Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 488750 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
Some interesting history included here
« Reply #2603 on: August 15, 2023, 07:23:37 AM »

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/10/fake-electors-play-starring-role-jan-6-charges-aga/

, , ,

Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, was called to testify before the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump over his post-election actions.

Mr. Fitton, who consulted with Mr. Trump following the election, said he testified to the grand jury about his concerns in 2020 when it was reported that a group of top government officials, including Democrat John Podesta, participated in a project called the Transition Integrity Project. The participants played out 2020 election scenarios that would keep Mr. Trump out of office.

Mr. Podesta, who managed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and is currently a senior adviser in the Biden administration, played the role of Mr. Biden in the enactment.

He acted out a scenario in which Mr. Biden could not concede the election due to alleged voter suppression and instead persuaded the governors of two swing states to send alternative electors to the Electoral College.

Mr. Podesta’s scenario also envisioned three states seceding from the U.S. in protest if Mr. Trump were to win the 2020 contest.

“I told the grand jury that this is something that I was very much concerned about,” Mr. Fitton said. “Because it looked to me like they were threatening civil war if the election didn’t go the way they wanted it.”
« Last Edit: August 15, 2023, 09:47:02 AM by Crafty_Dog »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18518
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2605 on: August 15, 2023, 08:26:07 AM »
interesting
too bad the rest of the media will ignore this

at least the few of this here are outraged

it may get a quick mention on Waters Ingraham
and then get rinsed down the news drain

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18265
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2606 on: August 15, 2023, 12:36:24 PM »
Speaking of Georgia, here is five straight minutes of Stacey Abrams denying the election result:
https://t.co/oRYMeZR6vQ

And here we have 0 minutes of democrats, media and prosecutors pointing out how wrongful, dangerous and criminal her speech is:
https://youtu.be/K8E_zMLCRNg
« Last Edit: August 15, 2023, 01:06:29 PM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
Byron York
« Reply #2608 on: August 16, 2023, 10:23:25 AM »


Trump Indictment Four: Too much
by Byron York,
Chief Political Correspondent
August 15, 2023 05:15 PM

TRUMP INDICTMENT FOUR: TOO MUCH. The MSNBC coverage of Trump Indictment Four, running late Monday night into early Tuesday morning, had an odd undertone. The network's stars had gathered for the Big Event, but something seemed just a little wrong. They seemed like children who had gotten much more than they asked for for Christmas: a little overwhelmed and confused. They were happy, of course, but worried it might be too much.

At about the same time, a liberal Washington Post columnist was expressing misgivings about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's indictment alleging a vast conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. Willis is "well within her legal rights to bring the case under state law,” Ruth Marcus wrote. "Whether that prosecution is advisable, in the wake of federal charges arising out of the same conduct, is a tougher question — one about which I have misgivings."

The headline of Marcus's column was "Is Georgia's case against Trump one case too many?" Marcus certainly approves of indicting former President Donald Trump, even of having multiple indictments as insurance against an unexpected hung jury or acquittal — can't risk Trump getting off! But after the Georgia case, she confessed to a certain "queasiness" and could not see a limiting principle. "There is a concern about piling on here," she wrote. "Why stop at Georgia? The federal indictment sets out conduct in six other states in which Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly sought to overturn the election results. Will he be prosecuted in those states too? At some point, it becomes unfair — yes, even to Trump, to go state by state."


The Georgia indictment appears designed to please hardcore Trump antagonists who believe the other prosecutors, Alvin Bragg in Manhattan and Jack Smith with the Justice Department, have gone too easy on the former president. Willis has thrown everything she can think of at Trump, who is charged with 13 felony counts. His 18 co-defendants, among them Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Mark Meadows, John Eastman, and Jeffrey Clark, are charged with dozens more. There are 30 unindicted co-conspirators. Even though Willis is the district attorney of one county in Georgia, she has alleged a massive, nationwide conspiracy under the direction of the president of the United States.

Perhaps the newsiest thing about the indictment is that it relies on Georgia's RICO statute, listing 161 "overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy." The counts vary by defendant, but each person faces the main RICO charge, which carries with it a five-year mandatory sentence.

Many of the "overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy" are everyday events that are not illegal. But they must ultimately lead to an illegal act. And that is where the Georgia indictment is likely to cause controversy, particularly in one area — the charges surrounding what prosecutors call the "fake electors" scheme.

Look at one person charged in connection with that matter: David Shafer, who at the time of the 2020 election was head of the state Republican Party. The following is adapted from a newsletter I wrote in January 2022, when criminal charges for this incident seemed remote at best:

In the days and weeks after Nov. 3, 2020, Trump filed a lot of election lawsuits. Nearly all of them failed, some immediately and some over time. Among the lawsuits Trump filed was one challenging the results of the presidential election in Georgia.

Dec. 14, 2020, was an important day in the process. That was the day the Electoral College was required by law to meet in the states and approve slates of electors. Those would then be sent to Washington, where Congress would certify them on Jan. 6, 2021. On Dec. 14, in the states President Joe Biden won, including Georgia, electors for Biden met to formalize their votes.

But at that time, there was still a Trump lawsuit pending in Georgia. Some Trump supporters' thinking went like this: The election is not finally settled. What if Trump were to win the suit and a judge were to throw out Biden's victory? You might view this as a fantasy — indeed, it was — but in some cases, Trump supporters thought they had a strong legal case that would prevail if only a judge would hear it. In the event that a court threw out Biden's victory, Trump would need a slate of electors to cast electoral votes for him. And by law, the electors had to have voted on Dec. 14. If Trump won the case and a state's results were thrown out and Trump had no electors, then the whole election challenge would be a waste.

So in Georgia, as well as a few other states, at the urging of lawyers working in tandem with the Trump campaign, Trump supporters in Georgia decided to choose electors on Dec. 14 on a contingency basis. That is, the electors would be selected, and if, at a later date, Trump prevailed in court and Biden's electors were disqualified, the Trump electors would be presented to Congress on Jan. 6. There was no realistic chance of that happening, but many of the Trump supporters were not ready to give up.

Shafer publicly announced the Republicans' intention. He invited the press to cover the meeting at which "electors" were chosen. He tweeted about it when it happened. There were news accounts of it. "We were told by the lawyers that if the Republican nominees for the Electoral College did not meet on Dec. 14 and cast their votes, then Trump's lawsuit would be mooted because there would be no remedy available to him if he prevailed," Shafer told me in January 2022. "So we met to preserve his remedies if he prevailed."

Shafer's group met in the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta, the same day the Biden electors were meeting elsewhere in the building. The GOP had invited reporters to come. Some did, from both local and national outlets. You can read this account of the meeting — "As electoral college formalizes Biden's win, Trump backers hold their own vote" — in the Washington Post.

Just to make sure everyone knew what was happening, Shafer posted what had been done within an hour after the meeting's conclusion. "Because the president's lawsuit contesting the Georgia election is still pending, the Republican nominees for presidential elector met today at noon in the State Capitol and cast their votes for president and vice president," Shafer wrote. "Had we not met today and cast our votes, the president's pending election contest would have been effectively mooted. Our action today preserves his rights under Georgia law." Shafer did not claim that the Trump "electors" chosen that day were the real Georgia presidential electors but that they would be ready to step in should Trump win his election lawsuit and the results be overturned.

So that is what David Shafer did. And for his efforts he is now charged with:

1) Violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
2) Impersonating a Public Officer
3) Forgery in the First Degree
4) False Statements and Writings
5) Criminal Attempt to Commit Filing False Documents
6) Three additional counts of forgery and false statements

In the months leading up to the indictment, Shafer's lawyers repeatedly asked prosecutors for a meeting so they could make the case for his innocence. Willis's prosecutors did not grant them a meeting. Shafer then sent long letters outlining his case. Here is part of one letter from March 2023:

Mr. Shafer and the other Republican contingent presidential electors acted with complete transparency. Members of the press attended, observed, recorded and reported on their meeting. In addition to the live television news coverage, WSB-TV's Richard Elliott live tweeted a photograph of the contingent electors taken while the meeting was in progress; Greg Bluestein of The Atlanta Journal Constitution re-tweeted Mr. Elliott's photograph and tweeted [another] photograph of fellow contingent elector Brad Carver casting his vote from inside the room during the meeting; and Jeff Amy and Ben Gray of the Associated Press attended the meeting and took [another] photograph, which has been republished by multiple other media outlets. [Shafer included the photos in his letter.]

The news coverage and Mr. Shafer's tweets (and other contemporaneous evidence) make plain that the Republican electors' meeting was public and that they cast contingent votes on the advice of counsel to preserve a legal remedy and protect the right of Georgia to have its electoral votes counted in the event that the then-pending election contest was adjudicated in President Trump's favor. They made their lawful intent in doing so explicit and unmistakable at the time.

Shafer and the others did not claim to be the genuine electors. They explained at the time that the document they signed was a provisional slate. They did so on the advice of lawyers. They told the public precisely what they were doing. And now, Willis says that is a RICO violation, forgery, false statements, and impersonating a public officer.

Of course, the GOP cause was hopeless, and Shafer should have known it. Trump was not going to win the lawsuit. The hoped-for contingency was never going to happen. But for whatever reason — hope, belief in the cause, pressure from GOP voters, whatever — Shafer signed the slates. It was a useless effort, but it was not a crime.

For a deeper dive into many of the topics covered in the Daily Memo, please listen to my podcast, The Byron York Show — available on Radio America and the Ricochet Audio Network and everywhere else podcasts can be found.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18518
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2609 on: August 16, 2023, 10:38:42 AM »
is the '245 election already rigged by crats

of course,

everything else is . 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
PA to start reporting voting machine problems
« Reply #2611 on: August 23, 2023, 06:17:55 AM »
PENNSYLVANIA

State to start publicly reporting voting machine problems

BY MARC LEVY ASSOCIATED PRESS HARRISBURG, PA. | A legal challenge in Pennsylvania over the viability of a particular manufacturer’s voting system has ended in a settlement that advocates say will boost accountability and transparency by requiring election officials to record and publicly report problems with voting machines.

The election-security advocates who sued say such a requirement will provide a contemporary account of which voting machines are working well and which ones aren’t — information that can benefit every state.

Some election officials also see the potential to help suppress conspiracy theories and misinformation about voting machine malfunctions that can fester on Election Day and in the days after when votes are being counted.

Others worry, though, about the breadth of what must be reported and if it could be used to undermine confidence in elections. Pennsylvania, a key presidential battleground state, was buffeted by conspiracy theories, misinformation and lawsuits in 2020 by Republican Donald Trump and his allies in a bid to overturn Democrat Joseph R. Biden’s victory there.

The federal Election Assistance Commission requires manufacturers to report malfunctions to it, but the groups and advocates who sued Pennsylvania say they were unaware of a similar state-level public reporting requirement.

“You can have rumors swirling around, or you can have facts on the ground and real transparency and real accountability, and that’s why this new requirement is a big advance,” said Rich Garella, who sued Pennsylvania in 2019 along with the National Election Defense Coalition, Citizens for Better Elections and 12 other people.

In a statement, Gov. Josh Shapiro’s top election official, Secretary of State Al Schmidt, said the settlement “will provide additional public transparency” into voting systems used in Pennsylvania.

The settlement was filed in court last week.

The original lawsuit, filed in late 2019, grew out of complaints about the ExpressVote XL touchscreen system made by Omaha, Nebraskabased Election Systems & Software, that had just been bought by three jurisdictions in Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia.

The suit had sought to prevent the use of the systems in Pennsylvania, but state officials defended their certification of the system.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18265
    • View Profile
Re: Goolag burying Rep searches?
« Reply #2624 on: October 01, 2023, 03:39:03 PM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/google-rigging-2024-election-controversy-over-invisible-republicans?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1865

Yes of course they are.  At the height of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and her run for President, I Google searched "Hillary Clinton emails" and was able to pull up only pages and pages of fluff, nothing even alleging wrongdoing.

They've been doing this from the beginning.  They are evil.  They are only getting worse.  Half the country thinks it's good and our half doesn't care.  Same with Meta Facebook Instagram.  "Oh but they help me connect with family and friends.". Ok, reap what you sow.  We gave up our networks, our newspapers, our late night entertainment, schools, colleges and universities, the ABA, the AMA, NEJM, 'Scientific American', UN, IPCC, WHO, etc etc, our military has more pronouns than sharpshooters, all without the whisper of a fight, why start standing up to anybody now?

WHY?  Because Google proved in China it will help dictatorial totalitarians enforce compliance on their subjects, and here too.  (Does that need an exclamation point?)

Pure evil masquerading as a search engine and an email service.

De-google!
« Last Edit: October 02, 2023, 05:46:10 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2625 on: October 02, 2023, 06:17:24 AM »
Amen on the evils of Goolag!!!

When I was having my current computer set up I insisted that there be no trace of Google anywhere in it.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18265
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2626 on: October 02, 2023, 06:41:59 AM »
"When I was having my current computer set up I insisted that there be no trace of Google anywhere in it."

  - Thumbs up to that. I think it must be phone also because there could be 'synching'.

Time permitting we need to bring our tech threads up to date. I have proton mail but have not cut the cord on Gmail. Need to switch map directions program (wayz?).  I use brave and duck duck go, but not exclusively.  Open office and not Microsoft product. And most critical for me will be the switch to degoogled Android, since I don't use the apple product.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2627 on: October 02, 2023, 08:02:50 AM »
I don't do email on my phone.

DuckDuck's privacy is OK but its president bragged of woke motivated search results.  I use Qwant.

I have Apple phone.  What are my issues there, and how do they compare with Android?



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
WSJ: Race and Redistricting at SCOTUS
« Reply #2629 on: October 12, 2023, 08:38:12 AM »
Race and Redistricting at the Supreme Court
Did South Carolina pass a racial gerrymander or merely a partisan one?
By The Editorial Board
Oct. 10, 2023 6:31 pm ET



The Supreme Court will venture into the gerrymandering thicket again this week, as it tries to distinguish two scenarios: Did South Carolina redo a U.S. House district to include fewer black voters, who happen to be Democrats? Or did it redraw the boundary to include fewer Democrats, who happen to be black? If that sounds confusing, take a peek at Alexander v. S.C. Conf. of NAACP.

The state’s First District hugs Charleston, and it’s historically Republican. But a Democrat won there in 2018, before being ousted two years later by Rep. Nancy Mace. After the 2020 census, legislative leaders decided they wanted to shore up the Republican advantage, as they explain in their brief. By adding GOP areas and subtracting Democratic ones, the revised map managed to raise the Republican vote share to 54%, from 53%. The lawmakers argue this was purely political and not based on race.

The state NAACP challenged the House map, claiming that three of its seven seats were racially gerrymandered. A federal district court rejected that argument for two of the seats. But the three-judge panel said it believed, based on circumstantial evidence, that “race was the predominant factor” in the layout of the First District, despite testimony from its creator that “he relied ‘one hundred percent’ on data regarding ‘the partisan lean of the district.’”

As a separate goal, lawmakers wanted redistricting to eliminate the previous splits of Berkeley and Beaufort Counties. Putting those counties entirely in the First District, however, would have boosted the black population, “imperiling” the GOP edge, the NAACP’s brief argues. “To offset this increase, Defendants expelled a Black Charlestonian from CD1 for virtually every Black person added.”

The NAACP proposes that the state cartographers “could have made Charleston County whole in CD1 along with Beaufort County as a coastal community of interest.” The legislators respond that adding all of Charleston County would have flipped the seat to Democrats. By the way, Charleston County was already divided, since portions of it were in the Sixth District held by Rep. James Clyburn. As of 2011, Mr. Clyburn had half of Charleston County’s black residents, according to the district court. Now it’s 79%.

The legislators say those judges “entangled rather than disentangled race and politics.” The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on such matters contains multitudes, to put it mildly, including a 5-4 decision this year, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, requiring Alabama to create a second black-majority House district. That case involved the Voting Rights Act, and this one is a claim under the 14th Amendment.

But redistricting in reality is full of trade-offs. Unifying one community of interest might mean splitting another. Is Charleston County better off with two representatives, one from each party, including the influential Mr. Clyburn? These are questions for legislators, not judges.

Partisan gerrymandering is legal, and if it weren’t the Democratic districts in Illinois and California would be barred. Polarized voting patterns make it easy for partisans to claim that some district is racially gerrymandered. Courts should be reluctant to proclaim that the truth, especially with no direct evidence

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Dynamics of Duopoly
« Reply #2630 on: October 14, 2023, 02:58:05 AM »
I found this glib regarding electoral fraud, but nonetheless, I think the analytical framework worth noting.

What Duopoly Economics Tells Us About Politics
Expect elections to be close and disputed and Trump to seem less of an innovator in this regard.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Oct. 13, 2023 4:02 pm ET

Some think it’s statistically or politically meaningful that Joe Biden got seven million more votes than Donald Trump in 2020, or Hillary Clinton got three million more in 2016. But presidential elections aren’t decided by the popular vote. If they were, candidates, parties and voters would all change their behavior.

Even more so when weighed against variability in voters’ decision about whether to vote at all. As Pew Research Center puts it, “Americans are inconsistent voters.” About 41% of Democrats and Democratic leaners voted in none of the last three elections, and 46% of the GOP-inclined. Between one election and the next, the choice of voters of one persuasion or the other to sit out can fluctuate as much as 15 percentage points, swamping any popular vote difference.

The recent gibberish about the House GOP being “ungovernable” is a special case of this delusion. In fact, Kevin McCarthy won 96.2% of his caucus. The problem in the House is the problem of the country at large—not that we’re divided, but that we’re divided at the 50-yard line. Voters provided such a slender GOP majority in 2022 that a mere 3.8% of GOP members, for their own trivial reasons, could join with 100% of Democrats to unhinge the House.

To understand our political dilemma, remember three things: The two major parties are marketing organizations; they are a duopoly; big data makes them increasingly good at doing what duopolies do, dividing the available market down the middle.

The word polarized is misused when we mean our political system has become exquisitely competitive. Even changing the rules of the game, as many progressives want—by eliminating the Electoral College, by altering how the Senate is composed, by relaxing voting requirements—would likely not change the distribution of offices and spoils by the duopoly, which would naturally adjust. Under the technologies that now exist, we may never see again a period like 1930 to 1994, when one party controlled the House in all but four years and the Senate in all but 10.

With the rise of two-party parity, honest and dishonest doubt-mongering becomes a high-leverage way of getting just enough of a party’s giant reserve of nonvoting leaners off the couch to swing a close election. Listen closely: When progressives harp on the alleged unfairness of the Senate or Electoral College to Democrats, they are really complaining about a system that doesn’t accommodate their desire not to modify their policies and rhetoric to win in places they aren’t winning now. You don’t hear them offering to re-enfranchise GOP presidential voters in California or New York by ending winner-take-all distribution of blue-state electoral votes.

Big-data techniques won’t be uninvented. The rise of political hobbyism, also a factor, won’t be reversed, unless Social Security and Medicare collapse and millions of overly energetic seniors with too much time on their hands have to put down Facebook and get a job.

Under the best of circumstances, our elections are a leap of faith. The public can’t see inside a voting machine. We may now be stuck with mail-in voting, but it metastasizes the opportunity for politicians and activists to adopt strategies of sowing plausible doubt.

Donald Trump is the practitioner who took contesting a presidential outcome the furthest, but he’s no innovator. Without Jan. 6, Mr. Trump had exactly the finale he was looking for. He would leave the White House under a narrative of a faulty election to keep his fans supercharged for whatever came next.

This is a time-honored story in American politics. Mrs. Clinton clings to the Russia incubus. “Corrupt bargain” the Jacksonians chanted until they found a chance to redeem their 1824 defeat. “His fraudulency” was the title critics bestowed on Rutherford B. Hayes. Top Democrats busy today denouncing the special iniquity of the Trumpians racked up quite a record of election denial in the George W. Bush years. Richard Nixon didn’t challenge his 1960 defeat but his fans saw 1968 as vindication for a “stolen” election. Teddy Roosevelt rode the claim of a “stolen” nomination to a third-party run in 1912. His would-be assassin during the campaign later justified his act by saying he feared T.R. would claim the general election was stolen too.

The best answer to the Trumpians is to have a serious look at 2020, admitting to ourselves that the election was indeed messy, with late rule changes, with acknowledged ballot harvesting, questionable signature verification practices, unattended drop boxes, etc. As every thinking person comes to realize, being seen strenuously pursuing transparency and fairness is a way of persuading voters that elections are fair. We’re going to find this all the more important if exquisite two-party parity is a fixed feature of the system.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2023, 02:59:39 AM by Crafty_Dog »




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: October 31, 2023, 07:47:02 PM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
PA Supreme Court election
« Reply #2636 on: November 04, 2023, 08:20:27 AM »
We discussed the political role of this court and SCOTUS deference to it in the 2020 election:

Why Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Election Matters
A judicial election with significance for 2024 voting and abortion.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Nov. 3, 2023 6:46 pm ET




143

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(4 min)


image
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania chamber at the Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa. PHOTO: MATT ROURKE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Pennsylvania next week will elect a new Justice to its state Supreme Court, and the race is worth watching well beyond Harrisburg. The winning jurist could be the tiebreaker in litigation over the state’s 2024 voting rules. The result could also show whether the end of Roe v. Wade is still powering Democrats to the polls.

Supreme Court elections in Pennsylvania are partisan affairs, and the Republican candidate is Carolyn Carluccio, President Judge of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. She promises to “apply the law as it is written.” She has mentioned concerns that the state Supreme Court’s rulings on mail ballots in recent years have been “conflicting, and sometimes unclear,” while also saying that “our election laws must be applied consistently across all counties.”

The Democrat is Daniel McCaffery, who sits on the state Superior Court. “I would describe my approach to constitutional interpretation as ‘living constitution’—meaning that the constitution was intentionally drafted using broad language to allow its concepts to evolve with changing societal conditions,” he told a newspaper. In his view, “any challenge to voting rights must be viewed in the context of promoting a fair and robust election process.”

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court is split 4-2, with one vacancy and Democratic jurists in the majority. Tuesday’s election, which will replace the late Justice Max Baer, can’t flip the partisan balance, though it would put the GOP one step closer toward a possible takeover in 2025. For more immediate implications, look at the high court’s most recent mail-ballot blunder, a 3-3 stalemate last fall that was made possible by Baer’s death. Whoever replaces him could cast a pivotal vote.

That 2022 dispute involved whether to count mail ballots with missing dates. State law tells voters to “fill out, date and sign,” but the argument was that tossing undated ballots would violate federal law. Seven days before the November election, the Justices announced they were “evenly divided.” They ordered counties to “segregate and preserve any ballots contained in undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes.”

That could have prompted a partisan meltdown, if a candidate losing by a hair had begged the judiciary to count disputed votes and give him victory. Pennsylvania is lucky it didn’t become a national recount circus in 2020 or 2022, but it’s still a risk for 2024.

The state Supreme Court outcome also could be a bellwether on abortion. The last time a seat was open, in 2021, it was won by a Republican, now-Justice Kevin Brobson, by less than a percentage point. Pennsylvania permits abortion until the 24th week of pregnancy, and Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro would block new restrictions. Yet Democrats are trying to use the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year to get their guy over the top.

“Majorities on these courts matter,” Judge McCaffery told a rally this summer. “When you elect Democrats, Democrats will stand up and protect women’s reproductive rights.” He added that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is “the policy court.” Judge Carluccio has argued that if this is how her opponent feels, he “should be running for the Legislature or Governor, not for the Supreme Court.”

The fall of Roe energized Democrats, helping them last November and in other races since. The question going into 2024 is whether their enthusiasm is fading, especially in states that aren’t changing their abortion laws.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
Tucker: Proof of Fraud in GA 2020
« Reply #2639 on: November 11, 2023, 10:50:38 AM »
 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1723057416873681020

Tucker Carlson on Duplicated Ballots, Falsified Tally Sheets, and Mail-In Ballot Fraud in Fulton County, Georgia

“It now appears there actually was meaningful voter fraud in Fulton County, Georgia, last November (2020). That is not a conspiracy theory. It’s true.

Surveillance footage obtained by VoterGA shows large numbers of ballots being scanned multiple times. Pay attention to the women wearing yellow at the desk. According to VoterGA, she slides ballots into a scanning machine, removes the ballots, and then reinserts the same ballots. This happens multiple times. The question is, how many times were these ballots counted? Was each vote counted more than once? Fulton County won't answer that question. Now, one way to know that answer would be to check what are called audit tally sheets.

Tellingly, for months after the 2020 election, Fulton County failed to provide more than 100,000 of those tally sheets, including 50,000 of them from mail-in ballots. When VoterGA finally forced Fulton County to turn over the tally sheets, the conclusion was stunning. Here's what the audit found.

Seven falsified audit tally sheets containing fabricated vote totals... For example, a batch containing 59 actual ballot images for Joe Biden and 42 for Donald Trump was reported as 100 for Biden and 0 for Trump. The seven batches of ballot images with 554 votes for Joe Biden, 140 votes for Donald Trump, and 11 votes for Jo Jorgenson had tally sheets in the audit falsified to show 850 votes for Biden, 0 votes for Trump, and 0 votes for Jorgenson.

Wait, did you just follow that? How is that not flat-out criminal fraud?"


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18518
    • View Profile
Chaffetz on Biden weaponizing all branches of Fed gov to get out Dem votes
« Reply #2641 on: November 13, 2023, 09:26:53 PM »
very upsetting article above.

 :x









DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18265
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« Reply #2647 on: November 26, 2023, 03:00:23 PM »
I have not independently verified the assertions here, but this point intrigues:

=========================

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1728526460388770071
What Bill and many other people with negative IQ don't realize is that the majority of the cases were not dismissed after discovery & evidentiary hearings they were dismissed on procedural grounds (such as lack of standing, jurisdiction, mootness, ripeness, etc). In other words, the courts failed the Constitution by refusing to hear the election challenges. Of the cases that were heard on the merits, Republicans and/or Trump prevailed in two-thirds of them.

Since the 2020 election, it's also important to note that many courts have made critical decisions such as the decision from a Wisconsin judge that ruled ballot drop boxes were illegally implemented and used in 2020, the decision from the Georgia Supreme Court that concluded voters had standing to challenge the results of their own elections (duhh).

The fraud in 2020 was rampant and anyone who denies it lacks intelligence.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
WSJ: Mail Vote Time Bomb
« Reply #2648 on: November 27, 2023, 12:57:16 PM »


A Mail-Vote Time Bomb Keeps Ticking
Pennsylvania’s undated ballots might go to the Supreme Court—again.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Nov. 26, 2023 5:05 pm ET


The 2024 election will probably be preceded by another flood of lawsuits over voting rules, especially absentee ballots, and keep an eye on Pennsylvania. Last week a federal judge there ruled that timely mail ballots must be counted even if the voter neglected to write the date, as state law requires. This may go to the Supreme Court, which punted a similar case last year.

The saga of Pennsylvania’s undated ballots since the Covid pandemic is worth unspooling, because it shows how litigation puts indeterminacy into the election system. State law is unambiguous in saying that absentee voters must “fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.” This requirement has gone to court repeatedly for three years, with frustratingly inconclusive results.

In 2020 a Republican state Senate candidate, Nicole Ziccarelli, was poised to topple a Democratic incumbent, whom she led by four votes. Eventually she lost by 69, after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered the tallying of some 300 undated mail ballots. Four of the seven Justices agreed such ballots were invalid under state law. But the swing Justice said that given the circumstances, “I would apply my interpretation only prospectively.”

A year later, the question was whether federal law overrides Pennsylvania’s date mandate. A Republican judicial candidate, David Ritter, was up by 71 votes, with about 250 undated mail ballots uncounted. Guess what happened next? Mr. Ritter lost by five, after the federal Third Circuit Appeals Court ordered the extra ballots to be included, citing the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, that law says “the right of any individual to vote” cannot be denied based on a paperwork error that “is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified.”

The Supreme Court refused to grant a stay, over three conservative dissents. “The Third Circuit’s interpretation is very likely wrong,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote. “When a mail-in ballot is not counted because it was not filled out correctly, the voter is not denied ‘the right to vote.’ Rather, that individual’s vote is not counted because he or she did not follow the rules for casting a ballot.” The same is true, Justice Alito added, if a voter goes to the wrong polling site or returns a ballot to a bad address.

After Mr. Ritter’s defeat was certified, he made a final appeal to the Supreme Court, complaining that the state “has ordered all counties to count undated ballots in future elections.” The Justices ordered his case to be dismissed as moot, while also vacating the Third Circuit’s ruling, to prevent it from setting an unreviewable precedent. Then a week before Election Day in 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court split 3-3 on what federal law requires of undated ballots.

Now it’s back to square one, with five Pennsylvanians claiming they were disenfranchised last year. Federal Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, ruling in their favor last week, says hundreds of mail votes in 2022 were rejected for obvious goofs like incorrect years, even though the written date is “irrelevant,” because what matters is whether the ballot was returned on time. But asking voters to date their ballots is a neutral, de minimis rule that could be useful in fraud cases. No law can end mistakes.

The nightmare is that control of the White House or the U.S. Senate could be decided after Election Day by a Supreme Court opinion on missing dates, incomplete witness addresses, or other ballot defects. That’s why the Justices should quit dodging these cases. The time to settle voting rules is when the stakes are low, which is to say, well in advance of Election Day.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69430
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: November 28, 2023, 04:00:31 PM by Crafty_Dog »