SCOTUS already rigging the election for the GOP

[theeedude]

Supreme Court restores witness signature rule for absentee ballots in South Carolina

The state's Republican officials asked the high court to intervene after two lower courts ruled the requirement presented a COVID-19 risk.

www.usatoday.com

The Supreme Court weighed in again Monday night on procedures for conducting mail-in voting this fall, reinstating South Carolina's requirement that absentee ballots include witness signatures.

The whole point of voting by mail during a pandemic is to avoid close contact with other people, but GOP is requiring that people get a witness to sign their absentee ballots, and their rigged SCOTUS is green-lighting this.
The whole argument that Federal courts should not interfere in state legislature shenenigans "this close to an election" basically just means that legislatures are told to wait until close to an election to rig it for their party and then the courts won't do anything.

PACK THAT COURT!

 

[uclaLabrat]

The general ignorance and derision that the supreme court has for science and mathematics is really unacceptable. I have a serious axe to grind after Roberts' comments on gerrymandering where he referred to packing and cracking and the mathematical algorithm to elucidate egregious instances of such as "sociological gobbledygook", cause math is hard.

 

[Brainonska511]

I can't quite place my finger on why the SCOTUS "precedent" of not altering election rules close to the election always falls unidirectionally on the side of making it more difficult to vote...

People already started voting under the no witness required rule and now they are backtracking

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Let the koolaid chugging.... BEGIN!

You can pick up your tinfoil hat and the "What conspiracy theory I should complain about today" packets at the front.

 

[Jhhnn]

Supreme Court restores witness signature rule for absentee ballots in South Carolina

The state's Republican officials asked the high court to intervene after two lower courts ruled the requirement presented a COVID-19 risk.

www.usatoday.com

The whole point of voting by mail during a pandemic is to avoid close contact with other people, but GOP is requiring that people get a witness to sign their absentee ballots, and their rigged SCOTUS is green-lighting this.
The whole argument that Federal courts should not interfere in state legislature shenenigans "this close to an election" basically just means that legislatures are told to wait until close to an election to rig it for their party and then the courts won't do anything.

PACK THAT COURT!

Like it or not, elections are a states rights issue. Like it or not, S Carolina has long standing rules about this & the lower court overstepped their bounds when they ruled against state election officials to relax them. It's just part of the ignorant way they've always done it.

 

[Zorba]

I can't quite place my finger on why the SCOTUS "precedent" of not altering election rules close to the election always falls unidirectionally on the side of making it more difficult to vote...

People already started voting under the no witness required rule and now they are backtracking

If it is something the republicans do like "It's too close to the election to change," if it is something the democrats like "voter fraud is important and states rights!"

 

[nickqt]

If requiring a witness removes random people working as election officials from playing the role of "handwriting expert", then that's probably a good thing.

People's signatures vary, and having some random election official also playing "handwriting expert" is a terrible fucking idea.

All that said, vote early, in person.

 

[skyking]

It's a big nothingburger this time around. Let them get a little "victory' in South Carolina, it is in the bag there for Lindsey Graham and Trump. It was never in play, really.
Come on this is South Carolina we are talking about !

 

[woolfe9998]

Dems in swing states should seriously consider voting in person this year. Given that zero outbreaks have been tied to voting this year, the risks of doing so appear to be overstated.

Two very good reasons to avoid vote by mail in a swing state:

1. Your ballot may well be rejected for technical reasons.

2. There will be way too many mailed ballots to be counted on election day, and Trump will definitely file suit to prevent the counting of votes after that day. The last thing we need is to have the election day count show Trump ahead and have him try to block further vote counting.

 

[cytg111]

Let the koolaid chugging.... BEGIN!

You can pick up your tinfoil hat and the "What conspiracy theory I should complain about today" packets at the front.

So beta.
Year of the dog is over.

 

[HomerJS]

Supreme Court restores witness signature rule for absentee ballots in South Carolina

The state's Republican officials asked the high court to intervene after two lower courts ruled the requirement presented a COVID-19 risk.

www.usatoday.com

The whole point of voting by mail during a pandemic is to avoid close contact with other people, but GOP is requiring that people get a witness to sign their absentee ballots, and their rigged SCOTUS is green-lighting this.
The whole argument that Federal courts should not interfere in state legislature shenenigans "this close to an election" basically just means that legislatures are told to wait until close to an election to rig it for their party and then the courts won't do anything.

PACK THAT COURT!

Besides SCOTUS in Bush v Gore interfered with the Florida recount. Goes directly opposite what they ruled here. What happened to precedent?

 

[Jhhnn]

Dems in swing states should seriously consider voting in person this year. Given that zero outbreaks have been tied to voting this year, the risks of doing so appear to be overstated.

Two very good reasons to avoid vote by mail in a swing state:

1. Your ballot may well be rejected for technical reasons.

2. There will be way too many mailed ballots to be counted on election day, and Trump will definitely file suit to prevent the counting of votes after that day. The last thing we need is to have the election day count show Trump ahead and have him try to block further vote counting.

Ugh. The argument isn't that absentee ballots shouldn't be counted after election day. They always are. The argument is that ballots received after election day shouldn't be counted in states that changed the rules to allow it. The Trumpian argument that we won't know the results immediately is bullshit because we don't need that & never have.

 

[dank69]

...

2. There will be way too many mailed ballots to be counted on election day, and Trump will definitely file suit to prevent the counting of votes after that day. The last thing we need is to have the election day count show Trump ahead and have him try to block further vote counting.

I don't understand this statement. If 90,000 people vote by mail and 10,000 people vote in person on election day, you still have 100,000 votes to count the same as if all 100,000 voted in person...

 

[theeedude]

Dems in swing states should seriously consider voting in person this year. Given that zero outbreaks have been tied to voting this year, the risks of doing so appear to be overstated.

Two very good reasons to avoid vote by mail in a swing state:

1. Your ballot may well be rejected for technical reasons.

2. There will be way too many mailed ballots to be counted on election day, and Trump will definitely file suit to prevent the counting of votes after that day. The last thing we need is to have the election day count show Trump ahead and have him try to block further vote counting.

Except Republicans are also shutting down voting sites, so people will have to wait in hours long lines to vote in person. And Trump is encouraging his goons to go "monitor" the few voting sites that remain to intimidate and slow the voting even further.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't understand this statement. If 90,000 people vote by mail and 10,000 people vote in person on election day, you still have 100,000 votes to count the same as if all 100,000 voted in person...

Evidently it takes longer to count the mail-in ballots.

 

[woolfe9998]

Except Republicans are also shutting down voting sites, so people will have to wait in hours long lines to vote in person. And Trump is encouraging his goons to go "monitor" the few voting sites that remain to intimidate and slow the voting even further.

If you have to wait hours, then use the mail. If you don't, then go in person. Most people actually don't have to wait hours.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ugh. The argument isn't that absentee ballots shouldn't be counted after election day. They always are. The argument is that ballots received after election day shouldn't be counted in states that changed the rules to allow it. The Trumpian argument that we won't know the results immediately is bullshit because we don't need that & never have.

It doesn't matter if it's a bullshit argument. If Trump is showing victory on election day, he's going to take court action to prevent further vote counting. He's already as good as said it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I don't understand this statement. If 90,000 people vote by mail and 10,000 people vote in person on election day, you still have 100,000 votes to count the same as if all 100,000 voted in person...

The procedures for counting mail in is different due to the different levels of verification. Also, voting in person might be handled electronically under normal circumstances where the mail in must be physically evaluated and then counted. It's going to take more time.

 

[thilanliyan]

1. Your ballot may well be rejected for technical reasons.

Would voting in person prevent that? They don't check the vote then and there for technical faults I would imagine.

 

[woolfe9998]

Would voting in person prevent that? They don't check the vote then and there for technical faults I would imagine.

I assume it would, otherwise the media would be stupid to write 20 articles about mail in ballots being rejected and not once mention that it's exactly the same with in person ballots.

 

[woolfe9998]

I suggest watching John Oliver's explanation of the problem.

 

[Aikouka]

Like it or not, elections are a states rights issue. Like it or not, S Carolina has long standing rules about this & the lower court overstepped their bounds when they ruled against state election officials to relax them. It's just part of the ignorant way they've always done it.

As I first read this thread, I agreed with you, but I'm kind of leaning away after more thought. Given the current circumstances surrounding social distancing and mask mandates, could it be argued that the witness signature presents an undue burden upon someone wishing to vote by mail? At least to my understanding, while states are in charge of elections residing within their territory (including Federal elections), they cannot violate Federal law or the Constitution with their voting rules.

 

[thilanliyan]

I assume it would, otherwise the media would be stupid to write 20 articles about mail in ballots being rejected and not once mention that it's exactly the same with in person ballots.

I would think that a technical fault on an in-person ballot would also only be caught when they are tallying them up. Meaning the voter would get no feedback that there is a fault...their vote just wouldn't be counted when tallying.