८ जुलै, २०२२
"The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday prohibited the use of most drop boxes for voters to return absentee ballots, giving the state’s Republicans a major victory in their efforts to limit voting access in urban areas."
"The 4-to-3 ruling by the court’s conservative majority will take effect for Wisconsin’s primary elections next month, though its true impact most likely will not be felt until the November general election. Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, and Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican, both face what are expected to be very close re-election bids.
The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law, finding that returning an absentee ballot to a municipal clerk, as Justice Rebecca G. Bradley wrote for the majority, 'does not mean nor has it been historically understood to mean delivery to an unattended ballot drop box.'"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३० टिप्पण्या:
The network and software innovations that this country has fostered have changed the world more dramatically in a shorter period of time, than perhaps any other innovations in the world's history.
And yet we still seem unable to get everyone's vote.
That tells you that here is another area which our so-called leaders don't want to actually solve, but only want to foster and enflame - continue "the fight" to raise funds and garner turnout.
"...in their efforts to limit voting access..."
Hey, NYT, you spelled "fraud" wrong.
Poor people do not have access to the US Postal System.
GOOD. They were used for cheating. MY VOTE never counted because of those corrupt boxes. Vote in person. (Unless you are in the Military or disabled) PERIOD
The real question is why would ANYONE interpet "return to the clerk" to mean drop in an unattended box?
Of course, now that the Winsconsin SC has made their ruling, lets see if it gets enforced. Who is going to ensure Madison, Milwaulkee and D areas actually have attended drop boxes? Its already been shown that if the D's cheat and don't follow the rules, the Judges won't obviate the result. Or demand an audit.
And just what is wrong with a court making a "literal interpretation" of an existing state law? The kiddoes at the NYT and WaPoo, uneducated and knowing nothing, don't like such actions by a court.
It only limits voting if the people don't want to vote. There is NO reason they can't stand in line to vote like we always have. Maybe the cities should have more voting facilities to cut down on the numbers coming into just one. Voter ID SHOULD be used at all times, especially because in some cities illegals are voting. They shouldn't be able to, unless they came legally, but in America, everything right is wrong, and everything wrong is right anymore.
Good.
Unattended drop boxes give us unattended 3 am harvest mules.
Adopting a literal interpretation of the law is what any court should do.
[A certain commenter] will now demand government-funded pickup of any ballot at the time and place of the voter's choosing by a federally-certified employee.
And he/she/xi/they will accuse anyone who questions his/her/xer/thier demands of not being serious about the right to vote.
After all, it was through unattended drop boxes that Democrats in the Reconstruction South made their former slaves vote.
Think about this for a while, the NYT as "the paper of record" chose this wording:
"giving the state’s Republicans a major victory in their efforts to limit voting access in urban areas."
What about efforts to "...follow the law."?
What about efforts to "...prevent fraud."?
What about efforts to "...ensure a fair election."?
What about efforts to "...follow precedents."?
There were many options but the NYT chose overt propaganda.
To “limit access.” Always with the dishonest framing. But people have learned to decode our dishonest Press, and many will see this summary but understand it as “reducing opportunity to cheat,” with most adding the mental tag “like happened in 2020.” Don’t change, Pravda, for the masses have learned to read the truth embedded in your lies.
The NYT thinks urban voters are stupid and are incapable of either going to a polling place or dropping a ballot in a mailbox. But, what else can you expect from a Democrat propaganda outlet. Democrats are the party of segregation, slavery, smears and election fraud.
a literal interpretation of state law, finding that returning an absentee ballot to a municipal clerk, as Justice Rebecca G. Bradley wrote for the majority, 'does not mean nor has it been historically understood to mean delivery to an unattended ballot drop box.
a "Literal Interpretation"?? You Mean, like reading it?
By what stretch of the imagination, did filling a "drop box" with ballots count as returning to a clerk?
Which raises a Serious Question.. How in The HELL, are the democrats going to be able to win this fall?
"true impact most likely will not be felt until the November general election"
As funny a line as you could possibly write.
Ballot "harvesting" in cities goes back a century. But here's an account from 'only' two decades ago about one bad practice in Dallas, Texas.
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/absentee-minded-6391500
In the interim decades, the laws about who is authorized to handle, transport, and accept delivery of ballots (in Texas) have changed, but particular loopholes were still placed in law by particular legislators. It's a sort of gerrymander; and the majority has voted on the loopy laws under the understanding that the corruptive effects would be limited to particular circumstances.
My peculiar objection is that mail ballot processes and early voting processes, (if considered in "good faith", as we discussed earlier today) both seem to address similar problems. IF there are valid reasons a voter can't be at a polling station at the set date and time, then mail is an (safe, legal, rare) alternative. But if "early voting" at extended hours is available, then the vote-by-mail processes could (and should) be more protective/restrictive. Or if mail is widely used and ballots are mailed out a week or more before "election day", then there's little reason for lots of little "early" voting stations. Take the manpower and machines used for those "early" locations and do diligent security on the daily mail deliveries. As we do it at present, though, both more convenient processes are in place, and both allow major disruptive (and in my opinion, CORRUPTIVE) interventions.
A literal interpretation of state law? What a Christo-fascist-theocratic-racist idea.
Is this another bad faith thing, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court simply interprets the literal meaning of the law, yet doing so means Republicans are out to limit voting access in urban areas rather than enforce compliance to election law to secure the vote from questions of illegitimacy? Does it not matter what the law is, so long as unattended drop boxes helps Democrats, then not having them is limiting voting access? What next, just not have polls?
"With its ruling today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is making it more difficult to vote. It’s a slap in the face of democracy itself,” said Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. “Our freedom to vote is under attack.”
This is impossible to understand. According to the article, state law allows absentee ballots to be returned in the mail. So all the absentee voter has to do is to put the ballot in a mail box or take it to a post office, or take it to a municipal clerk. Or, the person could show up on election day and vote in person. (Plainly, some one who is homebound could not do this, but could vote absentee and give the ballot to the postman or postmistress when they deliver the mail.
How does doing away with drop boxes make it more difficult to vote? How is it an attack on democracy? This language by the chairman of the Democratic Party is bizarre. When people talk about a growing divide in this country, this type of incomprehensible language is a big contributor to that divide.
"With its ruling today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is making it more difficult to vote. It’s a slap in the face of democracy itself,” said Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. “Our freedom to vote is under attack.”
This is impossible to understand. According to the article, state law allows absentee ballots to be returned in the mail. So all the absentee voter has to do is to put the ballot in a mail box or take it to a post office, or take it to a municipal clerk. Or, the person could show up on election day and vote in person. (Plainly, some one who is homebound could not do this, but could vote absentee and give the ballot to the postman or postmistress when they deliver the mail.
How does doing away with drop boxes make it more difficult to vote? How is it an attack on democracy? This language by the chairman of the Democratic Party is bizarre. When people talk about a growing divide in this country, this type of incomprehensible language is a big contributor to that divide.
Either way, drop boxes should NEVER be funded by private parties...
Wisconsin Supreme Court eliminates a major method that allows the Dems to cheat in elections. A major victory for election integrity.
Talk about doing an op-ed as news,
"The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law, finding that returning an absentee ballot to a municipal clerk, as Justice Rebecca G. Bradley wrote for the majority, 'does not mean nor has it been historically understood to mean delivery to an unattended ballot drop box.'"
Let's dissect the phrase "adopted a literal interpretation" - is that opposed to adopting a figurative interpretation? Perhaps the court should instead adopt a never-before-intended interpretation?
And the headline reads, "The ruling by the court, which has a narrow conservative majority, comes as Republicans have tried to limit voting access in the state’s cities."
So the facts (remember this is a news article) are that Republians are seeking to LIMIT VOTING ACCESS in the state's cities?
...
I can tolerate a certain amount of bias in a news article, but this type of insidious framing of the role of courts and the motives of republicans is obscene.
Once upon a time some groups like the Columbia Journalism Review would decry these things.
"... efforts to limit voting access in urban areas."
As I see it, 100% of living registered voters still have complete access to voting.
“Municipal clerks who oversee Wisconsin’s elections used drop boxes for years without controversy before the 2020 election, when about 500 were in place across the state, typically outside public libraries and municipal buildings.”
Trump loses, Trump has a fit, voters suffer because a narcissistic asshole thought he could convince his cult followers that there was widespread voter fraud. There wasn’t. WI Supreme Court uses Trump as an excuse to suppress voters.
’…giving the state’s Republicans a major victory in their efforts to limit voting access in urban areas.’
The mules will now have to vote in person.
Exactly!
Krumhorn
Good. This will make it harder to cheat. Americans voted in free and fair elections for our history without drop off boxes, and when they were used and abused in 2020 many irregularities occurred. Time to go back to basics.
" The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law..."
Heaven forbid! To take plain language and read it as written. It MUST be a racist plot.
Shame, shame, shame, shame, shame.
No chain of custody
Access is still unlimited except for 3:00AM false ballot dumps the day afterwards. Why lie?
"Limit voting access". Prove it. It certainly limits voting fraud. But promoting fraud was the intent in the first place.
"The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law, finding that returning an absentee ballot to a municipal clerk, as Justice Rebecca G. Bradley wrote for the majority, 'does not mean nor has it been historically understood to mean delivery to an unattended ballot drop box.'"
It takes a special kind of dishonest to consider a drop box a municipal clerk.
Democrats cannot win without fraud.
They will have to turn in their 100% turnout nursing home ballots to a real person now.
Why don't they just mail them? Our postage in Montana is prepaid.
This whole issue is so dumb. Anything nefarious is going to happen at the counting center not at the drop box.
"The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law, ..."
So the court read what the law plainly says and ruled according to what it says? What an odd idea of justice!
The Wisconsin Supreme Court did NOT prohibit the use of drop boxes. It simply read the election laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, and found that the LAW prohibited the use of drop boxes. The law said you could either mail it, or return it to a municipal clerk, not that you could use a drop box.
First-year law school statutory interpretation: expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that is, expressing one thing excludes the other.
"limit voting access in urban areas" as opposed to "prevent massive vote fraud." Thanks, NYT.
How does this limit voting access in Urban areas? You can still drop off your absentee ballot in a mailbox, or at the clerks office, or you can do vote in person with an ID. Big Deal. You have to travel farther to vote in rural areas to vote in person, go to the clerks office, or find a mailbox. They're not bitching.
These drop boxes create HUGE chain of custody issues for absentee ballots. This was one of the major components of Democrat voter fraud in WI in 2020. Those things got stuffed.
Besides that, the Legislature makes voting laws, not the Wisconsin Election Commission who seem to feel like they can toss them aside when convenient. In Waukesha County, we vote by the rules, and count by the rules. Madison and Milwaukee don't.
Madison ballot harvested in broad daylight collecting votes in public parks and stuffing them Domino's pizza bags. And when the harvested ballots were returned to the clerk, she purposefully mixed them with ballots turned in per law, in order to destroy all chain of custody. Madison openly promotes cheating and violating election laws the rest of the State follows..
And everyone living in Madison's Ivory Tower are perfectly ok with it.
"The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law..."
Instead of making up something based on what Democrats want? Emanations and penumbras, anyone?
Crybaby NYT is sad because the court won't let dems submit ballots anonymously, in the middle of the night.
This is what is destroying America. These lies about "efforts to suppress votes", when in fact it is about some form of integrity, traceability, and ability to verify and validate results. Anybody who claims there is "no widespread voter fraud" is either stupid, dishonest, or in support of the results of the fraud.
The Biden administration is currently suing Arizona because Arizona wants you to show you are a US Citizen in order to register to vote. The only reason Democrats oppose things like this is because they WANT non-citizens to vote. That's why the border is open.
Because of the arrogance of Madison, and the deterioration of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has become as corrupt as Illinois. Now we are all FIBs.
So the Supreme Court "prohibited" something by "adopting a literal interpretation" of a state law? Wouldn't that be, you know, applying the law as written?
Mule skinners.
It is illegal to drop off another person's ballot. It is illegal to fill out another person's ballot and drop it off. It is illegal to fake your identity and vote in another person's place.
Unless, of course, you are a Democrat from Madison or Milwaukee, or a Democrat nursing home worker in Racine. Then it's applauded, and vehimately protected.
"S tate’s Republicans a major victory in their efforts to limit voting access in urban areas."
I wonder if they think this is neutral wording. Like if that's what they really think the only reason Republicans might be against these brand-spanking-new, necessary-because-of-the-pandemic "drop boxes".
Speaking of bad faith arguments, assigning motivations to people in direct contradiction to their stated motives is bad faith.
Limit voting access = limit ballot stuffing
Every time there is an attempt to clean up fraud, or the appearance of fraud, or the possibility of fraud in our elections, one party and one group of people stand in the way of this, fighting it with all their might. We know multiple non-approved ballot boxes were placed in many locations across key metro areas in key states. We know ballot harvesting was taking place- we have videos in multiple cities of multiple ballots being dropped into boxes multiple times by the same person(s). And many of this took place where ballot harvesting is not legal, into drop boxes placed by Democratic operatives, paid for by Mark Zuckerberg. We know many of these were last minute changes to state laws under the guise of 'covid safety' and that wherever possible the Democrats have no intention of removing these last minute, temporary 'fixes'. Fix is a good word for what happened in 2020. There are scores of videos, documentaries, and books detailing much of this.
We also know that Mark Zuckerberg, among others, paid for these extra drop boxes, the ballot harvesters, and the entire operation. Mark, being the overseer of good judgement and justice apparently felt that Black and Hispanic people could not possibly make it out to vote, so he wanted to make sure someone voted for them. How magnanimously racist of him.
What annoys the crap out of me, to the bottom of my soul is the constant fight from the left- and the New York Times is smack in the middle of this- for the dilution of our election security. That a request for the citizens to take part in being citizens- to have to show an effort to take part in their elections is deemed a bridge too far, and the suggestion itself, racist. That holding a day for elections is too hard. Holding two weeks for elections is simply not equitable. Showing 30 days to freakin vote is possibly acceptable. But only if they don't have to show ID to make sure they are who actually registered to vote in that precinct. One time.
The NY Times clearly stands for unsecured elections, with no accountable way of knowing who is voting, how many times they've voted, if they are actually citizens, alive or dead, or just the name of someone's dog. How is it possible that this topic of voting can be so hard for a country who once took pride in their fair and free elections?
Today nothing is fair or free. Its all bought and paid for with Zuckerbucks.
" . . . in their efforts to limit voting access in urban areas . . ."
Bit of truth in that. We wish to limit voting access to one vote each, of legal citizens, real existing people, voting where they should be voting, and actually making a choice instead of handing the choice to the harvesters.
I denounce myself. Racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, whatever.
The Wisconsin Election in the spring of 2020 right after COVID hit was the set up. The Democrats and the MSM told you “you’re risking your life to vote in person”. What bullshit. It was the pre-curser for the absentee voter fraud and illegal ballot harvesting via “collecting” absentee ballots and stuffing the drop boxes. Everyone knows this. Even the pro-ballot stuffers in Madison, WI and at the NYT’s. You could see it happening in real time.
In other voting democracies and republics, everyone still votes in person. Shows an ID. And sometimes they even dip their finger in indelible ink so you can only vote once. They even count all their votes in one day and have results by evening.
But here in America cities like Milwaukee dump huge amounts of ballots at 3am. Arrogant Madison breaks voting laws in broad daylight. Vote counts are stopped…for what reason??? Remember when they were blocking the widows in Detroit and Philly so people couldn’t see the counting? Or used the six feet social distance bullshit to keep poll watchers at bay?
There is coordinated voter fraud in the United States, and it is run by liberal Democrats in targeted metropolitan areas they control. It was used to install the current President. That is our current reality and why in 2022 The United States of America…sucks.
The NYT dropped opinion in a news item, continuing their efforts to be the D mouthpiece.
Any voter fraud should be punishable by death.
I am OK with this...
Who on earth would want 'everyone' to vote? Have you BEEN AMONGST THE MASSES LATELY?
Zuckerberg and Bezos are breathing a sigh of relief. They’re not thrilled with Biden and have cheater’s remorse.
The first NYT draft: "On the heels of destroying abortion rights and allowing increased access to high-capacity semi-automatic weapons, another right-wing Supreme Court - in Wisconsin - has just banned all minority access to voting."
Aren't courts supposed to interpret laws literally?
No, worries you ballot stuffers, the DoJ will file suit in federal court and get this ruling stayed until next year.
" The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law..."
I'm pretty sure that reading, like punctuality, is a white supremacy thing.
The fact that you can mail in your ballot makes the democrat's position, that this limits the opportunity to vote, absurd.
They don't want to mail the ballots back in the postal system because mail can be tracked back to the box from which it was first dropped off. It would would a chain of custody evidence treasure trove for anyone with subpoena power investigating vote fraud. It would look mighty odd for a hundred ballots to be dropped into a mail box on a single day miles and miles away from the voters' addresses- in short, the avoid detection, the ballot harvesters would have to sort the ballots and go to the trouble of finding a plausible mail box to put them in.
Short of having a disability, though, you should have to present photo ID at the clerk's office in getting and returning an absentee ballot. For those with disabilities, we can have the clerk's office pick them up with representatives from all the political parties on the ballot if the request it. Better yet, just do away with absentee voting altogether- it is just too tempting for ballot fraudsters.
"Every time there is an attempt to clean up fraud, or the appearance of fraud, or the possibility of fraud in our elections, one party and one group of people stand in the way of this, fighting it with all their might."
Indeed. Then they preach lies that people do not have access to voting.
anyone with a brain-cell understands that is hot garbage.
Inga said...
“Municipal clerks who oversee Wisconsin’s elections used drop boxes for years without controversy before the 2020 election, when about 500 were in place across the state, typically outside public libraries and municipal buildings.”
Trump loses, Trump has a fit, voters suffer because a narcissistic asshole thought he could convince his cult followers that there was widespread voter fraud. There wasn’t. WI Supreme Court uses Trump as an excuse to suppress voters.
Perfect example of bad faith discussion.
The opinion goes through other provisions of election statutes to determine the meaning of the “return to the municipal clerk.”
Here’s the money shot, which chides the defendants for putting forth a literal interpretation of the provision and ignoring the context of other provisions in Wisconsin election statutes.
The defendants contend "to the municipal clerk" encompasses unstaffed drop boxes maintained by the municipal clerk. A hyper-literal interpretation of this prepositional phrase, taken out of context, would permit voters to mail or personally deliver absentee ballots to the personal residence of the municipal clerk or even hand the municipal clerk absentee ballots at the grocery store. "Municipal clerk," however, denotes a public office, held by a public official acting in an official capacity when performing statutory duties such as accepting ballots. The statutes do not authorize the municipal
37
No. 2022AP91
clerk to perform any official duties related to the acceptance of ballots at any location beyond those statutorily prescribed.
¶62 The fairest interpretation of the phrase "to the municipal clerk" means mailing or delivering the absentee ballot to the municipal clerk at her office or, if designated under Wis. Stat. § 6.855, an alternate site. "Properly applied, the plain-meaning approach is not 'literalistic'; rather, the ascertainment of meaning involves a 'process of analysis' focused on deriving the fair meaning of the text itself." Brey, 400 Wis. 2d 417, ¶11 (quoting Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶¶46, 52). Adopting a literalistic interpretation instead of applying the fair meaning of "to the municipal clerk" would similarly subject any "authorized representative" of the municipal clerk to the same intrusions of accepting ballots wherever a voter may find the municipal clerk's representative. Wis. Stat. § 5.02(10). Interpreting Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1. to permit such methods of casting an absentee ballot would contravene the legislative policy expressed in Wis. Stat. § 6.84(1) and border on the absurd. See Scalia & Garner, Reading Law, at 217 ("A preamble, purpose clause, or recital is a permissible indicator of meaning.").
¶63 Notwithstanding the detailed and unambiguous language
Inga, could you list some of the specific reasons why it is more difficult to put a ballot in the mail rather than put it into a drop box? I honestly don't understand this. Urban folks have no access to mailboxes or post offices?
Let’s face it. What this boils down to is who should decide (i) whether an absentee voter must personally drop their ballot in to the mail or personally deliver their ballot to the clerk; (ii) if no, who should be authorized to mail the ballot or deliver it to the clerk on behalf of the absentee voter; (iii) whether the authorized representative must personally mail the ballot or deliver it to the clerk or can themselves give the ballot to someone else to mail or deliver to the clerk; (iv) if the authorized representative must personally mail or deliver to the clerk, is an unstaffed drop box established by the clerk sufficient to deliver the ballot to the clerk or must the drop box be staffed; and (v) what measures are in place to ensure that it is the absentee voter or their authorized representative (and not done authorized third party) who mails or delivers.
The statutes are silent on these issues. What the Wisconsin Election Commission did by allowing ballot harvesting and unstaffed drop boxes was a major change in how voting had been conducted in Wisconsin.
Those who claim that Democracy Is Under Threat must conclude that these changes should be made by a majority of the legislature, not a handle of political appointments and not four out of seven state Supreme Court justices, elected or not.
the ballot to the clerk.
allow drop boxes and under what circumstances: the Wisconsin legislature, the Wisconsin Election Commission, or the Wisconsin judiciary.
The NYT reports: "It is not possible to determine precisely how many Wisconsin votes were cast through drop boxes in 2020."
That's a problem, in and of itself.
As @mccullough points out (I hope I'm interpreting his intentions correctly), the Court did not, in fact, adopt a literal interpretation of state law.
State law is pretty, damn clear on the points in this suit, yet 3 justices voted against? Do the not understand law?
Who wants to expend the time and energy to explain to Inga The Dolt the WI election law passed by the WI legislature PRE-DATES Trump's supposed "loss" in WI in 2020 and tbus, as usual, Inga completely mangles cause and effect and timelines and basically every other relevant aspect of this issue.
Its also clear Inga and other #BlueAnon idiot lefties, like gadfly, STILL do not understand the Founders put the power of establishing the means and methods for conducting federal elections in the hands of State Legislatures ALONE.
You'd think Bush v Gore would have "learned" these morons some but, bless their hearts, tain't so.
'limiting voter access.'
What a bunch of horseshit. But I'd expect nothing less from the NYT.
I always thought courts' role was to adopt a literal interpretation of the law. Am I wrong?
Blogger Inga said...“Municipal clerks who oversee Wisconsin’s elections used drop boxes for years without controversy before the 2020 election, when about 500 were in place across the state, typically outside public libraries and municipal buildings.”
They can't walk INTO said building and hand it to a known individual charged with the responsibility of overseeing the process?
I have voted absentee exactly once; the 2016 federal election, because I was in Australia on election day. My ID was checked, I was handed a ballot, filled it out there, signed and sealed it, and handed it back to the librarian who, I assume/hope, had some legal responsibility to transfer the ballot to election officials. Even that process gives me pause, but can you honestly say you don't see a difference between that and having an unattended ballot box outside, accessible during the middle of the night?
Jim at - horseshit, indeed.
"limiting voter access"
Same sloganeering as The left's pro-antifa-terror burn it all down to the tune of billions including black businesses "DEFUND THE POLICE"
The left are aces at horseshit slogans. Propaganda, BS and lies... their hivemind eat it up.
"The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law" - the BASTARDS!
WI Supreme Court uses Trump as an excuse to suppress voters.
Just how is your vote being suppressed?
Be specific or stfu.
The law, as interpreted, limits voting access to severely disabled or infirm absentee voters who physically cannot drop their ballot in the mail or deliver it to the clerk’s office. I’ve seen no data as to how many absentee voters in Wisconsin meet this criteria.
As with the “rape and incest” percentage of the number of abortions it seems like it would be a relatively small percentage of absentee voters.
As a matter of federal constitutional law, as of now the scope of the right to vote is only the right to vote in person on Election Day. There is no constitutional right to vote absentee.
Those who advocate for “voting rights” or “abortion rights” must convince their state legislatures or Congress to pass laws reflecting their preferences. This is what Democracy is.
Relying on Administrative Agencies or Judges to enact policy preferences is An Existential Threat To Democracy.
Inga highlights a statement that drop boxes have been in use in Wisconsin. I've been voting in Wisconsin since 1972. I've lived and voted in Green Bay, Madison, Sheboygan, Milwaukee, New London, Harrison, and Appleton. Yet, until the 2020 election I've never heard of such a thing. So, forgive me if I doubt that it's true. And I'd need a much more trustworthy source than the NYT to believe it's true.
'Who on earth would want 'everyone' to vote? Have you BEEN AMONGST THE MASSES LATELY?'
Great point.
I don't think anyone that doesn't pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
"State law is pretty, damn clear on the points in this suit, yet 3 justices voted against? Do the not understand law?"
Of course they understand it. They just ignored it hoping the fraud would continue. For a very good cause, of course.
"...in an effort to limit voter access..."
Hey, NY Times, you spelled "fraud" wrong!
“The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law.”
Imagine that: ruling on a literal interpretation of the text! How unimaginative! Surely they could have found something to the contrary, perhaps somewhere in the emanations from the penumbras of some part of Wisconsin’s Constitution?
And probably would have, had they but one more vote.
My two cents: all absentee ballots should be counted before in person ballots are counted. Any precinct or county that violates election laws should have all ballots in the county or precinct invalidated. In the case of PA since the election was in contravention of the PA constitution Congress should have and should be required to invalidate all the votes cast in the state.
Fraud corrodes a republican democracy. It needs to be dealt with immediately and very sharpley. The sooner election fraud is dealt with the sooner divisions in the country will settle. All all of the public can tolerate their party or candidate losing legitimately but election fraud renders the "winners" illegitimate.
Pence was a wuss. He should have tossed electors from states with obvious fraud and unwillingness to follow their own election laws. If election laws are going to be treated as nothing more than admonishments, why stop there?
Anything can happen with those unattended drop boxes, and in 2020, it did. Tightening things up to reduce the chance of shenanigans is a good thing, if you are an honest person or party. It's a terrible thing if you are a dishonest person or party. Pay attention to those who squeal like stuck pigs about this. They are telling you which of those things they are.
'Who on earth would want 'everyone' to vote? Have you BEEN AMONGST THE MASSES LATELY?'
i suspect, that after The Troubles get really bad; the people still standing, will decide that Only Veterans should be allowed to vote (even You Howard). It seems Really arbitrary but i think it would work... Unless(Until) The Bugs showed up
Does any other western country use drop boxes? If not, why not?
The NYT reports: "It is not possible to determine precisely how many Wisconsin votes were cast through drop boxes in 2020."
can we Assume? Far More, than 20,682?
WI Supreme Court uses Trump as an excuse to suppress voters.
Inga is a determined supporter of the theory that blacks are too stupid to mail in an absentee ballot after signing the envelop.
Joe Smith said...
'Who on earth would want 'everyone' to vote? Have you BEEN AMONGST THE MASSES LATELY?'
Great point.
I don't think anyone that doesn't pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
Joe Smith, I thank you for your comment. I truly don't go among the masses since Covid showed up, but I don't need to do so when intellectuals such as you are providing everything I need to know about our rights under the Constitution.
Brilliant actually. "Whatever I want is mine but what you get is what I deem appropriate."
“The law, as interpreted, limits voting access to severely disabled or infirm absentee voters who physically cannot drop their ballot in the mail or deliver it to the clerk’s office. I’ve seen no data as to how many absentee voters in Wisconsin meet this criteria”
————————————————————————————————-
“According to Jenny Neugart, of the Wisconsin Board For People With Developmental Disabilities, there are more than 80,000 people in the state with physical disabilities like cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy or spinal cord injuries that prevent them from physically putting their own absentee ballots in the mail. Neugart named a number of disabled residents who have contacted the organization to say they weren't able to vote without physical help.
"Previously, they were able to ask friends, family, neighbors or their caregivers, people they chose and trusted, to return a ballot on their behalf. That’s not ballot harvesting, that’s just being neighborly and helping our fellow man," Neugart said.
Neugart said the restrictions on aiding disabled voters violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Voting Rights Act.”
The court adopted a literal interpretation of state law,
IOW, they followed the law, rather than rewriting it one their own
And the 3 Democrats all wanted to rewrite the law to their own personal desires
Quayle said...
The network and software innovations that this country has fostered have changed the world more dramatically in a shorter period of time, than perhaps any other innovations in the world's history.
And yet we still seem unable to get everyone's vote.
1: Choosing not to vote is a choice, and a vote. It's a vote for "whatever the majority choses
So your statement is entirely wrong
2: There's a lot of people out there who pay no attention to politics, and therefore can not make an informed vote. Other than a desire to have the country run by the ignorant, why in the world would you WANt those people voting?
3: If your vote isn't worth taking the time to turn it in properly, why in the world should the rest of us value it more than you do?
4: It's hard to get in and vote in areas run by Democrats? Well then, how about the Democrats fix that problem?
Create more polling stations. Make them bigger, with more voting booths. hire competent people to process the voters.
If the Democrats are too incompetent to be able to make it easy for people in their areas to vote legally, that's a strong reason to keep Democrats out of government, and out of control, as much as is possible
Even vote-by-mail should be heavily limited. Why? Because in 2020 the mail carriers union endorsed specific candidates and parties.
rcocean said...
Of course, now that the Winsconsin SC has made their ruling, lets see if it gets enforced. Who is going to ensure Madison, Milwaulkee and D areas actually have attended drop boxes?
GOP voters can do that.
They can got around looking for D drop boxes, and if they're not attended, they can pour gasoline into said boxes.
That makes it a self correcting problem
I don't think anyone that doesn't pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
Other than a few multi-billionaires, who doesn't pay taxes? Even if you make too little to pay federal income tax, you are still paying social security and medicare taxes, federal gasoline and excise taxes. Not to mention a myriad of state and local taxes. Even if you rent, your landlord is incorporating property taxes into your rent.
As a matter of federal constitutional law, as of now the scope of the right to vote is only the right to vote in person on Election Day. There is no constitutional right to vote absentee.
And where exactly in the constitution are you finding this requirement that, "the right to vote is only the right to vote in person on Election Day"?
said Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. “Our freedom to vote is under attack.”
What happened to the Ben Wikler Report?
I looked forward to learning whether he kept his boy-next-door principles or sells them out to keep his big-shot Party job.
we have videos in multiple cities of multiple ballots being dropped into boxes multiple times by the same person(s)
This statement is simply a lie.
We also know that Mark Zuckerberg, among others, paid for these extra drop boxes, the ballot harvesters, and the entire operation. Mark, being the overseer of good judgement and justice apparently felt that Black and Hispanic people could not possibly make it out to vote, so he wanted to make sure someone voted for them. How magnanimously racist of him.
Also a flat out lie.
It only limits voting if the people don't want to vote. There is NO reason they can't stand in line to vote like we always have.
Not everyone can take a couple hours off work to vote.
If he can't deliver his vote unobserved at night and wearing rubber gloves, he's being suppressed.
So I'm supposed to believe that the people who voters in Wisconsin have elected to office are attempting to keep them from voting?
Freder,
If you haven't seen "2000 Mules", and I am dead certain you haven't, then shut the fuck up about "lying".
"Not everyone can take a couple hours off work to vote."
Voting should be moved to the weekend; two days.
Here in Oregon the ballots are mailed out so that we generally have two weeks to return them-- by mail, at the board of elections offices, or... in unattended ballot boxes placed in various spots (the one I typically use is outside the nearby branch library). One never reads about voting fraud of any sort in the newspapers, proof that it never happens, I reckon.
“According to Jenny Neugart, of the Wisconsin Board For People With Developmental Disabilities, there are more than 80,000 people in the state with physical disabilities like cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy or spinal cord injuries that prevent them from physically putting their own absentee ballots in the mail."
I'm sympathetic, and have little doubt that a reasonable bill could be crafted whereby a family member, caretaker, etc could deliver a single ballot. But you guys kind of screwed the pooch when you went ballot harvesting amongst the mentally infirm in nursing homes.
Freder Frederson said...Not everyone can take a couple hours off work to vote.
I agree with you (a first?). But absentee voting as currently animated is rife with suspicious activity which has nothing to do with legitimate voters: Activities like stopping vote counts in the middle of the night because the counts were going the"wrong way."
“Our freedom to vote is under attack.”
The only thing in Wisconsin under attack are children being exploited by Ben Wikler's best buddy child bondage pornography pedophile, Brett Blomme.
Field Marshall Freder: "This statement is simply a lie."
That statement is simply the truth.
Now back to the Hillary Russian-enabled Hoax Dossier for you!
"Here in Oregon the ballots are mailed out so that we generally have two weeks to return them-- by mail, at the board of elections offices, or... in unattended ballot boxes placed in various spots (the one I typically use is outside the nearby branch library). One never reads about voting fraud of any sort in the newspapers, proof that it never happens, I reckon."
Kinda doesn't matter in uncompetitive elections.
Marc in Eugene said...One never reads about voting fraud of any sort in the newspapers, proof that it never happens, I reckon
The press is in on the fraud. And they cover for it. Oregon is currently being run by masked ANTIFA rioters destroying Portland. I wouldn't hold it up as an example of a well run, functioning state.
Besides, it's a dark blue state. Not Purple like WI, PA, MI, AZ, and GA where the targeted fraud in metropolitan areas took place. Most of Wisconsin in pretty peaceful, functioning, and fun.
Unfortunately Madison, WI is our Portland, Oregon.
In-person voting, picture ID, and paper ballots. Absentee ballots if applied for in person with ID and reasonable cause (mail-in only). National 24-hour holiday every two years for Federal elections, so no one has to take off from work. Simple.
Elimination of mail-in-balloting will really inhibit the voting of dementia patients, long- and short-term coma patients, the recently and not recently passed, family pets, and imaginary friends of Inga.
Detective Freder is on a roll. Lots of things he thinks are lies. No evidence, of course.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
I don't think anyone that doesn't pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
Other than a few multi-billionaires, who doesn't pay taxes? Even if you make too little to pay federal income tax, you are still paying social security and medicare taxes, federal gasoline and excise taxes. Not to mention a myriad of state and local taxes. Even if you rent, your landlord is incorporating property taxes into your rent.
So you agree. Nice to know.
Freder Frederson said...
We also know that Mark Zuckerberg, among others, paid for these extra drop boxes, the ballot harvesters, and the entire operation. Mark, being the overseer of good judgement and justice apparently felt that Black and Hispanic people could not possibly make it out to vote, so he wanted to make sure someone voted for them. How magnanimously racist of him.
Also a flat out lie.
Russian Collusion hoaxer and Brian Sicknick blood libel fuckhead Freder wants you to know other people are lying in his opinion.
You flushed your integrity and honor down the toilet years ago.
Nobody cares what you assert anymore.
Freder Frederson said...
we have videos in multiple cities of multiple ballots being dropped into boxes multiple times by the same person(s)
This statement is simply a lie.
Too bad you had to resort to censorship.
At that point not only are you dishonest you are a fascist piece of shit.
" . . . in their efforts to limit voting access in urban areas . . ."
Children and minorities hardest hit.
Inga said...
“The law, as interpreted, limits voting access to severely disabled or infirm absentee voters who physically cannot drop their ballot in the mail or deliver it to the clerk’s office. I’ve seen no data as to how many absentee voters in Wisconsin meet this criteria”
"Can't drop it in the mail"? 0
“According to Jenny Neugart, of the Wisconsin Board For People With Developmental Disabilities, there are more than 80,000 people in the state with physical disabilities like cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy or spinal cord injuries that prevent them from physically putting their own absentee ballots in the mail.
Really? Then how do they vote?
Seriously. If you can't be wheeled to the front door so you can put your ballot in the mail box, exactly how do you mark your ballot?
IIRC, gov't officials are supposed to go out to any "disabled homes" and help those individuals vote. This was dropped by the Dems in 2020, and replaced with random workers being able to fill out ballots and vote "for" the disabled residents.
That's bullshit
"Previously, they were able to ask friends, family, neighbors or their caregivers, people they chose and trusted, to return a ballot on their behalf. That’s not ballot harvesting, that’s just being neighborly and helping our fellow man," Neugart said.
Nope, it's ballot harvesting, unless your'e the father, mother, spouse, sibling, or child of the voter, or a gov't official whose job it is to go out and help people vote.
I dont' care if you trust some other random person: We don't.
And we quite properly aren't going to let our votes be stolen by letting people collect ballots and vote "for" other people
"Not everyone can take a couple hours off work to vote."
So what? You don't need to, unless you work from 6 AM to 8 PM
And all you have to do is be in line before the polling place closes, in order to vote.
"It's too much effort"?
Well, if it's too much effort to go down and vote 1 day every other year, then it's obviously too much effort for you to actually be an informed voter
in which case, your not voting is no loss
In the UK, voting is on a Thursday (a working day) from 7am to 10pm, usually schools (closed for the day or village halls, local authority premises. No early voting. Some postal voting, but heavily restricted, because of fraud fears. Must be received by close of voting. No nonsense about post marked. Either it arrived before polls closed or it didn't.
We know the first results - hand counted - by around 11pm and most done by early hours of morning. Late results don't usually affect who's won, just the margin.
Why can't the US do something similar?
tolkein said...
In the UK, voting is on a Thursday (a working day) from 7am to 10pm, usually schools (closed for the day or village halls, local authority premises. No early voting. Some postal voting, but heavily restricted, because of fraud fears. Must be received by close of voting. No nonsense about post marked. Either it arrived before polls closed or it didn't.
We know the first results - hand counted - by around 11pm and most done by early hours of morning. Late results don't usually affect who's won, just the margin.
Why can't the US do something similar?
7/9/22, 4:02 AM
That's what we want...but the Democrats can't win unless they cheat, so that's why we are stuck in this position.
This is a no brainer. I think that absentee ballots should only be given out in the most extreme of cases, deployed military, diplomatic staff, and demonstrated need. I like the early voting, which should allow almost everyone to find a day they can vote in person. Drop boxes are an invitation to cheat. Period. No excuse. And SCOTUS should rule on that. I think what Washington State does with all mail in ballots is a farce, and should rightfully be laughed at as obvious enablement of cheating.
"One never reads about voting fraud of any sort in the newspapers, proof that it never happens, I reckon."
Why would you reckon that? Assuming that a subject most journalists aren't particularly interested in (for partisan reasons) isn't being reported because it doesn't happen sounds rather silly. Knowing human nature, the safe assumption is that if a system allows vectors for election fraud, those vectors will be used by those in power to stay in power. That's why one party states tend to stay one party states.
Dave Begley said...
"Wisconsin Supreme Court eliminates a major method that allows the Dems to cheat in elections. A major victory for election integrity."
Now do mail-in voting: MIT study
"The expanding opportunities to cast an absentee ballot or to vote by mail have not been uncontroversial. Perhaps the most important issue has been whether expanding VBM opportunities increases voter turnout, and concerns over electoral integrity. Facilitating VBM presumably reduces the costs of voting for most citizens, so one would expect it to increase turnout.
The scientific literature on this empirical question about turnout has been mixed. An early study of the effects of VBM on turnout in Oregon argued that its implementation had caused turnout to increase by 10%. However, subsequent research has had difficulty replicating these initial findings. More recent research, using a variety of quasi-experimental methods, suggest the causal effect of VBM in these states in presidential election years is around 2 percentage points , although it may be as high as 8 points in Colorado .
The safest conclusion to draw is that extending VBM options increases turnout modestly in midterm and presidential elections but may increase turnout more in primaries, local elections, and special elections. This modest increase likely comes in two ways: by bringing marginal voters into the electorate and by retaining voters who might otherwise drop out of the electorate.
Another question surrounding VBM is whether it increases voter fraud. There are two major features of VBM that raise these concerns. First, the ballot is cast outside the public eye, and thus the opportunities for coercion and voter impersonation are greater. Second, the transmission path for VBM ballots is not as secure as traditional in-person ballots. These concerns relate both to ballots being intercepted and ballots being requested without the voter’s permission.
As with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare. However, even many scholars who argue that fraud is generally rare agree that fraud with VBM voting seems to be more frequent than with in-person voting. Two of the best-known cases of voter fraud involving absentee voting occurred in 1997 in Georgia and Miami . More recently, a political campaign manager within North Carolina’s ninth Congressional district defrauded voters by collecting unfilled ballots and then filled in the rest of it to favor the campaign’s candidate, leading to a new election.
Finally, skeptics of convenience voting methods such as VBM argue that they encourage voters to cast their ballots before all the information from the campaign is revealed, thus putting early voters at a civic disadvantage. In response, it can be argued that as more voters cast early ballots by mail or in person, campaigns have less incentive to hold onto negative information about their opponents in the hope of gaining an advantage through an October surprise. Empirically, it's important to note that the earliest voters tend to be the strongest partisans, and thus are less likely to be swayed by last-minute information."
Which raises a Serious Question.. How in The HELL, are the democrats going to be able to win this fall?
Not to worry. The Biden admin has enlisted various government agencies and NGOs to aid in a "get out the vote" effort. Not only will Planned Parenthood abort your baby, but will also help you fill out a ballot in the correct way. Have a tax question? The IRS not only has answers, but can help with those pesky voter registration forms (assuming you are of the proper political persuasion).
Suprisingly the Senate Republicans are having a hard time getting info on how this all works, and if it is being done in an illegal manner. FOIA requests are going unanswered if you can believe that.
So, not to worry, the Dems have everything under control. They just can't be as obvious this time. Understandable that, but everything is under control.
Was being ironic and facetious; a rhetorical failure indeed, when the audience doesn't catch it.
I think he was being sarcastic, Chris.
"Was being ironic and facetious; a rhetorical failure indeed, when the audience doesn't catch it."
I'm sure most people caught it.
Marc in Eugene said...
Was being ironic and facetious; a rhetorical failure indeed, when the audience doesn't catch it.
The problem with that is you have to be MORE "over the top" than the people you're trying to mock.
And with the Left these days, that's a real challenge
I know it destroys the fun, but you rally are better off just breaking down and putting
/sarc
at the end
tolkein said...
In the UK, voting is on a Thursday (a working day) from 7am to 10pm, ...
Why can't the US do something similar?
Because the Democrats would take a massive electoral hit if fraudulent votes weren't allowed, so they and all their allies constantly standing the voting house door, saying "no honesty allowed here"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा