Posted on 12/11/2020 5:36:30 AM PST by Enlightened1
I don’t know how I missed this.
If it’s established that the ruling in Wisconsin applies to entire USA then that’s called applying a precedent. It has to apply because voters deserve to be treated the same no matter which state they reside/vote in.
SCOTUS loves precedent. Those extra days of ballots arriving - none count.
Result:
Texas wins Trump wins America wins
MADISON - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin's voting laws Monday, rejecting an effort to require the counting of absentee ballots that are sent back to election officials on or just before Election Day.
The court's 5-3 ruling means that absentee ballots will be counted only if they are in the hands of municipal clerks by the time polls close on Nov. 3.
The justices determined the courts shouldn't be the ones to decide the election rules amid the coronavirus pandemic that is surging in Wisconsin and across the world.
"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion.
https://amp.jsonline.com/amp/3670662001
(Excerpt) Read more at amp.jsonline.com ...
Laws are only for the peasants to keep under control. When have laws been used to prosecute the evil players stealing this election, or in draining the swamp? Keep praying, that’s what i have been doing.
Well, since there is now no way to separate out which ones arrived late, couldn’t the left just say 90% of late arriving votes were for Trump even though slo joe had a big jump while they were being counted?
To the left, the end justifies the means.
Short list of Rights violated by Democrats this election
State Legislatures to determine rules and conduct of election. The right to observe and challenge ballots especially in a system more prone to fraud. The right of individuals and precincts to have their ballot treated equally. The right to challenge irregularities in court.
The right to have ballots kept secure. The right to an politically free voting environment. The right to an election where rules and laws are kept and consistently applied. And other constitutional ones I am sure that apply
None of this matters when local big-city, big-county officials are allowed to make it up as they go along.
And the rejoinder from the Left, when the rule of law is invoked, is always “racist voter suppression”. And few there be who are willing to buck that foul sulfurous headwind.
If that article is accurately written, the ruling applies to absentee ballots — NOT to the mail-in ballots that were mandated by some states (including mine). Absentee and mail-in ballots are NOT the same thing.
No but they are similar enough that I’d think it would take some mental gymnastics to rule differently on how they are handled. I would also think that unless the legislature passed an emergency mail in ballot law that just sending unsolicited ballots to addresses with no knowledge of who actually lives there and the ultimate disposition of such ballots would be cause for judicial concern.
I think the most important part of the article is that the court confirmed that state legislatures, and no one else, set laws and rules for elections. Neil Gorsuch was very clear on that.
Gorsuch wrote that leaving decisions about how to conduct elections during the pandemic would lead to a “Babel of decrees” and that lawmakers were better positioned to make judgments about what to do.
“Last-minute changes to longstanding election rules risk other problems too, inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes,” he wrote. “No one doubts that conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges. But none of that means individual judges may improvise with their own election rules in place of those the people’s representatives have adopted.”
They’re not similar at all — not in NJ, at least. Absentee ballots must be requested ahead of time, positive identification must be provided to get one, and they are required to be returned within defined time frames. The mail-in ballots were sent out in mass mailing, did not need to be requested, no mechanism was provided for verifying identity, and some states illegally altered deadlines for when they could be returned.
This appears to be a key statement by Gorsuch. I like it.
Bingo
So while that ruling narrowly applied to absentee ballots, with their stringent requirements and safeguards, don’t you think that the SCOTUS would apply the same reasoning to far less secure mail-ins?
Did the legislature pass a specific amendment to the state election code that allowed for cv19 handling procedures?
If not, Texas is right.
‘the ruling applies to absentee ballots — NOT to the mail-in ballots that were mandated by some states (including mine). Absentee and mail-in ballots are NOT the same thing.’
Well, mail-in ballots were enabled because of the illegal agreement between election officials and democRATS, without knowledge/consent of the state legislature, and, in violation of their own State Constitution and the US Constitution.
If absentee ballots must be received by close of election time on election day, then mail-in ballots are subject to the same rule - it is a matter of ‘Equal Protection’
Whoever argues about this must cite this as precedent.
Yet he same court refused to hear the PA case basically arguing the same thing. Courts in PA arbitrarily changing deadlines...
There is a problem with this decision when compared to the decision where JOHN ROBERTS voted to allow Pennsylvania mail-in ballots to be accepted for 3 days AFTER November 3. The inconsistancy is glaring.
Yes, but that was before Barrett joined the court.
The article has a fundamental flaw, in the claim that the rules must be the same for all voters in all states.
The rules absolutely are NOT the same for all voters in all states. They never have been, the constitution does not require them to be, and this is not an equal protection situation.
Each state is a separate entity, electing the electors who will vote for president, and electing representatives for the house and senate. In NO case is any person in one state voting for anybody that can be effected by an election in another state. That is the beauty of the electoral college, it makes 50 state elections.
So no, Wisconsin can have an 8pm deadline, and New Jersey can have a November 10th deadline, and so long as all the voters in each of those states have the same access as all the other voters in those states, we are good.
In PA, they kept them separated. And they have the count of how many there were, and who they went for. Biden is well-ahead without any of those votes. There MIGHT be one congressional race that gets close if you count those votes. There were not that many that came in after election day, about 10,000. Biden is currently ahead by about 80,000 votes.
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.