[Strident]

Leaving aside the issue of federal overreach, and of distaste for the easy-peasy mail ballot approach making it sooooo easy to ballot harvest . . .

(I love the great success the RNC has had of standing up a ballot harvest strategy. /sarc). . .

Isn’t this ruling logical on the facts in view? If the ballot is received by election day, the missing date makes no difference, substantively, though it is a process error. What am I missing? It may have been filled out I guess too early?

[flamberge]

What am I missing? It may have been filled out I guess too early?

You are missing the undated ballots which are filled out after election day and then mixed in with the ballots turned in by the deadline during the endless recounts.

Of course, the fraudsters could make the extra effort to post-date the "found" ballots, but why bother. The fix is in, and nobody is going to object to a 150% "voter turnout" after the Democrats win the "election".

[Freee-dame]

If “on time” means by election day, then this ruling makes sense. But if “on time” means up to 10 days after election day, or even two days later, then it’s terrible.

IMHO nothing should be counted that comes in after election day. People have plenty of time before election day to get ballots in, even mail-in ballots.

[Svartalfiar]

Isn’t this ruling logical on the facts in view? If the ballot is received by election day, the missing date makes no difference, substantively, though it is a process error. What am I missing? It may have been filled out I guess too early?

State law states that a date must be written on the outside of the envelope. It's not a question of whether the ballot was on time (which it clearly is if it's received in time), it's a question of whether the voter properly followed the law to submit a valid ballot. Which he didn't, but this judge is simply ignoring the laws.