Strongly agree.
And see:
Before we go throwing a party for Michigan’s GOP House leadership for stripping Eisen of his committee assignments, keep in mind that they’ve done it only for the rest of this term. Which ends when their legislative session ends this Thursday. So he’ll have to somehow muddle through without showing up for committee work for the next three days.
I keep reading that the failed election lawsuits are X – 1 with X an ever increasing number. I’ve lost track what the one win was. Does anybody remember?
I’m thinking it might be the one where a judge ordered mail-in ballots be sequestered in case another case ruled them invalid.
Is there anything more they could do, given the ending of the session and a new state legislature being seated in the New Year? Current leadership can’t bind the members of the next legislature, can they?
Probably not, but I’m seeing headlines on how the Michigan GOP is punishing this Rep for his inflammatory statements, but the only headline should be that he made them in the first place, since the “punishment” is nothing more than an early Christmas break for him.
I believe the one with was extending the date to cure some ballots in Pennsylvania. The number of ballots affected was < 1000 and made no difference in the outcome
(again, this is from memory so I could be misremembering something, but I do know it was a pretty minor win)
Brian
Really it’s crazier than that…
It’s
Georgia used to let a single election official decide the signature on the ballot affidavit didn’t match the signature on the voter card then unceremoniously reject the ballot. They didn’t want to be sued because they let one guy decide to throw out any votes he didn’t like. And they were going to get sued and they would’ve lost, because college student and minorities were getting their votes tossed out at a much higher rate than old white guys.
So Georgia made a deal to avoid getting sued, they decided that three people should get to review each alleged unmatching signature before tossing out a vote, because the one person might have a political agenda in deciding which votes should be tossed.
Lim Wood thinks that deal is unconstitutional because
-
When you vote in person only one person verifies your identity., so it’s not fair that three people should have to verify your identity when you vote by mail. (My comment - in the unlikely event that an in-person voter was turned away, do you really think no other election personnel would step in if there was a dispute?)
-
It usurps the authority of the one person that used to decide, all by himself, that the vote was “illegal”. Plus it’s an unnecessary administrative burden to have two other people review the decision to throw away that vote.
-
Since this rule was implemented, we’ve thrown out way less votes, and the number of votes we’ve thrown out are way way down in urban areas. This means, by Mr. Woods analysis, mean that they are counting illegal votes, not that they have ceased to throw out legal ones.
Lindsay Graham suggested just throwing out ALL the votes in urban areas where the new rules against tossing out ballots willy-nilly caused fewer ballots to be thrown out, in case you were wondering what that kerfuffle was about,
-
Because we couldn’t throw out the votes of people we don’t like anymore, their candidate got more votes. This was not fair to the people we like that voted for the candidate we like, who would’ve gotten more votes if we’d managed to throw out all the votes for the guy we don’t like. Therefore, the votes of the people we like were diluted by the votes of the people we don’t like, causing our candidate to lose.
-
Something something something the Constitution.
I think the crack Trump legal team won a suit in PA, that allowed the Republican observers to move a bit closer to the vote counters. Earth-shaking precedent.
I thought there was an out-of-court settlement on that one? If so I wouldn’t call that a win (meaning the judge ruled in their favor).
That’s the one I remember. It was Justice Alito, who ordered that ballots received after election day but appropriately postmarked as of election day be sequestered and counted separately, not yet added to the totals. Pennsylvania’s election board responded, “Yeah, we’re already doing that.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court just rejected Trump’s suit to toss out 220,000 votes in the state, removing the last legal challenge in that state to Biden’s electors.
Well this is quite shocking and unexpected! < Sarcasm >
Nice sports analogy by the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,” Hagedorn wrote. “The challenges raised by the Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.”
The article indicates that it was a court decision.
But aside from that, if an out of court settlement is agreed, that still counts as a win.
Georgia and Arizona have now cast their electoral votes for Biden.
The WI supreme court was actually pretty close. 4-3, with Hagedorn siding with the more liberal justices.
There are 3 different dissenting opinions
Brian
And Nevada and Pennsylvania. Even if Michigan and Wisconsin reversed themselves, Biden would still have 280.
WaPo tracker here.
That guy is a fuckin’ nut case. Who does he think he is, Rambo? And thinks he has the right to change the rightful vote. He will probably come to Texas now - ugh.
do you have a link to the opinion?
WI Supreme court ruling here:
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/ORDER-3.pdf
Brian