Althouse: 6:58 a.m. — Lake Mendota — a picture of calmness.

November 12, 2020

6:58 a.m. — Lake Mendota — a picture of calmness.

16 comments:

wild chicken said...: I'm not going to play anymore. What can I do? There's all kinds of shit going on but elections are do much the domain of the states that you need strong in-state allies to ferret out fraud. Like with a contested local election.

Ya gotta win big or go home.; 11/12/20, 10:23 AM
RBE said...: Video! Nice.; 11/12/20, 10:37 AM
MadisonMan said...: I did see wide-spread windshield scraping this morning on my dog walk.; 11/12/20, 10:48 AM
wild chicken said...: Always better with ducks!; 11/12/20, 10:48 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
I did see wide-spread windshield scraping this morning on my dog walk."

Five minutes late to the gym because of the frost. Beautiful fall day today though.; 11/12/20, 10:57 AM
stevew said...: Many years ago, in my early 20's, I had occasion to go to the ballet. It was Swan Lake. This was a new experience for me and completely foreign. There was a scene in which they covered the stage with dry ice fog. It was high enough that you could not see the ballerina's legs. The dancers moved across and around the stage in a way that resembled the way those ducks move across the water. Looking only at how still their upper bodies were you would have guessed the dancers were standing on some sort of wheeled device. Amazing.; 11/12/20, 11:25 AM
Wince said...: Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the following mean that if the courts and state legislatures in "too close to call states" with prima facie election improprieties simply throw up their hands and split the electors to reflect the "50-50" vote, Trump wins?

232 + 40 = 272 (Trump)

226 + 40 = 266 (Biden)

The facts are, as of Monday, a full week after election day, Biden is behind President Donald Trump in the undisputed electoral count — Biden’s 226 to Trump’s 232 (assuming Trump wins North Carolina) — with a full 80 outstanding electoral votes in seven states still in a legal fog and unlikely to be determined much before the December 14 state deadlines to report the count to Congress.

Look Closely: Trump Still Has A Shot At Winning Reelection; 11/12/20, 11:25 AM
stevew said...: Oh boy Wince, wouldn't that be exciting! Perhaps this is why (partly) the Dems aren't on board with the investigation into voting irregularities, fraud, and such.; 11/12/20, 12:24 PM
Jaq said...: “it is a FELONY to vote in GA if you're not a legal resident or if you're in the state briefly with the intention to vote and then move away.”

Somebody should tell Andrew Yang; 11/12/20, 12:58 PM
Jaq said...: They should check registrations against AirBnB addresses in Georgia.; 11/12/20, 12:59 PM
Readering said...: Lawyer question. Now that DOJ motion to intervene in Carroll defamation suit has been denied, why is it not remanded to state court?; 11/12/20, 2:19 PM
rhhardin said...: It looks calm only because you can't see the bottom of the ducks.; 11/12/20, 5:10 PM
gpm said...: >>“it is a FELONY to vote in GA if you're not a legal resident or if you're in the state briefly with the intention to vote and then move away.”

I posted a couple of comments on this issue in a different thread a day or so ago but, since I'm almost always very late to the party, probably nobody has read them. I'm also late here, but not quite so much, so here is the primary comment from the prior thread:

I've read a couple of those stories. Although there have been some references to the, you know, committing-a-felony bit when you fraudulently claim that you intend to remain indefinitely and have no intention of leaving (and especially if you're taking money to do so), in none of the ones I've looked at has the "reporter" bothered to do the work to determine whether the people doing the moving could legally vote. Even the ones quoting supposedly knowledgable sources. The Georgia statute, which somebody posted here several days ago, is not difficult to find. It makes it pretty clear that the votes wouldn't be legal: Only voters that were eligible to vote in the original election are eligible to vote in the runoff. Not that illegality would necessarily mean the votes wouldn't be counted.

I didn't post it before (though, as noted above, somebody did post it here before), but here is the text of the Georgia statute (Ga. Code § 21-2-501(10)), which is part of the statute providing for run-off elections (so, really, really, hard to find):

(10) The . . . run-off election . . . shall be a continuation of the election . . . for the particular office concerned. Only the electors who were duly registered to vote and not subsequently deemed disqualified to vote in the . . . election for that particular office shall be entitled to vote therein.

Can't bother to figure out the HTML codes to emphasize the relevant language but, really, does it need any emphasis?

Hope Soros or whoever spends millions to create (what will hopefully be recognized as) invalid votes.

--gpm; 11/12/20, 8:10 PM
gpm said...: And, by the way, the blood money would be taxable income. I should know, I'm a tax lawyer.

--gpm; 11/12/20, 8:16 PM
gpm said...: While I'm at it, the other thought I had is that many of the moving voters would have already voted for the Senate in their "former" residence, so they're claiming they have the right to vote twice in the same election.

--gpm; 11/12/20, 8:18 PM
Readering said...: Voting twice in the same election . . . Like their new neighbors.; 11/12/20, 10:02 PM