Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 373843 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
WSJ: Scorched Earth Judging in North Carolina
« Reply #1900 on: October 04, 2021, 05:16:00 AM »

OPINION  REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Scorched-Earth Judging in North Carolina
A liberal state Supreme Court gambit threatens political legitimacy.
By The Editorial Board
Oct. 3, 2021 5:11 pm ET


Donald Trump tried to overturn at least three state elections in 2020. But liberal groups in North Carolina are trying to overturn or sidestep four separate elections in that state from 2018 and 2020. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020, a filing last week suggests North Carolina’s Supreme Court is willing to entertain the political revanchists’ claims.


The scorched-earth politics at work are elaborate, so bear with us. The two elections immediately under fire are a 2018 state referendum capping North Carolina’s income tax at 7% and another referendum requiring photo identification for in-person voting in the state.

North Carolina’s constitutional amendment process requires a three-fifths majority of the Legislature to put a measure on the ballot, and then for the public to ratify it in a referendum. The Republican Legislature placed the tax and voting amendments on the ballot in 2018, and voters approved them by about 15 and 11 percentage points, respectively.

Liberal groups want to throw out those decisive outcomes, and their sweeping claim extends beyond the 2018 election. It’s that the entire Legislature of America’s ninth largest state was essentially illegitimate for the better part of a decade due to gerrymandering. Federal litigation forced North Carolina to redraw its 2011 legislative maps in 2017.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
Therefore, the plaintiffs argue in NC NAACP v. Moore, the Republican Legislature should not have been able to put the measures on the ballot, rendering both of the voters’ verdicts void. A North Carolina lower-court judge agreed. But he was reversed by a state appellate court, which balked at the notion of retroactively stripping an elected Legislature of its powers and nullifying referenda, no matter the outcome of litigation over district boundaries.

The shenanigans don’t end there. The case is now before the seven-member North Carolina Supreme Court, which is closely divided along partisan lines. The three Republicans include Tamara Barringer and Phil Berger, who were elected in 2020. That’s where the next layer of electoral subversion comes in.


The plaintiffs this July filed a motion for the two justices elected in 2020 to be removed from the case. The pretext is that Justice Barringer served in the North Carolina state Legislature when the constitutional amendments were passed, and Justice Berger’s father is a GOP legislative leader and therefore named as a defendant as a stand-in for the state.

Yet the public and the press were well aware of this high-profile case and the justices’ backgrounds when they were elected in 2020. Past service as a legislator is not normally disqualifying from hearing cases related to legislation passed during that service, and removing a judge at a “court of last resort” requires a higher burden since that judge can’t be replaced.

One of the liberal justices, Anita Earls, litigated extensively against North Carolina’s 2011 maps before she was elected to the Supreme Court in 2018. Yet Justice Earls’ removal is not sought because a liberal majority to overturn the two constitutional amendments would depend on her vote.

Recusals at the U.S. Supreme Court are at the discretion of the Justice alone, and it might be expected that Justices Barringer and Berger would see through this political gambit. But last week the court’s liberal justices suggested that they might be considering an unprecedented effort to evict their conservative colleagues involuntarily—a stunning and destabilizing prospect.

The court delayed argument in the case and last Tuesday sent out an unusual order asking the parties a number of questions, including, “Does this Court have the authority to require the involuntary recusal of a justice who does not believe that self-recusal is appropriate?”

That suggests that Justices Barringer and Berger believe, rightly, that they do not need to recuse from the case, but at least some (perhaps a majority) of the other justices have been moved by the liberal pressure campaign to consider a vote to oust them.

***
It’s worth reviewing the radicalism of what may be transpiring. Democrats in North Carolina lost policy votes in 2018 around taxation and voting, and elections for the state’s highest court in 2020.


Now liberal interests are seeking to reverse their 2018 election defeats using the courts. It would be one thing to challenge policy through the normal judicial process. But because Democrats lost seats on the state Supreme Court in the 2020 elections, they want to effectively undo the impact of those elections on this case with a selective removal of justices.

What’s remarkable is that the advocates claim that their tactics in serially subverting the judgments of voters are somehow a defense of democracy. If successful, this institutional mischief will reverberate far beyond North Carolina.




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
District of Columbia is well represented in government
« Reply #1903 on: October 09, 2021, 09:28:59 AM »
Most Fed employees live in Maryland and Virginia which have 10 and 13 electoral votes respectively

and the majority of Senators and Congressman are crats just like Fed employees

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Virginia
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Maryland

So basically the DC area with its Federal largess already controls a huge chunk of Federal power

no need to make DC a state - these people control two surrounding states
and with at least Virginia turn the state blue.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: District of Columbia is well represented in government
« Reply #1904 on: October 09, 2021, 11:50:09 AM »
Readers' Digest:

"in short, statehood for D.C. would directly contradict the Constitution."

Article 1, Section 8 in particular:

“[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive Legislation…over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may…become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” The article also stated that this 100-mile district would come from land ceded by the states so that the new seat of government would be independent of any state.

https://www.rd.com/article/washington-dc-not-state/
------------------------------------------------------------

This means change only by amendment, not by unconstitutional legislation like "HR-51. 

[Doug] The District of Columbia could be redefined to include only government properties and not residential. The residential areas effected could make agreement with an adjacent state if they want 'statehood' and Senate representation.  Even someone from Rhode Island would not think statehood for an area so small.  What are their industries, government and what else?  The only people thinking statehood are the same traitors who leave our border open, let anyone vote and game the system every other way they can think of.  That won't win the 38 states they need to amend the constitution.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: District of Columbia is well represented in government
« Reply #1905 on: October 09, 2021, 12:02:06 PM »
The constitution means anything the left wants it to mean.


Readers' Digest:

"in short, statehood for D.C. would directly contradict the Constitution."

Article 1, Section 8 in particular:

“[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive Legislation…over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may…become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” The article also stated that this 100-mile district would come from land ceded by the states so that the new seat of government would be independent of any state.

https://www.rd.com/article/washington-dc-not-state/
------------------------------------------------------------

This means change only by amendment, not by unconstitutional legislation like "HR-51. 

[Doug] The District of Columbia could be redefined to include only government properties and not residential. The residential areas effected could make agreement with an adjacent state if they want 'statehood' and Senate representation.  Even someone from Rhode Island would not think statehood for an area so small.  What are their industries, government and what else?  The only people thinking statehood are the same traitors who leave our border open, let anyone vote and game the system every other way they can think of.  That won't win the 38 states they need to amend the constitution.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1908 on: October 14, 2021, 10:29:00 AM »
26 demented or otherwise incapacitated voters decided to vote

absentee

anyone care to guess who the votes were for

(not mentioned, of course ).

"“Our election system is secure, and today’s charges demonstrate that in the rare circumstances when fraud occurs we catch it and hold the perpetrators accountable.” Benson added, “These charges also send a clear message to those who promote deceitful claims about widespread fraud: the current protocols we have in place work to protect and ensure the integrity of our elections. It’s time to share that truth and stop spreading lies to the contrary.”

oh really .  probably the only reason it came to fore
would be a relative found out a vote was cast for the Nursing Home pt.

how else would anyone know?



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #1909 on: October 14, 2021, 10:33:23 AM »
Admittedly, Dementia patients voting for Biden does seem to make sense.

26 demented or otherwise incapacitated voters decided to vote

absentee

anyone care to guess who the votes were for

(not mentioned, of course ).

"“Our election system is secure, and today’s charges demonstrate that in the rare circumstances when fraud occurs we catch it and hold the perpetrators accountable.” Benson added, “These charges also send a clear message to those who promote deceitful claims about widespread fraud: the current protocols we have in place work to protect and ensure the integrity of our elections. It’s time to share that truth and stop spreading lies to the contrary.”

oh really .  probably the only reason it came to fore
would be a relative found out a vote was cast for the Nursing Home pt.

how else would anyone know?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
zuckerberg
« Reply #1910 on: October 16, 2021, 05:34:01 PM »
funding of the Dem operative army

I am sure soros james winfrey contributed too:

https://www.dickmorris.com/the-impact-of-zuckerbergs-bucks/



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile