Arbitrarily and open ended. Under this a judge could rule anything received in november is valid. Anything without a postmark is valid, Anything without a signature is valid. Anything were the signature doesn’t match is valid. Anything were the adress is not complte or wrong is valid. Apprently the law would allow that right?
But they didn’t do that in this case, so your unwarranted speculation is noted.
okay.
You will have to look at the law. If it says the judge has that power, then yes. But they didn’t say that, and you are reaching for any straw you can.
What wrong with people reading the instruction. Like here in Utah several years ago, thousands of ballots were rejected because in bold highlighted text, the ballot CLEARLY sgtated they had to be postmarked no later than the day before the election. Federal judge ruled then, that was the state law, clear in the istructions, and if the post mark was a day late they couldn’t be opened and counted
You should know the laws of your state when it comes to elections…
1 Like
Who are “they”, the USPS, local election board, whatever repository the mail in ballots are destined to?
They already do security checks on the outer envelope. No additional requirement there.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
Factually incorrect.
The Judge specifically says:
“Thus, on this record, the court concludes that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of
success in demonstrating the risk of disenfranchisement of thousands of Wisconsin voters
due to the election day receipt deadline outweighs any state interest during this pandemic.
Accordingly, the court will grant this request, extending the receipt deadline for absentee
ballots until November 9, 2020, but requiring that the ballots be mailed and postmarked
on or before election day, November 3, 2020.”
Ballots received after election that will be counted have to come through USPS and have been mailed by November 3rd. They can’t be received any time in November. Nor can votes be cast after November 3rd. Mail in ballots can be counted only if they were on possession of the United States Postal Service by November 3rd.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
Hence, he is reaching for straws.
I’ve noticed some of these Judges are on the Soros payroll. He’s probably one of them.
The laws of Wisconsin state a ballot postmarked by Election Day counts, so the people do understand the laws.
The judge is making sure all those ballots are counted.
You still haven’t explained what the problem with allowing for six extra days for them to be counted is.
Congress deliberately designed the Voting Rights Act as a sledgehammer, not as a hammer and chisel.
States were being horrible ■■■■■■■■ in the 1960’s. Only a sledgehammer was going to work to get them under control.
The Voting Rights Act continues to exist and Judges continue to hold that sledgehammer.
Like it or not, they are going to continue to use it.
I wouldn’t suggest advocating for repealing the Voting Rights Act, that probably isn’t going to work out too well for anybody who might try it. 
1 Like
I know here in Utah its the election board. If postmarked after the law allows, they are put into the ineligable stack. Utah law allows a few days after election for ballots to come in.
Read my quote again Under the federal law a judge COULD rule
Way I read the article – law states it must be received and counted by 8pm election day.
But he didn’t rule that.
So now that you can’t raise any coherent issues with what the judge DID rule, you’re going to speculate what he COULD have ruled?
This reminds me of those threads in the old days where supposedly Republican voters were getting harassed by Libs at the polls…when it was found out this wasn’t happening, the response was not to admit error but to say “it sounds like something Libs WOULD do”.
No, but a judge could do so under the law. Where does this law say they couldn’t.
I’m being told the fudge has wide latitude. So now your saying a judger couldn’t do the rhings I’ve said? What stops them?
Did the judge do that here? Yes or no?
How about you explain the issue with the judge’s ruling that prompted your post in the first place before we go off on “what could have happened”?
Or are you admitting now there was nothing at all “activist” about what the judge did?
No, but he used arbitrary numbers to rule.
At least one hotly-contested New York primary election is still up in the air thanks to a federal court ruling this week that readmitted thousands of mail-in ballots thrown out because of missing postmarks.
Oh wait, federal judges already ticking off the list!
A federal judge ruled Friday that Indiana’s practice of rejecting absentee mail-in ballots on the basis of non-matching signatures violates two provisions in the 14th Amendment — due process and equal protection under the law.
Oh wait anouther one!
a) What arbitrary numbers did the judge in Wisconsin use?
b) The New York case…did you read the details as to why Judge Torres ruled as she did? Because there was evidence of systemic failures in the USPS and in the Board of Elections. You can dispute her method of redressing that, but her ruling was neither arbitrary nor “activist”.
c) The Indiana case…did you read the details as to why Judge Baker ruled the way she did? It only pertained to those ballots where the voter could have been informed of the non-matching signature and given a chance to fix that…but Indiana didn’t do that. The rule isn’t you can’t toss a ballot for non-matching signature. The ruling is if you toss a ballot for that reason, you have to inform the voter who sent in that ballot and offer an opportunity for redress. What’s wrong with that?
