Texas Republicans try to invalidate 127,000 ballots

[iRONic]

Where are the GOP defenders today? Haven't seen any in the few topics been looking at today

brandonbullshit shit-posted something in the KSP thread but I don't see anything he writes.

 

[fskimospy]

The short answer is that almost any government action can be challenged. Redress of grievance is what gives the private citizen some power over government. You choose to see it as a problem because you disagree with the grievance. Would you prefer that whichever party is in power does as they please without challenge?

What? Did you even read my post?

 

[BUTCH1]

Trump will make sure the SCOTUS handles it properly.

Even if the judge rules against discarding 120K votes tomorrow I doubt it gets to the SCOTUS but we'll see.

 

[Zorba]

The short answer is that almost any government action can be challenged. Redress of grievance is what gives the private citizen some power over government. You choose to see it as a problem because you disagree with the grievance. Would you prefer that whichever party is in power does as they please without challenge?

I think the issue is the no one trusts the radical judges republicans have been packing the courts with. They make, at least some, decisions based on ideology and party loyality, not the actual law.

In less choatic times, people would've just assumed lawsuits this baseless would be tosses and wouldn't worry. Also, you know, the USSC used to claim you couldn't make changes this close to an election, but here we are. Of course, that was just 5 months ago, when the change was trying to make it easier to vote.

 

[Greenman]

What? Did you even read my post?

Yes I did. Your opinion is that it was an attempt to invalidate votes, which could be correct. But the article didn't contain the actual complaint, nor the grounds for bringing it to court. Regardless of that, even stupid people get their day in court. If the suit is unfounded it will be tossed out. In this case, no court is going to nullify the votes of 127k people the day before the election.
Regardless of the reasons for the suit, they get to file it. They get to stand before a judge and explain how they're being damaged by the change in voting method. I don't see how anyone is being harmed by drive through voting, but Texas might have some bazar law from 1892 that forbids voting from a moving contrivance.
Have a little faith. If this is unfounded (which seems a certainty) it will get tossed out.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes I did. Your opinion is that it was an attempt to invalidate votes, which could be correct. But the article didn't contain the actual complaint, nor the grounds for bringing it to court.

It is inarguably an attempt to invalidate votes. That’s literally the point.

Regardless of that, even stupid people get their day in court. If the suit is unfounded it will be tossed out. In this case, no court is going to nullify the votes of 127k people the day before the election.
Regardless of the reasons for the suit, they get to file it. They get to stand before a judge and explain how they're being damaged by the change in voting method. I don't see how anyone is being harmed by drive through voting, but Texas might have some bazar law from 1892 that forbids voting from a moving contrivance.
Have a little faith. If this is unfounded (which seems a certainty) it will get tossed out.

Again, this indicates to me that you did not read my post.

The question is not if everyone gets their day in court - our system allows anyone to sue over basically anything they want. The argument being put forth in this thread is that it’s not a big deal because these irresponsible people will be thwarted by someone more responsible than they are. MY argument is that it doesn’t matter if someone thwarts them - we should always remember that the mere act of attempting to do this is deeply wrong, even if it is not successful.

Conservatism is immolating both itself and its commitment to American values to protect Trump and we need to make sure we never forget it.

 

[Jhhnn]

The short answer is that almost any government action can be challenged. Redress of grievance is what gives the private citizen some power over government. You choose to see it as a problem because you disagree with the grievance. Would you prefer that whichever party is in power does as they please without challenge?

Harris county used the same method in the March primary & announced they intended the same in the general election. The plaintiffs deliberately waited to file suit in an effort to disenfranchise votes already cast in a blue area. That's dishonest.

 

[Greenman]

Harris county used the same method in the March primary & announced they intended the same in the general election. The plaintiffs deliberately waited to file suit in an effort to disenfranchise votes already cast in a blue area. That's dishonest.

I agree, pending an actual review of why the action was taken.

 

[brycejones]

I agree, pending an actual review of why the action was taken.

Have you read the rationale being used in the lawsuit?

 

[Jhhnn]

Have you read the rationale being used in the lawsuit?

The actual complaint-

https://t.co/VODOZrCoUF?amp=1

 

[pete6032]

Have you read the rationale being used in the lawsuit?

The argument that the plaintiffs are making is that, under TX law, curbside voting is restricted to certain individuals who are sick or physically unable to vote and that by offering curbside voting to anyone who is afraid of getting COVID the county is basically saying anyone can curbside vote, which they believe violates state election law.

It appears that there is a lot of case law to support allowing these votes to be counted.

 

[brycejones]

The argument that the plaintiffs are making is that, under TX law, curbside voting is restricted to certain individuals who are sick or physically unable to vote and that by offering curbside voting to anyone who is afraid of getting COVID the county is basically saying anyone can curbside vote, which they believe violates state election law.

It appears that there is a lot of case law to support allowing these votes to be counted.

I was trying to see if greenman had done any research into it at all.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The argument that the plaintiffs are making is that, under TX law, curbside voting is restricted to certain individuals who are sick or physically unable to vote and that by offering curbside voting to anyone who is afraid of getting COVID the county is basically saying anyone can curbside vote, which they believe violates state election law.

It appears that there is a lot of case law to support allowing these votes to be counted.

Kind of reminds me when they tried to cancel early voting in some states for everyone but military making them a special class. That was also denied due to equal access. I don't see how this is any different.

 

[iRONic]

I was trying to see if greenman had done any research into it at all.

Ahahahahaha!!

 

[Paratus]

The argument that the plaintiffs are making is that, under TX law, curbside voting is restricted to certain individuals who are sick or physically unable to vote and that by offering curbside voting to anyone who is afraid of getting COVID the county is basically saying anyone can curbside vote, which they believe violates state election law.

It appears that there is a lot of case law to support allowing these votes to be counted.

For those who aren’t aware there are some differences between curbside and drive through voting:

Curbside
https://www.votetexas.gov/voters-with-special-needs/


Curbside Voting
If a voter is physically unable to enter the polling place, he or she may ask that an election officer bring a ballot to the entrance of the polling place or to a car at parked at the curbside. After the voter marks the ballot, they will give it to the election officer, who will put it in the ballot box. Or, at the voter’s request, a companion may hand the voter a ballot and deposit it for him or her.

Disabled folks also may bring a helper or have 1-2 election officials help them fill out a ballot. Translators or officials can be asked to read a ballot aloud (either inside or at the curb)


Drive through
https://harrisvotes.com/drivethruvoting


What to Expect:

1. Look for the DTV signs located at the entrance of all 10 sites
2. A greeter will offer optional hand sanitizer and face mask
3. Turn off your engine and all electronics such as cell phones
4. Display valid photo identification
5. You will be handed a portable voting machine through your window to vote
6. If there are multiple voters, each will take turns to vote
7. Be courteous by remaining silent while each voter votes
8. Receive your “I Voted” sticker, and we will see you next time!

Different from Curbside Voting:

	Curbside Voting	Drive Thru Voting
Eligibility	Voters with Disabilities only	Open to all voters
Locations	All polling sites	Only 10 polling sites

Drive in is basically the normal voting process just from your car.

So they are similar but not the same. The lawsuit is trying to say there is no material difference.

 

[Jhhnn]

The argument that the plaintiffs are making is that, under TX law, curbside voting is restricted to certain individuals who are sick or physically unable to vote and that by offering curbside voting to anyone who is afraid of getting COVID the county is basically saying anyone can curbside vote, which they believe violates state election law.

It appears that there is a lot of case law to support allowing these votes to be counted.

Harris county has the right to designate polling places so they just made them big enough for cars to fit inside so it's no longer curbside voting. At least the Texas Supreme Court seems to think so.

 

[hal2kilo]

The short answer is that almost any government action can be challenged. Redress of grievance is what gives the private citizen some power over government. You choose to see it as a problem because you disagree with the grievance. Would you prefer that whichever party is in power does as they please without challenge?

The purpose of taking away 127000 votes gives power to who?

 

[senseamp]

"States' Rights" GOP is now trying to get their rigged federal courts to do the dirty work that Texas Supreme Court wouldn't do.

Federal court calls emergency hearing on GOP effort to throw out drive-in votes in Texas

A federal court in Houston on Monday is set to hear a last-minute request by Texas Republicans to throw out more than 100,000 ballots in Democratic-leaning Harris County.Four Republican plaintiffs,…

thehill.com

A federal court in Houston on Monday is set to hear a last-minute request by Texas Republicans to throw out more than 100,000 ballots in Democratic-leaning Harris County.

Four Republican plaintiffs, three of them Texas candidates, are asking District Judge Andrew Hanen to toss all drive-through ballots in the county, despite the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court rejecting their argument at the state level Sunday, Politico reported.

You didn't really think Republican vermin would just go away, now did you?

 

[interchange]

It should also be dismissed. There was a similar lawsuit tossed out a month ago in Texas court. If they wanted to challenge in Federal court, they could have brought a case in time for there to be a remedy to the disenfranchised voters. They will have a huge burden to overcome to prove the votes are fraudulent. Even if their favorable judge gives them a freebie, it won't hold up. And I'm not sure what they're arguing that would give federal court jurisdiction in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

It should also be dismissed. There was a similar lawsuit tossed out a month ago in Texas court. If they wanted to challenge in Federal court, they could have brought a case in time for there to be a remedy to the disenfranchised voters. They will have a huge burden to overcome to prove the votes are fraudulent. Even if their favorable judge gives them a freebie, it won't hold up. And I'm not sure what they're arguing that would give federal court jurisdiction in the first place.

Their argument isn’t that they are fraudulent, it’s that they were illegally cast and should be invalidated. They deliberately waited to bring this lawsuit for reasons that I assume are obvious.

These people are absolute scum. They are not interested in the voting laws of Texas, they are attempting to destroy the votes of their countrymen, cast in good faith.

 

[interchange]

Their argument isn’t that they are fraudulent, it’s that they were illegally cast and should be invalidated. They deliberately waited to bring this lawsuit for reasons that I assume are obvious.

These people are absolute scum. They are not interested in the voting laws of Texas, they are attempting to destroy the votes of their countrymen, cast in good faith.

They need to have adequate standing to challenge the law even if it is illegal. By waiting so long, they've denied the opportunity for those 127,000 voters to cast a legal ballot if judged in their favor, so I don't see this going anywhere.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Federal hearing looks promising. Judge openly expressing skepticism of this ever succeeding.

Decision about ten minutes away.

Texas Drive-Through Votes Survive GOP Lawsuit to Toss Them

A federal judge rejected an effort to invalidate 127,000 votes in the most populous county in Texas, a ruling that Republican activists said they would immediately appeal.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[brycejones]

brandonbullshit shit-posted something in the KSP thread but I don't see anything he writes.

He was just beating the shit out of another poor straw person.

 

[sandorski]

No Standing

 

[K1052]

Glad it got tossed but ew

https://twitter.com/x/status/1323361315507810305