Election legal battles & fraud claims

[nycfan]

Georgia Election Board Orders Hand-Counting of Ballots

Critics say the move could significantly delay the reporting of results in the battleground state and inject chaos into the post-election period.

www.nytimes.com

"The Georgia State Election Board is set to vote on Friday on a package of nearly a dozen rules that would change the way elections are conducted amid growing pressure from almost every level of Georgia state government advising the board that it is operating outside of its legal authority.

The rules under consideration include conservative policy goals like introducing hand-counting of ballots and expanding access for partisan poll watchers. The proposals come just 45 days before the election, after poll workers have been trained and ballots have been mailed to overseas voters.

On Thursday, the attorney general’s office took the rare step of weighing in on the proposed rules, saying they “very likely exceed the board’s statutory authority.”

The fight comes as the election board is under increasing pressure from critics already concerned that it has been rewriting the rules of the game in a key swing state to favor former President Donald J. Trump, including potentially disrupting certification of the election if Mr. Trump loses in November. Last month, the board granted local officials new power over the election-certification process, a change that opponents say could sow chaos.

Elizabeth Young, a senior assistant attorney general, characterized five specific new election proposals as either exceeding the board’s legal reach or as an unnecessary redundancy, including the hand-counting proposal. ..."

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

Supreme Court rejects Green Party bid to appear on 2024 Nevada ballot

The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court that keeps the Green Party off the state’s ballot for the 2024 general election. The Green Party had asked the justices to vacate the ruling while it appealed that decision, but in a brief unsigned order, the justices...

amylhowe.com

“
The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court that keeps the Green Party off the state’s ballot for the 2024 general election.

The Green Party had asked the justices to vacate the ruling while it appealed that decision, but in a brief unsigned order, the justices declined to do so.

Friday’s order means that Jill Stein, the Green Party’s candidate for president, will not appear on the ballot in Nevada in November.

Polling earlier this month by CNN showed Stein receiving just 2% of the votes in Arizona and 1% or less in other states. But Stein’s absence from the ballot in Nevada was nonetheless hotly contested.

President Joe Biden won Nevada by fewer than 35,000 votes in 2020, and polls show Vice President Harris and former President Donald Trump running neck and neck in the state, which is likely to play a key role in this year’s race for the White House. …”

 

[superrific]

Does "if you vote illegally, you're going to jail" also apply to Mark Meadows?

 

[nycfan]

Does "if you vote illegally, you're going to jail" also apply to Mark Meadows?

 

[Rock]

The Georgia stuff really pisses me off.

 

[05C40]

Georgia Election Board Orders Hand-Counting of Ballots

Critics say the move could significantly delay the reporting of results in the battleground state and inject chaos into the post-election period.

www.nytimes.com

"The Georgia State Election Board is set to vote on Friday on a package of nearly a dozen rules that would change the way elections are conducted amid growing pressure from almost every level of Georgia state government advising the board that it is operating outside of its legal authority.

The rules under consideration include conservative policy goals like introducing hand-counting of ballots and expanding access for partisan poll watchers. The proposals come just 45 days before the election, after poll workers have been trained and ballots have been mailed to overseas voters.

On Thursday, the attorney general’s office took the rare step of weighing in on the proposed rules, saying they “very likely exceed the board’s statutory authority.”

The fight comes as the election board is under increasing pressure from critics already concerned that it has been rewriting the rules of the game in a key swing state to favor former President Donald J. Trump, including potentially disrupting certification of the election if Mr. Trump loses in November. Last month, the board granted local officials new power over the election-certification process, a change that opponents say could sow chaos.

Elizabeth Young, a senior assistant attorney general, characterized five specific new election proposals as either exceeding the board’s legal reach or as an unnecessary redundancy, including the hand-counting proposal. ..."

And by a 3 to 2 vote, all ballots are to be hand counted.

Link: MSN

I'm not sure I want some Billy-Bob who has to take off his shoes to count past ten to be tallying up the election results. If they want a rule that requires a hand count if the electronic count is close or if they want to make a rule that requires periodic hand counts to validate the electronic counts, then I'd be OK with that. But time and time again, electronic counts have been demonstrated to be more accurate than hand counts. There's a reason why you see currency counting machines in banks rather than tellers licking their fingers and counting out the cash by hand.

Would love to see the judge hearing the appeal of this order require an in-count demonstation comparing hand counts and electronic counting. Maybe while the Billy Bob's and Daisy Mae's are hand counting, the electronic counts could be run several times, just to see the count to count variation.

 

[nycfan]

“
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday that nearly 98,000 people whose citizenship documents hadn’t been confirmed can vote in state and local races.

The court’s decision comes after officials uncovered a database error that for two decades mistakenly designated the voters as having access to the full ballot.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, and Stephen Richer, the Republican Maricopa County recorder, had disagreed on what status the voters should hold. Richer asked the high court to weigh in, saying Fontes ignored state law by advising county officials to let affected voters cast full ballots.

Fontes said not allowing the voters who believed they had satisfied voting requirements access to the full ballot would raise equal protection and due process concerns.

The high court agreed with Fontes. It said county officials lack the authority to change the voters’ statuses because those voters registered long ago and had attested under the penalty of law that they are citizens. The justices also said the voters were not at fault for the database error and also mentioned the little time that’s left before the Nov. 5 general election. …

Arizona considers drivers’ licenses issued after October 1996 to be valid proof of citizenship. However, a system coding error marked nearly 98,000 voters who obtained licenses before 1996 — roughly 2.5% of all registered voters — as full-ballot voters, state officials said.

The error between the state’s voter registration database and the Motor Vehicle Division would not have impacted the presidential race. But that number of votes could tip the scales in hotly contested races in the state Legislature, where Republicans have a slim majority in both chambers. …”

 

[nycfan]

How One Man’s Vote in Nebraska Could Change the Presidential Election

A single Republican state senator appears to be holding back a push by Donald J. Trump to net a potentially pivotal electoral vote even before ballots are cast.

www.nytimes.com

“…
A single Republican state senator from Omaha, Mike McDonnell, has so far stood firm against a push by former President Donald J. Trump, national Republicans and the Nebraska G.O.P. to change Nebraska from a state that divides its electoral votes by congressional district to one that awards all of them to the statewide winner. Maine is the only other state without a winner-take-all system.

If Mr. McDonnell buckles, two other Republican senators in Nebraska’s unicameral legislature who have also not yet committed to changing Nebraska’s system are likely to follow his lead, according to a number of Republicans and Democrats involved in the discussions going on at the State Capitol.

…
As of Friday, Mr. McDonnell, who is barred by Nebraska’s term limits law from seeking re-election, had not changed his position.

“Senator McDonnell has heard a lot of compelling arguments for and against, but as of right now he still remains a no vote,” his spokesman, Barry Rubin, said on Friday. “The only way he would think about switching would be if someone gave him a compelling reason for why it made sense on the merits of the winner-take-all situation.” …”

 

[Calheel]

How One Man’s Vote in Nebraska Could Change the Presidential Election

A single Republican state senator appears to be holding back a push by Donald J. Trump to net a potentially pivotal electoral vote even before ballots are cast.

www.nytimes.com

“…
A single Republican state senator from Omaha, Mike McDonnell, has so far stood firm against a push by former President Donald J. Trump, national Republicans and the Nebraska G.O.P. to change Nebraska from a state that divides its electoral votes by congressional district to one that awards all of them to the statewide winner. Maine is the only other state without a winner-take-all system.

If Mr. McDonnell buckles, two other Republican senators in Nebraska’s unicameral legislature who have also not yet committed to changing Nebraska’s system are likely to follow his lead, according to a number of Republicans and Democrats involved in the discussions going on at the State Capitol.

…
As of Friday, Mr. McDonnell, who is barred by Nebraska’s term limits law from seeking re-election, had not changed his position.

“Senator McDonnell has heard a lot of compelling arguments for and against, but as of right now he still remains a no vote,” his spokesman, Barry Rubin, said on Friday. “The only way he would think about switching would be if someone gave him a compelling reason for why it made sense on the merits of the winner-take-all situation.” …”

If I didn't know better, I'd say he was sending out smoke signals for a bribe.

 

[Awinisawin]

Can Trump and Nebraska legislature claw back the one available electoral vote in Nebraska ... too late for Maine to respond in kind?

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2024/09/19/can-trump-pull-off-a-map-math-miracle-00132333?nname=playbook-pm&nid=0000015a-dd3e-d536-a37b-dd7fd8af0000&nrid=0000014e-f0ed-dd93-ad7f-f8edad790000&nlid=964328

"...
Republicans’ push to alter the state’s allotment to a winner-take-all format first cropped up back in the spring, when Gov. JIM PILLEN said he would call a special session if GOP state lawmakers could find the requisite votes to pass the change.

Now, Pillen is back in the mix. Yesterday, Pillen “hosted two dozen state senators at the Governor’s Mansion, along with Secretary of State BOB EVNEN, the state’s chief election official,” the Nebraska Examiner’s Aaron Sanderford reports. “Several who attended the meeting said some senators who had wavered earlier showed more support” for making the change. (As we noted in Playbook this morning, Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.) and the state’s all-GOP congressional delegation are part of the lobbying effort.)

... [But in Maine] First, Gov. JANET MILLS would be required to call a special session of the legislature. But the stickier wicket is in the timing: A bill only becomes law in Maine 90 days after it’s passed, unless the bill receives a two-thirds vote in each chamber (Democrats currently have majorities, but not supermajorities). We’re 46 days away from Nov. 5, and 87 days from Dec. 16, when electoral votes are set to be cast.

That tricky timetable does beg the question of whether Trump and his GOP allies in Nebraska held off on renewing their push for a change in the state in order to jam up any effort to match it out of Maine. ..."

This is the most concerning and scary issue out there. Literally how republicans will steal this election. Unfortunately maines inability to just switch to a winner take all has now run out of time to counter nebraskas trump bent. We should all be very concerned about this.

 

[Zoo_View]

This is the most concerning and scary issue out there. Literally how republicans will steal this election. Unfortunately maines inability to just switch to a winner take all has now run out of time to counter nebraskas trump bent. We should all be very concerned about this.

It’ll be oh so Susan Collins “concerned” if Nebraska goes back to “winner-take-all;” and Maine is as it is and Trump wins the electoral college.

 

[nycfan]

 

[lightbluenc]

He says " CLEARLY, perhaps, looks like they could be illegally voting"

Wait, is it clearly, or perhaps could be? It can't be both dummy.

 

[superrific]

Sounds like it's time for DOJ to get involved, civil rights division.

 

[nycfan]

 

[Zoo_View]

Trump didn’t write that poast.

 

[SmilingJack]

Trump didn’t write that poast.

Zoo I'm thinking your real name is "IKE" as in "I Know Everything"! Must be a lot of work keeping files and databasing the entire universe of things! I'm proud of your diligence at being less than your apparent knowledge.

 

[nycfan]

 

[altmin]

It would be funny if they changed it and Harris beats him by so damned much that it never mattered and for the next 30-40 years a presidential candidate doesn't spend a dime in Nebraska, because everything Trump touches dies.