Posted on 08/11/2004 3:53:52 PM PDT by Clintons Are White Trash
A federal judge temporarily blocked certification of Missouri's primary election results in federal and statewide races Wednesday and set a hearing for next week on whether to count the ballots of some people who voted at the wrong polling places.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
This is a PRIMARY ELECTION. Were any RAT primaries even close or is this just a dress rehersal for the GENERAL ELECTION?
The article fails to mention how many votes are disputed and whether allowing those votes could make any difference in this election.
This would haveto make sense in MO, cause it don't make no sense here. Aren't the individuals who cast provisional ballots by-and-large Dem voters anyhoo?
My guess is that the number of disputed votes is insignificant, would make no difference in the election, and that this is a harrassment lawsuit intended to create the impression that "Republicans are trying to disenfranchise Black voters."
The US is a judgocracy now.
Isn't Missouri the "Show Me State"?
What are they hiding?
Does this have any bearing on the marriage amendment vote?
It also gives the dems precedent when challenging other elections in the future
Does this have to do with the Marriage bill?
Did you see this?
This is getting a little scary. The new approach seems to be "if you don't like the outcome of an election, find a judge who agrees with you". Gore started this with the 2000 election in Florida. I really hoped the SCOTUS would have abstained from making any decision at all based on the Separation of Powers, even though I agreed with the outcome. The courts flatly do not have the jurisdiction to second guess elections, under any guise. That's what happened when Bob Dornan challenged massive voter fraud in California. I didn't like that result but was relieved to see the courts unwilling to decide elections. That's all changing now, though.
So, here's how they're going to try to cheat. They will have "mobile voters" voting in multiple precincts, signing under false names, probably. And they hope to force the states to count these fraudulent votes through the federal judiciary.
The dems would HATE to see a repub/conservative gov in Missouri.
Making news about this sells the idea to the public that Democrats are being systematically disenfranchised.
Ping to keep an eye on this.
"Judge Scott Wright issued a temporary restraining order blocking election certification for federal and statewide offices and issues"
That answers it right there. This is about the marriage amendment. The judge just blocked it from taking effect, even though it is far outside the recount range. Another black-robed thug trying to declare the will of the people invalid.
bump
Are you one of those people who think that they decided the election? They did not, they simply upheld the exisiting voting law in Florida that the RATS were attempting to change at will. The Supreme Court is allowed to rule on existing laws. Well within their jurisdiction.
The last paragraph from the article:
"The lawsuit was filed against Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt and others. Blunt is the Republican nominee for governor, facing Democratic State Auditor Claire McCaskill in November."
McCaskill just beat the INCUMBENT democrat governor in Missouri in the primary.
How long are we going to put up with this gang of domestic jihadis?
The St. Louis voter fraud in 2000 was legion.......... John Ashcroft was robbed of his Senate seat by a DEAD GUY, and it was all due to Gephardt calling for the polls to be held open longer THROUGH A JUDGE. Pure unadulterated VOTER FRAUD, but Ashcroft acquiesced and let the Widder Carnahan be Senator for 2 years, until Jim Talent resoundingly sent her home in 2002.
This is a PRIMARY ELECTION. Were any RAT primaries even close or is this just a dress rehersal for the GENERAL ELECTION?
A FLORIDA in the making even before the primary. Missouri is suppose to be an extremely conservative state. This confuses me.
My guess is that the number of disputed votes is insignificant, would make no difference in the election, and that this is a harrassment lawsuit intended to create the impression that "Republicans are trying to disenfranchise Black voters."
It seems to me that I recall hearing that a 5% factor of "Non-counted" votes has always been the norm.
How does one even get to vote at the wrong polling station?
"Well within their jurisdiction."
Are you talking about Constitutional jurisdiction or Marbury v. Madison?
"Who says we don't need some turnover on our benches?? I am astounded at the perversion of the people's will by black robed jackasses all over this nation."
No kidding, they are out of control and we better reign them back in.
Huh? The Republicans don't run against the 'Rats in the primary.
Let me guess: people who vote at the wrong poll are overwhelmingly likely to vote for Democrats. How'd I do?
They have learned from the Jihadists. It is best to have a trial run just to see how everything goes and if the pet judges will do their bidding.
The 'Rats are up to it. They will "find" as many votes as necessary. Probably stuffed down Sandy Berger's pants.
The SCOTUS did not rule on the election. The ruled ont he constitutionality of counting SOME votes while ignoring others on the basis of the 14th Amendment that says that you cannot treat people (or in this case their votes) diffently.
McCaskill is a Democrat.
I was pointing out for observation that the INCUMBENT governor of Missouri has just recently lost his PRIMARY race in Missouri, to McCaskill.
Maybe. But the big push is to basically elinate the voter registration rolls by allowing "same day registration" with absolutely no proof of citizenship or residency. You can use your real name because there is practically no chance that you will ever be charged with anything.
America has never faced a more diabolical and dangerous enemy, than today's Democrats.
All true, but it sure does feel good to know how that all blew up in the Democrats' faces in the end. If they'd left Ashcroft alone, he'd still be a Senator today. Instead he's been their worst nightmare for the last four years.
Check this out.
The Dims must really be desperate if they're willing to start pulling stuff like this now. A pox on activist judges who take away the will of the people.
By Jove, I think you've got it!
I hate to do this to you, but I need a ReWrite™ on that:
That's just how they run elections, under any circumstances. Theydon'tgo out of their way to commit fraud,because that is their way.
This Judge Wright is a RAT through and through. Carter appointment, I believe.
The Rats are playing games here. Let people vote in the wrong polling place using these provisional ballots then scream bloody murder when they are tossed.
Provisional balloting was a good way to rid a crap load of fraud voting, so this is the way to challenge the law.
I would lay money down that this was pre-arranged in the back rooms before the election.
That appears to mean that whatever decision the legal tyrant comes up with will be favorable to fellow Leftists.
That's why whipping the Dims. is so very important. How many more judges appointed by Democrats can America survive?
By using a provisional ballot (which is what this lawsuit is about). If you show up at your correct precinct, but your name isn't on the voter registration list due to typical bureaucratic bungling, you vote with a provisional ballot. Then down at the county courthouse that night (or wherever the votes are counted) they're supposed to look up your information to see whether or not you're a legit voter in that precinct. If you are, your ballot is counted. If you're not, it's thrown out. About 60% of the time, it turns out the election board screwed up a legitimate registration, and the ballot is counted. The other 40% of "voters" were either too stupid to know where their precinct is, too stupid to know you actually have to bother to show up and vote at least once every five years or so to stay on the rolls, or were intentionally attempting to commit voter fraud. Those ballots get tossed out.
That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. If I'm reading this article correctly (and it's hard to tell for sure, since so little information is given), the DemocRATS are trying to get federal law changed via judicial activism, so that anyone legally registered to vote will have to have their vote counted as long as they show up at *any* precinct. Since the overwhelming majority of complete imbeciles too dumb to even show up at the right polling place are loyal straight-ticket Democratic Party voters, a win in this lawsuit would allow untold thousands of void ballots to suddenly become legal votes, almost all of which would be votes for Democratic candidates.
This suit alone could, in theory, be more than enough to change the course of the presidential election, along with untold numbers of lesser contests. And the winner would be the Democratic candidate, almost every single time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.