The number of lawsuits Pennsylvania’s ballot-counting process has accrued so far is higher than the number of times the Phillies have won the World Series. //
In the latest of several lawsuits against Pennsylvania election officials, Republicans say deputy elections secretary Jonathan Marks violated state code by notifying Democrat Party representatives of ballots that were rejected before the polls closed.
In a process called “curing” ballots, officials note which ballots are set to be rejected and reach out to the voter to allow him to cast a new provisional ballot. Election officials in Pennsylvania allegedly told Democrat operatives the names and contact information of voters whose ballots were rejected before the end of Election Day, which Republicans say violates state election laws.
Pennsylvania code mandates that “No person observing, attending or participating in a pre-canvass meeting may disclose the results of any portion of any pre-canvass meeting prior to the close of the polls.” Pre-canvassing is the process of opening and counting votes before reporting them.
It would be mystifying if Republicans won more seats in the House, retained the Senate, and picked up state legislative seats, all while the same voters voted against Trump. //
At the state level, USA Today reports, Democrats also failed to flip seats they had targeted, again usually with more money than Republicans. The only gubernatorial flip went from Democrat to Republican, in Montana. In congressional and state House races in Texas, Republicans also retained their majorities despite massive outside funding and high-profile targeting from Democrats. //
Then look at some odd differences between this amazing night for Republicans in downballot races and the incongruent results for Trump in just a few key states — key states that happen to be the ones everyone knew would be crucial to Trump’s path to victory, and all of which began to have “voting irregularities” and pauses in vote counting as Trump appeared to command the lead while closing in on final vote totals. //
It would be mystifying if Republicans won more seats in the House, retained the Senate, and picked up state legislative seats, all while the same voters voted against Trump. Trump has solidified his support among Republican voters and enjoys a massive approval rating from them he didn’t have in 2016, and expanded his coalition to more working-class and minority voters this year. This is not a blue wave year. This is a year that the blue wave of 2018 appears to be receding.
Yet we are supposed to believe the same media-Democrat complex that fed us wildly erroneous polls all year, and runs false information operations on us about coronavirus, the Russia hoax, and everything else they can use to steal power, that this blue wave’s evaporation did not at all affect the top of the ticket?
Polls are set to open in 48 hours across the US as the authoritarian regime of Donald Trump attempts to consolidate its hold over the troubled, oil-rich, nuclear-armed, north American nation. Analysts are sceptical the election will end months of political violence.
#BREAKING African envoys have called for Americans to maintain peace during the elections and to be prepared accept the outcome of the vote. In a joint statement , the diplomats condemned recent incidents of incitement, violence and intimidation directed at opposition supporters
[T]he Secretary’s actions in altering the deadline for mail-in ballots likely violates the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. The analysis is relatively straightforward. By its plain terms, the Electors Clause vests the power to determine the manner of selecting electors exclusively in the “Legislature” of each state. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2… And this vested authority is not just the typical legislative power exercised pursuant to a state constitution. Rather, when a state legislature enacts statutes governing presidential elections, it operates “by virtue of a direct grant of authority” under the United States Constitution… Consequently, only the Minnesota Legislature, and not the Secretary, has plenary authority to establish the manner of conducting the presidential election in Minnesota.
Thus, the Secretary’s attempt to re-write the laws governing the deadlines for mail-in ballots in the 2020 Minnesota presidential election is invalid. However well-intentioned and appropriate from a policy perspective in the context of a pandemic during a presidential election, it is not the province of a state executive official to re-write the state’s election code, at least as it pertains to selection of presidential electors. The democratically-enacted election rules in Minnesota provide that mail-in votes must be received by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted (or 3:00 p.m. if delivered in person).
So what does today’s Politico offering signal? Well, that Pres. Trump might actually win (Ya think?), so there must be some “hidden” causes that are going to contribute to that outcome.
Republican registration has ticked up in key states at the same time Democratic field operations were in hibernation.
[Cleaning off computer screen of coffee, and wiping nose] //
Public polls are propaganda. They are meant to shape public opinion and influence turnout. They reflect NOTHING about reality. That is because the final polling results all depend on what “weight” the pollster gives to certain demographic components of the poll data, and the weighting drives the outcome in terms of the numbers. The most common example, practiced for years by these sham pollsters, was simply including more Democrat voters in the final poll than historical analysis of voter turnout suggests will be the case. So if historical analysis says Democrat registered voters will be 37% of the electorate, the pollster includes 41% in sampling. He then does the opposite with GOP voters, and voila — you get the Democrat candidate with a lead in the race. //
Flagging “clear warning signs” for Biden, one prominent strategist circulated a memo among Democrats earlier this month citing increasing registration of white, noncollege educated voters — President Donald Trump’s base demographic — in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. There is no precedent for Trump overcoming such a large polling deficit this close to the election, the strategist wrote. “And yet … ”
You mean the same reason Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania over Clinton in 2016 might still be the reason why Trump ends up beating Dementia Joe in 2020? //
Seriously — I have not seen any report on this Democrat strategist memo about an increase in registration by non-college educated white voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The fact that the strategist would mention this variable is — to me — close to a “white flag of surrender” on the race. //
Here’s the nightmare part that was recognized by the author and political analyst last year.
[W]hat if Trump represents not a last gasp of cultural and racial revanchism but a new wave? What if the trickle of white men who voted for the first time in years in Wisconsin in 2016, despite widespread predictions that Trump’s candidacy was doomed, is followed in 2020 by a wave of previously nonvoting white males who conclude that Trump’s brand of tribal aggression is at last something worth voting for?
The universe of nonvoters is vast. Nationwide, 4 in 10 of those eligible did not vote in 2016. According to Brookings Institution demographer William Frey, more than 21 million nonvoters in 2016 were non-college-educated white men, Trump’s base. In Wisconsin … 459,000 non-college-educated white men didn’t vote in 2016. Trump won non-college-educated white men nationwide by an astounding 50 points. A modest rise in their turnout in key states in 2020 could swamp the Democratic nominee.
This dynamic is not limited to Wisconsin. This dynamic is why Pennsylvania is not really in play even though the press needs to pretend it is in order to keep Democrat hopes alive.
The Appeals Court blocked the order, and Texas will follow the signature matching procedure set forth in the statute. But the decision today, if left to stand — and then built upon by other decisions in other courts — is going to send shock waves through the activist legal community because of some of the “markers” it lays down. Language in the decision paves the way for the Fifth Circuit to ultimately find that while “the right to vote” is constitutionally protected, the right to vote “in a particular fashion” or in the most convenient manner, are not covered by the same constitutional protections. Such a holding would curtail much of the effort by liberal judges to rewrite state voting statutes on the basis that the procedures sanctioned by a state are constitutionally unsound.
Florida is a state that — in my opinion — is really a GOP state that the media tries to argue is purple trending blue because of 2000, and because Obama won the state twice in 2008 and 2012.
One thing to keep in mind on that point, which I cover a bit more down below — only 2 Democrat politicians have won statewide in Florida for President, Governor, or Senator going back to 1998: Obama in 2008 and 20012, and Bill Nelson for Senate in 2000, 2006, and 2012.
In a state like Pennsylvania where Trump won by just 45,000 votes, shenanigans like this are bound to add up to an issue on election day. The total of the screw-ups from Allegheny and Westmoreland add up to 90,000 votes, more than twice Trump’s victory margin.
But come on guys…. we’ve got to respect the process and count every vote… or something like that.
Four. Hundred. Thousand. Ballots.
In one state.
In a national race that was determined by less than that in 2016.
And the Democrats want to tell us we are overreacting.
This is what is so damaging about these claims. Despite overwhelming evidence that this is a problem, Democrats want to pretend like it is something to ignore. If it isn’t a problem, what would be so hard about creating teams, immediately following the election, to canvas voters and find out who is who and where they are? Why not make the effort to ensure that ALL of the votes cast are done so with the highest regard for accuracy and integrity?
Another interesting fact I have encountered: Without fail, every single person I have engaged on this issue, who has shown ballots being sent to them that didn’t belong there, without fail, are Republican. Are Democrats not getting these ballots? Do they not find it just as alarming the ease with which they could break the law? The ONLY reason you wouldn’t be outraged by this, is if you condone the occasional cheating that may occur, if not full-blown operations to commit fraud.
Long and the short of it, this 400k number, in one state, likely adds up to tens of millions of ballots across the country. Think it isn’t a big deal now?
The Senator asked:
- How did Twitter determine that the New York Post story was a violation of its policy governing the distribution of hacked materials or approach to blocking links? Will Twitter make its decision-making process with regard to this case of content removal publicly available?
- How did Twitter find that the New York Post was “directly” distributing hacked materials – and thus in violation of its policy – when it is not clear that this is the case?
- Why did Twitter take additional, unprecedented action to lock the primary Twitter account of the New York Post, one of the nation’s most widely-distributed newspapers?
- If you have evidence that this news story contains “disinformation” or have otherwise determined that there are inaccuracies with the reporting, will you disclose them to the public so that they can assess your findings?
- Did any member of the Biden-Harris presidential campaign team or any person representing themselves as a representative of the campaign’s interests ask, encourage, or direct Twitter to suppress the New York Post story?
Josh Hawley
@HawleyMO
My letter to the FEC re @Twitter @Facebook potential violation of federal election law //
This conduct does not merely censor the core political speech of ordinary Americans, though it certainly does that. Twitter’s and Facebook’s conduct also appears to constitute a clear violation of federal campaign-finance law. Federal law prohibits any corporation from making a contribution to a federal candidate for office. Twitter and Facebook are corporations. A contribution includes “anything of value…for influencing any election for Federal office.”
ss396
11 hours ago edited
Laws for me, but not for thee....
It seems they forget that, despite their intent or their connivance, laws really are "one size fits all." That is why it is so critical to assign political powers to the proper level of their exercise: that municipal affairs should be empowered and conducted at the municipal level; that State affairs should be empowered and conducted at State level, while bearing in mind that everything they do, even regarding municipalities, is "one size fits all". And that's especially true at the Federal level - which is what the Founders were trying to accomplish, and which is the lodestone for small government Conservatives. If a law requires certain regional or class carve-outs, then it is not being assessed at its proper level of governance. (Or it is not yet "ripe" enough for consideration. The Supreme Court seems to be the only body that even tries to embrace that concept.)
Meanwhile, it's not the laws but the AG enforcement, or lack thereof, that creates the two-tiered legal system we find ourselves living under.
Over the weekend ballot collection boxes sponsored by the California GOP were set up in numerous counties throughout the state, including Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura, presumably in an effort to conduct pandemic-friendly ballot harvesting, which is legal in the state. Word of the boxes’ existence spread quickly on social media, with the state’s Democrats suddenly clutching their pearls and worrying about ballot security.Over the weekend ballot collection boxes sponsored by the California GOP were set up in numerous counties throughout the state, including Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura, presumably in an effort to conduct pandemic-friendly ballot harvesting, which is legal in the state. Word of the boxes’ existence spread quickly on social media, with the state’s Democrats suddenly clutching their pearls and worrying about ballot security. //
Senator Melissa Melendez
@senatormelendez
California State law is silent on where ballots must be held in the three days between someone dropping their ballot off with a harvester and the harvester turning it in.
What republicans are doing is legal, no matter what threats the Secretary of State makes. //
As the Los Angeles Times’ John Myers tweeted, there is no evidence that Republicans placed the private dropboxes with ill intent. They simply, amazingly, decided to utilize the laws Democrats passed to help themselves, to their own advantage. Refusing to bow to the demands of Becerra and Padilla is the right move. Let them attempt to arrest people.
So, not necessarily the outcome that GOP interests would like to have, but the correct outcome on the law nevertheless.
Stefan Niemann is a reporter for the Berlin-based ARD-Hauptstadstudio and based in Washington D.C, reporting on US politics.
“The chaos lamented by #Trump when it comes to delivery of #brief voting documents is there. – I’m not allowed to vote here. But 3 # ballot papers came to my #Washington address: PRE-tenant moved 5 years ago, landlord living in #PuertoRico and her deceased husband. # selection2020” //
Richard Grenell
@RichardGrenell
Remember, @JoeBiden said mail in ballots weren’t corrupt.
Richard Grenell
@RichardGrenell
German journalist living in the US (with no US voting rights) received multiple ballots in the mail.
The Supreme Court “has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
This is not — as so many Obama appointees seem to believe — a question of whether “My alteration is minor, or it makes the process fairer and easier for the voter”.
The principle is “Don’t change the rules to satisfy your views as to what is “fairer” or “easier”.
DON’T CHANGE THE RULES — it’s not your job.
Elections are about the political branches of government, and politics. Changing the rules accomplishes the goals of one political point of view at the expense of an opposing political point of view.
THAT is what elections are for. //
dging markvol
15 hours ago
That's exactly right. If you can hand in your vote to an authority, then you can vote in person.
I've said this in other posts, but this is the death of our republic. Many judges are doing this. They are rewriting laws they disagree with. This is blatantly unconstitutional. These judges, for the most part, are near the top of the field. They graduated from top law schools and often worked at top law firms. They know what they are doing is unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.
And it wears down the system. Even if most of the rulings get overturned, some will get through. More importantly, it sets the precedent that judges are allowed to issue unconstitutional rulings. In essence they wear down the constitution. The constitution then means nothing. And that, my dear friend, is the end of our republic.
A wise man once warned us to try and keep it. I think we failed in that endeavor. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it.
Richard Grenell
@RichardGrenell
I am calling for an investigation into @GavinNewsom’s election interference. This is a scandal. It’s being ignored by the media. It’s happening everyday! Here are two ballots mailed to two people who have been dead for more than 10 years! //
In Los Angeles County, where Grenell’s example comes from, Death Records AND Voter Records are handled by the same County organization, the Recorders and Registrars office. How these people could have died in Los Angeles County and somehow not end up removed from voter rolls shows GROSS incompetence. Even after a Settlement into removing dead people from voter rolls, LA County still refuses to comply.
Either they should do their job to the fullest of their responsibilities, resign, or be charged with aiding and abetting a crime. There’s no middle ground any more.
Judge Pittman used the same rationale as all the other Obama appointees who have interjected themselves into state election process matters — the COVID-19 pandemic creates unprecedented challenges for voters to be able to cast their vote in a safe manner, and pursuant to a reliable process that ensures their right to vote will not be forfeited by a process problem. The argument boils down to whether a state can reasonably do something more that would make the casting of a ballot more convenient, and if so the State must have a compelling reason for NOT taking that step. The failure to do so is being determined by liberal federal district court judges as a violation by the State of the First and Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote. //
Judge Pittman justifies his action by claiming that he is only returning the Texas process for collecting absentee ballots in person to the status it had between July 27 when Gov. Abbott issued his first Order allowing “drop boxes” without limitation on the number, and Oct. 1 when he issued his second Order that said no more than one “dropbox” per county regardless of the size of the county. //
While this argument has some facial validity, it ignores the words of Justice Kavanaugh in his “statement” accompanying the Supreme Court’s Order granting an emergency stay in connection with judicially mandated changes to South Carolina election law, which I wrote about in this story.
[F]or many years, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election.
Justice Kavanaugh did not write that “election rules” should not be altered close to an election — he wrote that federal courts should not altering election rules close to an election. Gov. Abbott’s Oct. 1 Order is an “election rule” under Texas law. Judge Pittman’s order changes the “election rule” less than 30 days prior to the election and after voting has already begun. The fact that he claims he’s only changing it back doesn’t make it any less of a change.
Gov. Abbott is accountable to the voters of Texas for his decisions. Judge Pittman is not. //
Judge Pittman has changed the election rules. It makes no difference that Gov. Abbot changed the rules on Oct. 1 — he’s not a federal judge, he’s an elected official in the State of Texas who has the authority invested in him by the voters of Texas who elected him.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denied a request from Republicans to stop Montana Gov. Steve Bullock’s (D) plan to mail ballots to all registered voters.
Kagan, who has jurisdiction over the case based on geography, denied the request without referring the case to the full court.
The suit was brought by Joe Lamm of the Ravali County Republican Central Committee and other voters.
The GOP-dominated Legislature banned mail-in ballots for general elections, instead allowing only by-request, no-excuse-required “absentee ballots” and in-person voting compatible with Phase 2 safety restrictions in the governor’s COVID-19 reopening plan.
But Bullock argued an emergency declaration connected to the coronavirus pandemic allows him to suspend that state law.
Bullock gave counties wide latitude regarding mailed ballots. Counties with approved plans began sending them to all registered voters in those counties on Oct. 9.
The [Supreme Court] Justices have deprecated but not forbidden all change close to an election. A last-minute event may require a last-minute reaction. But it is not possible to describe COVID-19 as a last-minute event. The World Health Organization declared a pandemic seven months ago, the State of Wisconsin closed many businesses and required social distancing last March, and the state has conducted two elections (April and August) during the pandemic. If the judge had issued an order in May based on April’s experience, it could not be called untimely. By waiting until September, however, the district court acted too close to the election.
The district judge also assumed that the design of adjustments during a pandemic is a judicial task. This is doubtful, as Justice Kavanaugh observed in connection with the Supreme Court’s recent stay of another injunction issued close to the upcoming election. Andino v. Middleton, No. 20A55 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). The Supreme Court has held that the design of electoral procedures is a legislative task.
Yesterday the Wisconsin Supreme Court, acting on an expedited basis, answered the question posed by the Seventh Circuit in the “affirmative” — the Wisconsin Legislature was authorized to act as a litigant on behalf of the State of Wisconsin when the issue in dispute was defending the validity of a law passed by the legislature. Because Judge Conley’s order declared parts of the Wisconsin election code to be in violation of federal constitutional law, and therefore unenforceable for the upcoming election, the Wisconsin Legislature could challenge his ruling.
What about the Wisconsin Attorney General you might wonder. Why did he not seek to defend the Wisconsin statutes and oppose Judge Conley’s order? He’s a Democrat, elected in 2018, and serving his first term as Wisconsin Attorney General. He’s too busy helping to prosecute Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha.
And, prior to running for office, he worked for the notorious Democrat Party election law specialists, the Perkins Coie law firm in their Madison, Wisconsin office.