues have temporal considerations.
Yes, no one has ever practiced "CYA." As you outlined before, it is unclear what constitutes an "address" by the statute in full. If the state and zip code are implied, what does their addition change? Your argument is that if a clerk wrote two letters on a ballot, it should be discarded.
It's laches because if you had a problem with this statute, you easily had the time to bring this particular wording up well before doing so would invalidate 200k votes in order to allow your preferred politician to win.
Here's the dissent you're referencing:
¶79Notwithstanding the plain, clear requirements of two statutes, WEC's guidance explicitly directsmunicipal clerks that they "must take corrective actions in an attempt to remedy a witness address error." WECguidance states, "municipal clerks shall do allthat they can reasonably do to obtain any missing part of the witness address." Then in addition, the WEC instructs clerks to add witness address information even though the guidance acknowledges that "some clerks have expressed [concern] about altering information on the certificate envelope, especially in the case of a recount."
¶80The WEC ignores that the legislature provided only one act an election official may take in regard to a defective witness address:mail the defective ballotback to the elector to correct the error. Wis. Stat. §6.87(9). That the legislature made one choice about correcting a defective witness address excludes other methods of correction. "[T]he express mention of one matter excludes other similar matters [that are] not mentioned." FAS, LLC v. Town of Bass Lake, 2007 WI 73, ¶27, 301 Wis.2d321, 733 N.W.2d287 (quoting Perra v. Menomonee Mut. Ins.Co., 2000 WI App 215, ¶12, 239 Wis.2d 26, 619 N.W.2d 123)(modifications in the original). In addition, and similarly, §6.87(2) states, "[t]he witness shall execute the following...(Address)." It does not state thatclerks shall execute anything.
¶81Myconclusion that errors in the certification of absentee ballots require discarding those ballots is consistent with our precedent. In Kaufmann v. La Crosse City Bd.of Canvassers, 8 Wis.2d 182, 98 N.W.2d 422 (1959), absentee ballots were returned to a municipal clerk without bearing a notary's signature on the accompanying certificate envelope, as required by statute at that time. The clerk added her signature to the certificates. Id.at 183. We explained that the electors' failure to ensure that the certificate complied with the statute invalidatedthe ballots. Additionally,we stated, "[t]he fact that the...clerk further complicated the matter by signing her name to the...certificate cannot aid the voter. The two wrongs cannot make a right." Id.at 186. The ballots were not counted. Id.In the case at hand, a defective witness address cannot be corrected by a clerk, just as the signature of the notary could not be completed by the clerk in Kaufmann.
¶80The WEC ignores that the legislature provided only one act an election official may take in regard to a defective witness address:mail the defective ballotback to the elector to correct the error. Wis. Stat. §6.87(9). That the legislature made one choice about correcting a defective witness address excludes other methods of correction. "[T]he express mention of one matter excludes other similar matters [that are] not mentioned." FAS, LLC v. Town of Bass Lake, 2007 WI 73, ¶27, 301 Wis.2d321, 733 N.W.2d287 (quoting Perra v. Menomonee Mut. Ins.Co., 2000 WI App 215, ¶12, 239 Wis.2d 26, 619 N.W.2d 123)(modifications in the original). In addition, and similarly, §6.87(2) states, "[t]he witness shall execute the following...(Address)." It does not state thatclerks shall execute anything.
¶81Myconclusion that errors in the certification of absentee ballots require discarding those ballots is consistent with our precedent. In Kaufmann v. La Crosse City Bd.of Canvassers, 8 Wis.2d 182, 98 N.W.2d 422 (1959), absentee ballots were returned to a municipal clerk without bearing a notary's signature on the accompanying certificate envelope, as required by statute at that time. The clerk added her signature to the certificates. Id.at 183. We explained that the electors' failure to ensure that the certificate complied with the statute invalidatedthe ballots. Additionally,we stated, "[t]he fact that the...clerk further complicated the matter by signing her name to the...certificate cannot aid the voter. The two wrongs cannot make a right." Id.at 186. The ballots were not counted. Id.In the case at hand, a defective witness address cannot be corrected by a clerk, just as the signature of the notary could not be completed by the clerk in Kaufmann.
The assertion is in essence that the WEC contradicted legislature, and that defective ballots should have been mailed back to the elector to correct the error.
So the argument is: ballots missing the state or zip code in their address needed to be mailed back to the voter for correction, although it is not clear whether this issue necessarily is a "defective" ballot.
The dissent requires a specific reading: whether or not the ballots are defective for lacking the state / zip, they are rendered defective if a clerk writes in the state / zip to finish it out.
The ruling is a 4-3.
- Dołączono
- 19 Lut 2018
I guess the good thing about small asian dicks is that they won't choke while serving the CCP.
- Dołączono
- 3 Lut 2013
- Dołączono
- 12 Lip 2015
That’s the thing, if this was unconstitutional and so blatantly so, why didn’t they bring this up years ago. Laches exists to throw out suits like this meant to gum up the legal system and delay things. They’ve also only come up with this argument now, after what, 12 lawsuits in WI and a recount? This is an attempt to throw out election results simply because they do not like them, and disenfranchise people. This matters to a court.
SCOTUS doesn’t have to say why. The decline to hear it says a lot. They find it baseless.
- Status