Election lawsuits: did courts review “evidence” or not?

[slash2k]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

All this would manifested in all sorts of anecdotal evidence but not nearly enough to overturn an election, and also in supposedly strange voting patterns (in particular, the lower rate of mail-in ballot rejections as compared to prior elections) which don’t count for much if anything in court.

WHAT lower rate of mail-in ballot rejections? In most cases, what I’ve seen are comparisons of the overall rejection rate in 2016 or 2018 (for reasons including received too late) versus the signature rejection rate in 2020. Apples vs kumquats.

Nevada is perhaps the purest case of fraud allegations; the Trump campaign specifically alleged voter fraud and ballot irregularities. The judge considered depositions, affidavits, and alleged experts, before concluding concluded that they’d failed to provide evidence under any standard of proof sufficient to change the outcome.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@slash2k

WHAT lower rate of mail-in ballot rejections?

Couple of random cites:

Election results, 2020: Analysis of rejected ballots

November Surprise: Fewer Ballots Rejected by Election Officials (Published 2020)

[k9bfriender]

And that could not be adequately explained by the massive voter education and public service announcements?

You couldn’t swing a cat in October without seeing someone directing you to information on how to make sure that your ballot was not rejected.

[Wolf333]

Fotheringay-Phipps second site states that, among other things, for the difference.

Basically, both the voters and election officials got better at mail in voting.

[Kyomara]

@Northern_Piper

What court cases did allege fraud?

There was this one, at least, that appears to have featured the affidavits from Michigan’s TFC center where they counted absentee ballots. The now-famous Melissa Carone gets namechecked.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Scanned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Several posters seem to have lost sight of the point being made. Which was not that you can definitively prove voter fraud from the type of statistical analysis such as ballot rejection rates. Rather, that you could reasonably believe that the “technical legal issues” that you’re arguing in court had ramifications for voter fraud, even while you couldn’t actually argue fraud in court because you lacked evidence of fraud which would stand up in court (and that this paucity of evidence resulted - at least in part - from the very changes in process that you’re complaining about).

In that context, the fact that you (or some journalist) may personally believe that the ballot rejection rates are inconclusive has no bearing on the matter.

[k9bfriender]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

this paucity of evidence resulted - at least in part - from the very changes in process that you’re complaining about

Except that it didn’t, as evidenced by the cases of fraud that were detected.

They made no arguments as to why fraud would be impossible to detect with the changes. They didn’t even actually make the argument that you say that they did or should have made that the changes would make fraud harder or impossible to detect.

They only made the argument that mail in voting should not be counted, because it shouldn’t be. And the reasons that they gave were spurious and rejected.

@Fotheringay-Phipps

n that context, the fact that you (or some journalist) may personally believe that the ballot rejection rates are inconclusive has no bearing on the matter.

That was only brought up because you seemed to believe that ballot rejection rates were relevant.

[Northern_Piper]

This NPR article suggests that both the voters and the election officials learnt from mistakes in the primaries in the spring, and also the election in 2018, and that contributed to the lower rejection rate for mail-in ballots:

A 2020 Surprise: Fewer Absentee Ballot Rejections Than Expected

As in many other states, Florida made it easier this year for voters to fix, or “cure,” their ballots. For example, Florida’s mail-in ballot envelopes included space where voters could provide their email address or phone number, allowing election officials to contact them more quickly about mistakes, so they could be fixed on time.

That change also provided crucial contact information for campaigns and interest groups, so they too could reach out to voters to make sure that their ballots counted. And indeed, many groups did just that, helping their supporters cure their ballots as part of aggressive get-out-the-vote campaigns.

Jared Dearing, executive director of Kentucky’s board of elections, says his state also took steps to help absentee voters after more than 25,000 ballots were rejected in the June primary. Prior to the pandemic, only about 2% of Kentucky voters cast their ballots by mail, compared with 75% this year. There were some growing pains.

“So what we tried to do is create 1) uniformity of process and 2) to give some pretty clear guidelines to the counties of what could be counted, what couldn’t be counted,” said Dearing.
…
The state also created an online portal where voters were able to apply for an absentee ballot, track its progress and be alerted of potential problems. That helped cut rejections dramatically, to about 2,500 votes in November.
…
Dearing said something else added to the decline. He saw a monumental shift in voter behavior this year, as though all those warnings and news stories about tossed ballots and postal delays really sunk in.

“For the first time, voters were not waiting until the last day to mail these things. They were all mailing them weeks ahead of time,” he said.

Amber McReynolds, CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute and a former Colorado election official, saw another silver lining. She said the fact that so many ballots were rejected in the primaries helped voters learn how to do it right. Many of them were first-time absentee voters, in large part because of the pandemic.

“It’s a teachable moment, right,” she said. “You get your ballot rejected, then you’re probably not going to make that mistake again.”

[Atamasama]

In my grandmother’s day (mid ‘40s) infant mortality at birth occurred in the US around 50 per 1,000 live births.

These days, they are recorded at a rate of 7 per 1,000 live births. Where are the 43 other deaths going unreported? Clearly doctors have something to hide, we need to uncover this fraud.

/sarcasm

As you can see, this line of thinking is ridiculous. It’s no less ridiculous when applied to ballot rejection.