Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.
-
Read the summary here:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
A judge in Michigan has vindicated President Trump by ruling that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, broke state law when she unilaterally changed election rules concerning absentee balloting in the 2020 election. This ruling legitimizes a key claim made by the Trump legal team in its challenges to the 2020 election.A major change imposed by Benson was loosening the signature verification requirement for absentee ballots. Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray ruled that this change violated Michigan Administrative Procedures Act.
The court made the following conclusion:
…nowhere in this state’s election law has the Legislature indicated that signatures are to be presumed valid, nor did the Legislature require that signatures are to be accepted so long as there are any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope as compared with the signature on file. Policy determinations like the one at issue — which places the thumb on the scale in favor of a signature’s validity — should be made pursuant to properly promulgated rules under the APA or by the Legislature.
Over 3.1 million Michiganders voted by absentee ballot in November. Biden “won” the state by just over 154,000 votes, according to the state-certified results.
“I’m glad the court sees Secretary of State Benson’s attempts at lawmaking for what they are – clear violations of her authority,” said State Rep. Matt Hall, a Republican. “If she wants to make changes like these, she needs to work with the Legislature or properly promulgate them through the laws we have on the books.”
“The Legislature is an equal branch of government charged with crafting laws,” Hall continued. “This is not the role of the Secretary of State, and there is a clear process that must be respected. Unfortunately, Secretary of State Benson has a pattern of not respecting that process. She issued a mandatory directive requiring local election officials to apply a presumption of validity to all signatures on absent voter ballots, but there is nothing within state law allowing for that type of power from her position. As a result, this directive was found to be not in accordance with our laws and not valid.”
-
290-248
-
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA and I believe 1-2 other states.
-
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA and I believe 1-2 other states.
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
-
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
PA flip of the mail in votes would make it 270-268...
The Brad
-
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
PA flip of the mail in votes would make it 270-268...
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
PA flip of the mail in votes would make it 270-268...
SCOTUS dropped the ball.
But at least Robert's photos weren't made public...
-
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
PA flip of the mail in votes would make it 270-268...
SCOTUS dropped the ball.
But at least Robert's photos weren't made public...
@jolly said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
PA flip of the mail in votes would make it 270-268...
SCOTUS dropped the ball.
But at least Robert's photos weren't made public...
SCOTUS didn’t drop the ball. PA republicans dropped the ball. That needed to be a suit brought by members of the state legislature.
-
Is that the final word? Would there be further appeals to overrule this ruling?
Even if this ruling is let stand, is a retrospective re-examination of signatures in a manner consistent with this ruling disqualify enough ballots to make a difference?
Note that Genetski, the one who sued Benson, also admits that Benson’s guidance has not caused him to accept any signature he thought was invalid — i.e., in Genetski’s own view, Benson’s guidance made no material difference to the outcome.
-
Is that the final word? Would there be further appeals to overrule this ruling?
Even if this ruling is let stand, is a retrospective re-examination of signatures in a manner consistent with this ruling disqualify enough ballots to make a difference?
Note that Genetski, the one who sued Benson, also admits that Benson’s guidance has not caused him to accept any signature he thought was invalid — i.e., in Genetski’s own view, Benson’s guidance made no material difference to the outcome.
@axtremus said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
Is that the final word? Would there be further appeals to overrule this ruling?
Even if this ruling is let stand, is a retrospective re-examination of signatures in a manner consistent with this ruling disqualify enough ballots to make a difference?
Note that Genetski, the one who sued Benson, also admits that Benson’s guidance has not caused him to accept any signature he thought was invalid — i.e., in Genetski’s own view, Benson’s guidance made no material difference to the outcome.
The bottom line is that the system is screwed up, mistakes were made (intentionally or not), and if we don't want to have some very serious consequences, we need to fix things where the legislatures do what they are supposed to do and every legal vote is counted properly.
Until people believe in election integrity, all it takes is hard times and you have a very unstable country.
-
-
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
PA flip of the mail in votes would make it 270-268...
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
PA flip of the mail in votes would make it 270-268...
We should probably redo the whole election
-
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
PA flip of the mail in votes would make it 270-268...
We should probably redo the whole election
@copper said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
@lufins-dad said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
The interesting thing is that’s the same argument that has been brought up about PA
Exactly. And SCOTUS (I believe) didn't grant cert because of lack of standing.
PA flip of the mail in votes would make it 270-268...
We should probably redo the whole election
Now, that would be fun....
-
I will have to find the article, but someone looked at absentee ballots that were allowed "normally", and what the number of ballots that were allowed under the states governors "new" rules, and I think that there was a difference of a couple of hundred ballots.
EDIT - one such article linked below
(https://news.yahoo.com/theres-surprising-ending-2020-election-123018337.html)
For example - Wisconsin
"In Wisconsin, state law required absentee ballots to be returned by Election Night. The federal district court ordered that deadline extended by six days. But the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, blocked the district’s court order and required the deadline in the state’s election code to be respected.Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan invoked the district court’s prediction that as many as 100,000 voters would lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own, as a result of the majority’s ruling that the normal state-law deadline had to be followed. Commentators called this a “disastrous ruling” that “would likely disenfranchise tens of thousands” of voters in this key state.
The post-election audit now provides perspective on this controversy that sharply divided the court. Ultimately, only 1,045 absentee ballots were rejected in Wisconsin for failing to meet the Election Night deadline. That amounts to 0.05% ballots out of 1,969,274 valid absentee votes cast, or 0.03% of the total vote in Wisconsin."
-
I will have to find the article, but someone looked at absentee ballots that were allowed "normally", and what the number of ballots that were allowed under the states governors "new" rules, and I think that there was a difference of a couple of hundred ballots.
EDIT - one such article linked below
(https://news.yahoo.com/theres-surprising-ending-2020-election-123018337.html)
For example - Wisconsin
"In Wisconsin, state law required absentee ballots to be returned by Election Night. The federal district court ordered that deadline extended by six days. But the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, blocked the district’s court order and required the deadline in the state’s election code to be respected.Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan invoked the district court’s prediction that as many as 100,000 voters would lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own, as a result of the majority’s ruling that the normal state-law deadline had to be followed. Commentators called this a “disastrous ruling” that “would likely disenfranchise tens of thousands” of voters in this key state.
The post-election audit now provides perspective on this controversy that sharply divided the court. Ultimately, only 1,045 absentee ballots were rejected in Wisconsin for failing to meet the Election Night deadline. That amounts to 0.05% ballots out of 1,969,274 valid absentee votes cast, or 0.03% of the total vote in Wisconsin."
@taiwan_girl said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
I will have to find the article, but someone looked at absentee ballots that were allowed "normally", and what the number of ballots that were allowed under the states governors "new" rules, and I think that there was a difference of a couple of hundred ballots.
EDIT - one such article linked below
(https://news.yahoo.com/theres-surprising-ending-2020-election-123018337.html)
For example - Wisconsin
"In Wisconsin, state law required absentee ballots to be returned by Election Night. The federal district court ordered that deadline extended by six days. But the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, blocked the district’s court order and required the deadline in the state’s election code to be respected.Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan invoked the district court’s prediction that as many as 100,000 voters would lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own, as a result of the majority’s ruling that the normal state-law deadline had to be followed. Commentators called this a “disastrous ruling” that “would likely disenfranchise tens of thousands” of voters in this key state.
The post-election audit now provides perspective on this controversy that sharply divided the court. Ultimately, only 1,045 absentee ballots were rejected in Wisconsin for failing to meet the Election Night deadline. That amounts to 0.05% ballots out of 1,969,274 valid absentee votes cast, or 0.03% of the total vote in Wisconsin."
There are so many lies floating around in "news" articles, I wouldn't even bother.
-
Laws are laws. It's really very simple.
If the state makes a requirement for how votes are cast, that is the job of the legislature. The legislature made that law in Wisconsin, and a judge, one judge, decided he can overrule a duly-enacted constitutional statute.
This is similar to what happened in Michigan. The Michigan SOS, unilaterally, made a decision about how votes are cast and counted. This is a usurpation of the job of the legislature, plain an simple.
If the populace doesn't like the laws, they should choose different lawmakers.
-
Laws are laws. It's really very simple.
If the state makes a requirement for how votes are cast, that is the job of the legislature. The legislature made that law in Wisconsin, and a judge, one judge, decided he can overrule a duly-enacted constitutional statute.
This is similar to what happened in Michigan. The Michigan SOS, unilaterally, made a decision about how votes are cast and counted. This is a usurpation of the job of the legislature, plain an simple.
If the populace doesn't like the laws, they should choose different lawmakers.
@george-k said in Oh, *now* you tell us that the election rules were broken.:
Laws are laws. It's really very simple.
If the state makes a requirement for how votes are cast, that is the job of the legislature. The legislature made that law in Wisconsin, and a judge, one judge, decided he can overrule a duly-enacted constitutional statute.
This is similar to what happened in Michigan. The Michigan SOS, unilaterally, made a decision about how votes are cast and counted. This is a usurpation of the job of the legislature, plain an simple.
If the populace doesn't like the laws, they should choose different lawmakers.
Judges have changed a lot, since the Warren Court laid the foundation for making law, instead of interpreting it.
