In other words, have you ever been wrong?
In other words, have you ever been wrong?
So, there was no relaxing of any standards by courts or governors acting as legislative bodies?
Is this about the Texas lawsuit again? That state officials can't change election procedures without the full legislature voting on each change ahead of time?
I thought this piece that Johnny linked to in another thread explains (in part) why that isn't really a thing here and keeps getting dismissed (besides the laches issue of not challenging until millions of people had already voted).
I'm not up on what's considered Lame Stream Media though, admittedly. Maybe since it isn't "stopping the steal" this would fall into that category? If so, I guess feel free to trust the logic and reporting or not?As a general matter, he explained that the Constitution gives each state legislature power to prescribe the manner of conducting an election; he concluded that the Trump team was confounding this with the means by which this prescribed manner is carried out. In Wisconsin (as across the country), the manner of conducting the election is by popular vote, which was done. The means of conducting the popular election has some variations from county to county, but that inevitability has never been of constitutional significance. Even if it were, Wisconsin’s election bureaucracy was created by the state legislature precisely to administer elections and provide procedural guidance for conducting them. Ergo, the fact that the election commission may go beyond the letter of statutes does not mean it is violating state law; it is carrying out the mission state law created it to accomplish: complementing (not contradicting) baseline statutory requirements with administrative procedures.
Wisconsin Supreme Court hands GOP a win in overturning the invalid "indefinitely confined voter" excuse using the CCP virus to request an absentee ballot. These invalid ballots can now be challenged and thrown out on a case-by-case basis. Since there are 221,000 such ballots identified using the "indefinitely confined" status just in the Milwaukee and Dane County recounts. That's close to 10 times the number in previous elections. Take out 20% of that total and there are still well over 175,000 potentially invalid ballots with the statewide margin being only 20,682. The door is now open to overturn Wisconsin.
Ironically, at least one of the Wisconsin Dimmwit electors who showed up in Madison today to vote for Sleepy and Criminala voted absentee using the invalid excuse. You can't make this stuff up.
Five other states (at least) are also contested, and dueling electors have been selected and have voted for Trump. Just would need two others (excluding Nevada) to change it up.
Cobb County, Georgia, is now going to conduct a limited signature audit. The results there if significant could open up further investigation.
And that doesn't even bring in the rampant Dominion issues all over the place.
And now AG Dunsel is leaving early. Can't be a bad thing because has hasn't acted as AG in months.
And the Wisconsin Supreme Court also ruled today:
"We conclude the Campaign is not entitled to the relief it seeks. The challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots is meritless on its face, and the other three categories of ballots challenged fail under the doctrine of laches."
Me being lied to? The truth is being hidden by the discredited sources you apparently are getting. Those sources are the ones that hate America and democracy and are pro-CCP.
There were TWO Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions today.
The decision I am talking about was decided 4-3 in favor of the GOP in the lawsuit which was not the campaign lawsuit that was tossed again on a technicality and not on the facts or the merits. The campaign case also had a 4-3 vote with the three dissenters issuing scathing opinions stating that the case had merit and should have been upheld and not tossed due to specious technical grounds.
Oral arguments on the case attached below were held September 29.
Frontsheet (wicourts.gov)
¶1 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. We review Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin's (collectively No. 2020AP557-OA2 "Petitioners") Petition for Original Action that seeks a declaration that (1) Respondents lack the authority to issue an interpretation of Wisconsin's election law allowing all electors in Dane County to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification and (2) Governor Evers' Emergency Order #12 ("Emergency Order #12") did not authorize all Wisconsin voters to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification.
¶2 To answer these questions, we interpret Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) (2017–18).1 In so doing, we conclude § 6.86(2)(a) requires that (1) each individual elector make his or her own determination as to whether the elector is indefinitely confined; (2) an elector's determination may be based only upon age, physical illness or infirmity; and (3) an elector is indefinitely confined for his or her own age, physical illness or infirmity, not those of another person.
¶3 Accordingly, we conclude that the Respondents' interpretation of Wisconsin election laws was erroneous. Additionally, we conclude that Emergency Order #12 did not render all Wisconsin electors "indefinitely confined," thereby obviating the requirement of a valid photo identification to obtain an absentee ballot.
I'm using the same source. And the part you highlighted I think says the opposite of what you originally said.
And then that second case reinforces that whatever you were told is the opposite of what can (and will) happen.-
Kinda moot (mute? whatever...) now, though, right? Biden was elected.
Last time I checked it isn't either January 6 or noon ET on January 20 yet. Electors can and have been replaced after the initial vote, and that is why the competing electors votes have been recorded and will also be sent for adjudication.
Respondents are Dane County and the Dane County Clerk. The "Respondents' interpretation of Wisconsin election laws was erroneous" means the Respondents lost. Any Wisconsin voter who used the CCP virus as an excuse to obtain an absentee ballot and is not actually "indefinitely confined" as defined in the statute did so illegally.
Additional wording from the ruling which confirms that the statute is intended primarily for indefinitely confined hospital or nursing home patients who cannot physically appear at the polls to vote.
¶30 It is not necessary to define each enumerated category of indefinite confinement in the context of this case. Nonetheless, we conclude that both the contention that electors qualify as indefinitely confined solely as the result of the COVID19 pandemic and the declared public health emergency and the contention that Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) could be used for those who "have trouble presenting a valid ID" are erroneous because those reasons do not come within the statutory criteria.
¶38 Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the plain meaning of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) applies both indefinite confinement and disability for an indefinite period to the elector who seeks to obtain an absentee ballot under § 6.86(2)(a).
I think you are misunderstanding the ruling (and Wisconsin’s process for requesting an absentee ballot for indefinitement confinement without having to show an ID, which isn’t the same thing as all absentee ballots) which I also read.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jso...amp/6539363002