7867

So seemingly you get the point from my way of thinking voter laws were apparently not strictly enforced in this very state of Georgia? And another question with hindsight you do agree the Trump challenge with these specifics rise to the degree that it was systemic enough that at least serious consideration should of been given by the courts for the entire Georgia election result being thrown out?

Ignorance has no place in voter laws. Everyone who does not follow the laws of their respective state understand full well that may or should quite possibly disqualify their own vote.

1 Like
7868

Please quote me with context when re-framing my position in your words or when eliciting more comment.

7869

“process” issues… these don’t and should not invalidate votes. Law and courts address this… non-material anomalies do not invalidate otherwise legal votes.

In bold what your wrote here is not absolute. It depends on the merits case by case. And since your prior response did not disqualify why Trump’s timely challenge being delayed until after the certification was complete in Georgia you thus see merit that in at least this case, #45’s legal tem raises a strong argument for results there to be thrown out.

1 Like
7870

I don’t think it is absolute. But I don’t think Trumps complaint on the signature consent decree is a strong case for invalidating the votes.

If the claim showed illegal votes it might be stronger. But it seems to me that the claim is that the change was illegal (I have not found a strong argument that it is) and that it “effectively” made signature validation impossible.

Even taking either of those points at face value, if the votes that were submitted came from valid voters then the issue becomes a “process” argument.

Said simply… if my local officials illegally skipped validating the signature on my ballot… my ballot is still legal and should and will be counted.

The argument for tossing the election needs to show more than process violations. It needs to show that invalid votes were counted. The claim does not show that. It guesses that the consent decree made validation ineffective. And then guesses a SECOND time to say that POTENTIALY it made fraud easier.

That is a weak case. Especially given the fact that obtaining a ballot is the hard part of this potential fraud.

7871

This is precisely correct.

Judges have never invalidated otherwise legal votes for process reasons. The remedy was to order changes so these process errors couldn’t occur in future elections.

It’s like the kerfluffle in Pennsylvania where a court ruled the provision allowing for no excuse mail in balloting violated the state constitution.

If that is upheld, the remedy will be to forbid the use of no excuse mail in balloting until such time as the constitution is amended properly.

The remedy will not and WOULD NEVER be to throw out all ballots cast by no excuse mail in ballots prior to the ruling. When voters vote in good faith according to what state officials have told them are in a legal manner, their votes are legal and cannot ex post facto be made illegal.

7872

Come on now. You generally argue the law as written is the gold standard. I also appreciate you being so emphatic to so many voters in Georgia. However, with enough of these potentially illegal votes in fact to be possibly more than enough to throw out the result it sounds more like you “rationalizing” that even fairly significant citizen ignorance should prevail here and most anywhere above prevailing law.

1 Like
7873

I am being reasonable. I have no control over whether my ballot is processed in compliance with the law. But my vote is legitimate and I am a legitimate voter.

Precedence is clear hear… we do not discard otherwise legal votes for non-material defects. THIS IS THE LAW. And a good one at that.

In this case, the alleged illegal behavior is by the government (Rothlessberger’s consent decree) NOT the voter. The voter has no knowledge of or control of this aspect of the process. It should not invalidate the vote unless the vote itself can be shown defective. Even showing that the signature is invalid could be enough to discard it.

The case should proceed in the courts, it deserves adjudication by that branch. But unless the court re-verifies the signatures and discovers that the votes are ACTUALLY invalid the remedy is enforced against the state and not the voters.

7874

This should be considered on its own. The law is more sophisticated than “perfection or nothing”. It spells out the remedy for its own violations.

In many of these cases the law describes the remedy for ballot deficiencies (what the articles like to call ILLEGAL votes). And the principle that dominates is that ballots with non-material defects WILL be counted.

So it is consistent with the law to observe a defect in a ballot, evaluate that the ballot is otherwise valid and count it.

I support this practice and it is not my position that the law does not matter or should be overlooked. It should be applied fully, and that includes making the remedy for violations follow what the law intends.

7875

So “non-material” is our place where we will at best agree to disagree despite so many people stating they ignored prevailing statutes in not bothering to change their address timely enough to vote in accordance with law at their current residence.

1 Like
7876

I hate this about these kitchen sink articles. We were discussing the signature consent decree, and then the imaginary case where my specific ballot was “illegally” passed without anyone looking at my signature.

And suddenly you take my words and apply then to another aspect of the article. Please don’t do that.

The address situation is totally different. And I am happy to discuss it on its own.

In fact my original response was divided into three posts… and one was specific to the address change issue while the “non-material” post was specifically addressed to other parts of the article.

7877

Meanwhile in Wisconsin a big flaw in the absentee ballot process got corrected.

Soon only outlaws will use mule drop boxes.

7878

The mule thing has never made sense to me as a practical crime.

Can you illuminate for me the reason that these organizations recruit and pay “mules” to put ballots in drop boxes rather than just dropping them in a US post office box?

Now that WI won’t use drop boxes won’t they just drop the ballots in the USPS mailbox? Or maybe they will still recruit and pay strangers to drop them in mailboxes?

1 Like
7879

Let me turn it around and ask how and why these boxes are in any way better than using the USPS.

At best it is redundant.

That is why the existence of the drop boxes makes no sense to me.

7880

That’s not a turnaround, it’s a redirect.

I am not claiming they are better. I am saying it does not make sense to me why they are necessary or more likely to be used by a ballot harvester instead of just using a USPS. There are way more USPS boxes and way less likely for them to be under surveillance.

Adding mules and drop boxes into the mix seems like it increases the risk of getting caught.

And eliminating drop boxes will drive harvesters to USPS boxes and make it harder to identify them by geolocation and surveillance.

7881

At the time they were implemented the USPS wouldn’t guarantee they could handle the load of all the additional mail in ballots and get them delivered on time.

Turns out a whole bunch of ballots DID get stuck in the USPS network.

No one ever seems to talk about that…perhaps because the Postmaster General was a Trump associate who dismantled a lot of the USPS’ capacity right before the election?

Hmm…

7882

That is not a good argument. One Trump appointee isn’t turning the USPS inept. They have been working at it for decades.

Chain of custody protocol with drop boxes adds security and mule opportunity issues.

7883

It just gets worse…

Brandon reading the quote function from the prompter

7884

Why does it add mule opportunities? There are way more USPS boxes and way less security on them.

7885

Post office boxes do as well.

Because both of them are well before the final validation check steps.

There is no difference between mail boxes and drop boxes.

And absolutely the head of the USPS can make changes that impact USPS capacity to deliver.

7886

The more I think this though the more I conclude that eliminating USPS boxes and going all drop box is the better security play.

Even without video, their fewer number makes them easier to geolocate against.

Drop boxes are fewer and have defined locations lending them to geolocation analysis and surveillance.

If we mandate video surveillance I think drop boxes are superior to USPS boxes as far as the mule problem goes.

What am I missing?