U.S. Electile Dementia paralytica 2020

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Nick

Can they mail that in?

Har-de-har-har.

If "no excuse" absentee voting is deemed unconstitutional under the present State Constitution, of course not. If it is deemed constitutional, no Amendment would be needed.

If it is deemed unconstitutional, no Amendment allowing "no excuse" absentee ballots will make it through the State Legislature until both Houses have Democratic majorities for two consecutive sessions.

I don't see that happening any time soon, because I do not see any reports of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians marching in the streets demanding an end to the legal and legislative antics of the dead-enders and (soon-to-be) former regime loyalists.

[rogue]

Judge freezes voting machines in three Georgia counties

Does this judge believe the claims that the machines were tampered with?

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by rogue

Judge freezes voting machines in three Georgia counties

Does this judge believe the claims that the machines were tampered with?

Let's see. Georgia certified its results on the 20^th. The TRO was to prevent the Dominion machines in the three counties around Atlanta from being reset, which would wipe all the data.

So, could they have been tampered with? From the Faux News report:

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Dominion, previously denied claims that vote cast through the company’s systems were at risk of being altered. He said it is physically impossible to alter votes in the system.

"Look, when a voter votes on a Dominion machine, they fill out a ballot on a touch screen. They are given a printed copy which they then give to a local election official for safekeeping. If any electronic interference had taken place, the tally reported electronically would not match the printed ballots. and in every case where we've looked at -- in Georgia, all across the country -- the printed ballot, the gold standard in election security, has matched the electronic tally," he said.

So there is a paper record. And the results were audited. During the audit, some thousands of ballots, including about 2500 in one county the R-s had a 70/30 margin, and some on memory cards that hadn't been uploaded, were found not to have been tallied. Those votes were added to the total, and Biden's margin shrank by about 1300 votes.

Oh, wait. This just in...

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten initially granted a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the State of Georgia “to impound and preserve the voting machines in the State of Georgia, and to prevent any wiping of data.” However, shortly afterwards Batten reversed himself and denied the request for a TRO because the voting machines in question are not under the control of the defendants in the case (i.e., Georgia state officials), but rather under the control of Georgia county officials (who were not named in the lawsuit):

EDIT: Oh, crap. After checking Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog, I found that later that same night, Judge Batten allowed the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to cover the defect that caused him to deny it (County elections officials weren't named as defendants). Then he reinstated the freeze on wiping the machines, ordered that Plaintiffs be given copies of the contracts with Dominion, and certified his order for appeal, in order to allow Defendants to appeal it immediately to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

And all this, ten days after Georgia has already certified the election results -- which was after conducting an audit.

This is described at Politico.

A news account imported from Australia describes most of it, but not the certification for appeal.

The reason the machines were going to be wiped Monday, was so they could be used to conduct the full recount being demanded by the R's.

[Dr Sardonicus]

We have the following from a news conference in Atlanta, Georgia on the afternoon of Tuesday, December 1, 2020:

"Good afternoon. My name is Gabriel Sterling and I'm the voting system implementation manager for State of Georgia. And just to give you a heads up, this is going to be sort of a two-part press conference today. At the beginning of this, I'm going to do my best to keep it together.

Because it has all gone too far. All of it.

Joe diGenova today asked for Chris Krebs, a patriot who ran CISA, to be shot. A 20-something tech in Gwinnett County today has death threats and a noose put out, saying he should be hung for treason because he was transferring a report on batches from an EMS to a county computer so he could read it.

It has to stop.

Mr. President, you have not condemned these actions or this language. Senators, you have not condemned this language or these actions. This has to stop. We need you to step up. And if you take a position of leadership, show some.

My boss, Secretary Raffensperger — his address is out there. They have people doing caravans in front of their house, they've had people come onto their property. Tricia, his wife of 40 years, is getting sexualized threats through her cellphone.

It has to stop.

This is elections, this is the backbone of democracy, and all of you who have not said a damn word are complicit in this. It's too much.

Yes, fight for every single vote. Go through your due process, we encourage you — use your First Amendment. That's fine. Death threats, physical threats, intimidation — it's too much. It's not right. We've lost the moral high ground to claim that it is.

I don't have all the best words to do this because I'm angry, and the straw that broke the camel's back today is, again, this 20-year-old contractor for a voting system company just trying to do his job. In fact, I talked to Dominion today and they said he's one of the better ones they got. His family is getting harassed now. There's a noose out there with his name on it. And it's not right.

I've got police protection outside my house. Fine. You know, I took a higher-profile job. I get it, Secretary ran for office, his wife knew that, too. This kid took a job. He just took a job, and it's just wrong.

I can't begin to explain the level of anger I have right now over this, and every American, every Georgian, Republican and Democrat alike, should have that same level of anger.

Mr. President. It looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We're investigating. There's always a possibility, I get it, and you have the rights to go through the courts. What you don't have the ability to do — and you need to step up and say this — is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone's going to get hurt. Someone's going to get shot. Someone's going to get killed. And it's not right.

It's not right. And I don't have anything scripted — this is like I said, I will do my best to keep it together. All of this is wrong. DiGenova, who said for Chris Krebs to get shot, is a former U.S. attorney. He knows better. The people around the president know better.

Mr. President, as the secretary said yesterday, people aren't giving you the best advice on what's actually going on the ground. It's time to look forward if you want to run for reelection in four years. Fine, do it. But everything we're seeing right now, there's not a path. Be the bigger man here and stop. Step in, tell your supporters: Don't be violent, don't intimidate. All that's wrong. It's unAmerican.

I don't know what else to say on that front. I mean, these are elections. One of our goals was to make elections boring again. Well, guess what? That didn't happen. This is all wrong. It's all too much, and that's I'll leave that for there."

It's also on YouTube.

[rogue]

I'm trying to understand why this was 4-3 and not 7-0.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out President Donald Trump's election lawsuit Thursday, two days after he asked the justices to revoke the certification of a contest he lost by nearly 21,000 votes.

In the 4-3 decision, the justices said they would not accept the case he filed directly with them. The president can try to pursue the matter in a lower court, but Thursday's ruling is a setback that shows he is near the end of the road with his legal challenges in Wisconsin.

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn joined the court's three liberals to reject the case, saying any challenge should start in circuit court.

So if the one conservative the sided with the liberals choose to side with the other conservatives, I'm not certain what would have happened if the court accepted it. Are the other 3 conservatives thinking that certification should be revoked? Republicans always complain about "judicial activism", but having a court revoke certification seems to be exactly that.

[PhilF]

Originally Posted by rogue

Are the other 3 conservatives thinking that certification should be revoked?

No, it is just that the "perks" received for their vote are big enough to override anything they think.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by rogue

I'm trying to understand why this was 4-3 and not 7-0.

Justice Hagedorn wrote that the law was clear about such cases having to begin in a lower court that could accept evidence. From the AP story,

"We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even -- and maybe especially -- in high profile cases," Hagedorn wrote. "Following this law is not disregarding our duty, as some of my colleagues suggest. It is following the law."

The dissenting Justices proposed a way around this:

Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, in a dissent where she was joined by Justice Annette Ziegler, said she would have taken the case and referred it to lower courts for factual findings, which could then be reported back to the Supreme Court for a ruling.

I wonder what law provides for such a procedure...

On the bright side,

But she also questioned whether disqualifying ballots was appropriate, saying that "may be out of reach for a number of reasons."

The other dissenting opinion seems to have come from the Republican playbook:

Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote that the court "forsakes its duty" by not determining whether elections officials complied with the law and the inaction will undermine the public's confidence in elections. Allowing the elections commission to make the law governing elections would be a "death blow to democracy," she wrote.

"While some will either celebrate or decry the court's inaction based upon the impact on their preferred candidate, the importance of this case transcends the results of this particular election," she wrote in a dissent joined by Roggensack and Ziegler. "The majority's failure to act leaves an indelible stain on our most recent election."

Governor Evers said he was "frankly amazed that it was not unanimous."

[rogue]

"While some will either celebrate or decry the court's inaction based upon the impact on their preferred candidate, the importance of this case transcends the results of this particular election," she wrote in a dissent joined by Roggensack and Ziegler. "The majority's failure to act leaves an indelible stain on our most recent election."

Who does she define as "the majority"? What "action" should they have taken?

I could interpret it in multiple ways. The "majority" could be the Republicans in the legislature and the "action" could have been more voter suppression. Fortunately the governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat. If the "majority" are the voters, then they have already spoken and elected Biden, so I don't know what other action they could do.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by rogue

Who does she define as "the majority"? What "action" should they have taken?

The majority of four justices who made the ruling. The action being to take the case.

[Dr Sardonicus]

And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am bemused to present another exciting episode of...

The Post-Election Courthouse Follies!

This is almost beyond belief. This ORDER REGARDING AMENDED MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF might be retitled, "How can somebody make that many stupid mistakes in an initial court filing?"

It's easy, though, if that "somebody" is Sidney Powell, recently booted off the "elite strike force" trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election...

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

The majority of four justices who made the ruling. The action being to take the case.

That makes sense, but it begs the question of the "stain" she is referring to. Hasn't there been enough stain with the unproven allegations of fraud?

This woman is just crazy, yet many Trump followers believe that much of what she says is factual.