Election legal battles & fraud claims

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 330
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 

GOP leaders in some states move to block Justice Dept. election monitors​

Federal authorities have deployed monitors for decades. But Republican leaders in some states have begun denying them entry to polling sites.

“… While the Justice Department has the legal right to request access to polling sites, inflamed partisanship and ideological extremism have contributed to greater resistance to such activitiesin some GOP-controlled states, legal experts said. Those states have attempted to politicize the process and cast federal monitors as partisans from the Biden administration who cannot be trusted.

… Republican leaders in Missouri and Florida, which flatly banned federal monitors in the 2022 midterm elections, said in recent interviews that their positions have not changed and that Justice officials likely would be rebuffed again if they request access to voting locations for Tuesday’s presidential election.

…
In 2022, federal authorities sought access to polling sites in Cole County, Missouri, home of the state capital of Jefferson City, citing complaints that the county lacked adequate voting machines for disabled people. Ashcroft, who rejected those complaints as untrue, said federal monitors who showed up on Election Day were forced to remain outside in public spaces.

In Florida, Secretary of State Cord Byrd (R) said Justice officials in 2022 failed to provide a valid reason for trying to enter polling sites in Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, prompting him and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to rebuff their requests. A spokesman for Byrd’s office said this month that state law does not explicitly permit federal monitors to enter voting locations.

… Legal experts said the federal government lost significant legal recourse in 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The court eliminated the federal government’s preclearance authority, which required nine states and dozens of counties with a history of voter discrimination, mostly in the South, to request permission to change voting regulations.

The ruling also meant the Justice Department needed a court order or the express cooperation from state and local officials to enter polling sites.

Since then, the number of federal observers has dropped significantly …”
 

Judge Allows Unusual G.O.P. Strategy to Pump Money Into Senate Races​

Democrats had claimed that the advertising strategy may have violated federal election laws establishing strict limits on spending by national party committees to aid individual candidates.

www.nytimes.com

Judge Allows Unusual G.O.P. Strategy to Pump Money Into Senate Races

Democrats had claimed that the advertising strategy may have violated federal election laws establishing strict limits on spending by national party committees to aid individual candidates.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“… But Judge Randolph D. Moss, of the U.S. District Court in Washington, wrote Friday that he was “unpersuaded” to outlaw a practice that the commission had not. He said Democratic and Republican campaign committees — those that support Senate and House candidates — are “all on an even playing field” and the lack of action taken by the Federal Election Commission had not tilted it.

… Strict requirements govern when and how national parties can cover the cost of campaign advertisements for individual candidates. For so-called hybrid ads, they must split the cost with the candidate, and no more than half the ad can be about a specific race; at least as much time must be spent advocating general candidates of the party.

But the National Republican Senatorial Committee began running tens of millions of dollars’ worth of ads aiding individual candidates by categorizing them as joint fund-raising appeals in what Democrats alleged was an end-run around the contribution rules. Those fund-raising appeals are subject to a different set of regulations that allow coordination and place no limits on content beyond that it must include a solicitation.

Republicans did so by adding a “donate now” appeal in the last few seconds of the ad with a QR code that links to a donation page for a joint fund-raising committee established between the committee and the Republican candidate.

The Democrats faulted the Federal Election Commission for failing to render an opinion as to whether the Republicans’ practices were legal. But the commission, which is charged with enforcing federal campaign finance laws, deadlocked 3 to 3 along party lines, and did not issue a decision on the matter. …”
 
The voter purge in the Commonwealth will mean nothing in the final result of Virginia's choice for Prez, Senate or key state races . .
Youngkin is history after next week, eat $#!t and die Glenn . . . !
 

Trump, Preparing to Challenge the Results, Puts His 2020 Playbook Into Action​

Step by step, Donald J. Trump and his allies are following the strategies that caused chaos four years ago. Election officials say they are ready this time.

www.nytimes.com

Trump, Preparing to Challenge the Results, Puts His 2020 Playbook Into Action

Step by step, Donald J. Trump and his allies are following the strategies that caused chaos four years ago. Election officials say they are ready this time.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“… in a direct echo of his failed — and, prosecutors say, illegal — bid to remain in power after the 2020 election, some of his most influential advisers are suggesting he will yet again seek to claim victory before all the votes are counted, a move that ushered in his efforts to deny his defeat four years ago and helped set the stage for the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In many respects, though, the effort that led to Jan. 6 never ended.

… For all the similarities, there are important differences between now and 2020, some of which reassure the coalition of civil rights lawyers, Democrats, Republicans and election administrators working to prevent a repeat of 2020:

  • Congress has passed a new law, the Electoral Count Reform Act, meant to make it harder to stop the final certification of the results by Congress on Jan. 6, as Mr. Trump tried to do four years ago.
  • Mr. Trump no longer has control of the federal government — which he sought to use to press his 2020 case. In the states, there are fewer like-minded Republicans in key positions of power than there were four years ago.
  • Some of the loudest clarions for stolen election theories have paid heavily for circulating them, including Fox News, which last year paid Dominion Voting Systems $787 million to settle a lawsuit over the network’s promotion of false theories that Dominion’s machines had switched votes.
  • And the experience of 2020, along with more recent clashes over voting issues, has taught election administrators lessons about fortifying themselves against a similar effort this year.
“You have the benefit of something having happened once before,” said the Pennsylvania secretary of state, Al Schmidt, a Republican. “You learn from it to guide you moving forward.”

But the threat of another chaotic post-election period remains. …”
 
I think the Supreme Court may just be getting warmed up for what is to come. The groundwork has been laid down for all sorts of legal challenges in various states. If it is a close election, then we may not know the winner for a long time as the legal process plays out. One of the worst things that can happen. The fact that the Supreme Court has a conservative majority looms very large indeed.
At risk of being excoriated, I am not sure why the federal judge in VA ruled to force VA to put the 1,600 self-identified non-citizens on the voting rolls. Just gave Republicans a ripe campaign issue as that decision gave legitimacy to concerns that Democrats are pushing to allow non-citizens to vote. The whole quiet period argument would not seem to cover those who were never eligible to vote in the first place.
 
BillyL said:
The voter purge in the Commonwealth will mean nothing in the final result of Virginia's choice for Prez, Senate or key state races . .
Youngkin is history after next week, eat $#!t and die Glenn . . . !
Click to expand...
Unfortunately GY has another year.
 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
I think the Supreme Court may just be getting warmed up for what is to come. The groundwork has been laid down for all sorts of legal challenges in various states. If it is a close election, then we may not know the winner for a long time as the legal process plays out. One of the worst things that can happen. The fact that the Supreme Court has a conservative majority looms very large indeed.
At risk of being excoriated, I am not sure why the federal judge in VA ruled to force VA to put the 1,600 self-identified non-citizens on the voting rolls. Just gave Republicans a ripe campaign issue as that decision gave legitimacy to concerns that Democrats are pushing to allow non-citizens to vote. The whole quiet period argument would not seem to cover those who were never eligible to vote in the first place.
Click to expand...
The judge didn't. The judge ordered the voters to be restored. The appeals court affirmed. It was the Supreme Court that stayed the judgment (meaning that the plaintiffs still win in the end, but who cares because the election is over).

I am exceedingly worried about the Supreme Court intervening. That said, I was expecting them to get involved in the PA ballot case and they declined. So one very bad decision, and one decent decision (I'm not going to give them much credit for doing the obviously right thing).

Hopefully it isn't going to be close enough to matter.
 
superrific said:
The judge didn't. The judge ordered the voters to be restored. The appeals court affirmed. It was the Supreme Court that stayed the judgment (meaning that the plaintiffs still win in the end, but who cares because the election is over).

I am exceedingly worried about the Supreme Court intervening. That said, I was expecting them to get involved in the PA ballot case and they declined. So one very bad decision, and one decent decision (I'm not going to give them much credit for doing the obviously right thing).

Hopefully it isn't going to be close enough to matter.
Click to expand...
Why restore non-citizens who were never eligible to vote to the voting rolls?

Seems pretty obvious that non-citizens do not have the right to vote. Or do you think they do?
 
lawtig02 said:
Because those removed also included citizens who WERE eligible to vote, and there are plenty of other tools that can be employed to prevent noncitizens from voting that do not also prevent citizens from voting. Seemed pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...
You can restore those that were eligible while not restoring those that never were eligible, or is that considered too difficult?
 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
You can restore those that were eligible while not restoring those that never were eligible, or is that considered too difficult?
Click to expand...
More difficult than following rules already place and using rules already in place to disqualify the noncitizens. Is that considered too proper?
 
finesse said:
More difficult than following rules already place and using rules already in place to disqualify the noncitizens. Is that considered too proper?
Click to expand...
Legally, the principle that non-citizens cannot vote seems fundamental to me.
Politically, for Democrats (whether is it he DOJ or the judges) to advocate the notion that non-citizens can vote strikes me as hurting Democrats at the polls.
Seems like you along with others are okay with non-citizens voting. I am not. I mean, talk about foreign election interference.
And while 1,600 votes in Virginia will not likely change the outcome in that state, if that logic were applied in states it very well could change the outcomes.
 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
You can restore those that were eligible while not restoring those that never were eligible, or is that considered too difficult?
Click to expand...
No, you can't. The whole reason that they purged 1600 was that they don't know who was eligible. There is a routine process for removing the voters. It happens after the election.
 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
You can restore those that were eligible while not restoring those that never were eligible, or is that considered too difficult?
Click to expand...
Have you read anything from a credible source about this matter? There’s a very good reason federal law doesn’t allow states to do things like this within 90 days of an election. I’m trying to figure out why you think Virginia should be able to just ignore that law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top