Jump to content

Should absentee ballots be illegal?


Should absentee ballots be illegal?  

77 members have voted

  1. 1. Should absentee ballots be illegal?

    • Yes
      17
    • No
      60


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


 

 

...hmmm...went to the cemetery on Sunday........low and behold, there was an "Absentee Ballot Drop Box".......with ballot cards to fill out AND pencils......so the "residents" are assuredly "absentee" so the inducement must have been for relatives to fill out their ballots as a "surrogate".....sounds legally copacetic to the Dem way to me......

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I hope this is true because Maine had some wacky things going on (I posted it earlier in this thread):
 


 

 

 

Making sure that only citizens that are eligible to vote........are the ones who vote......is fairness ...........not suppression.

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2020 at 4:36 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

...ask yourself this.....what mailing lists do they use?.....how do dead people STILL get SS checks?....how did DEAD PEOPLE get stimulus checks?.....my Dad died in 1982 and my Mom in 2017, yet I still get "pre-approved credit card applications" for BOTH.....WTF?.....oh wait...Trump effed the USPS system.......

Edited by OldTimeAFLGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I wish the Supreme Court would step in and say that all mailed ballots must be received by close of polls in that state, on election day, to count.  There must be something before them? (I do not know, I am asking.)

 


 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-plan-supreme-court-stop-election-vote-count.html

 

Election laws about receipt dates vs. postmark dates are typically left to the individual states to decide. And a number of Democratic and Republican states have had the "postmark rule."

So the litigation centers around ballots that don't have a postmark, the argument being that the constitution sets "election day," such that a ballot that cannot be shown to have been submitted by that Tuesday arguably is one that may be considered "submitted" late.

As to why Republicans are all of a sudden interested in trying to eliminate the postmark rule -- even when properly applied -- that's a matter of politics, not law.

 

Pennsylvania Republicans are planning on going to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue against a state Supreme Court ruling allowing the counting of ballots arriving soon after Election Day without a legible postmark. They argue that doing so unconstitutionally extends Election Day beyond Nov. 3 and takes power away from the Pennsylvania Legislature to choose presidential electors.

The first argument is not a particularly strong one: A decision to accept ballots soon after Election Day without a legible postmark does not extend Election Day as much as it implements how election officials determine if a mailed ballot was timely mailed. It recognizes the reality that many ballots have been arriving without postmarks and uses proximity to the election as a proxy for timely voting. Virginia and Nevada recently adopted similar rules, in light of pandemic-related mail delays. The Trump-allied Honest Elections Project is fighting a consent decree over a similar extension in Minnesota.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...