Posted on 10/06/2020 8:33:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Supreme Court will allow a South Carolina ballot integrity measure to be included in the November 3 election. That law, which requires a mail-in ballot to be signed by the voter and a witness is a common practice throughout the United States. It’s just another layer of ballot security and no one thought about challenging it — until it could be challenged.
Democrats say the requirement is “dangerous” because there’s a pandemic going on and that it would discourage people from voting.
State Republican Party Chairman Drew McKissick cheered the decision. “Despite the Democrats’ efforts to hijack a pandemic and use it to meddle with our election laws, they’ve lost,” he said in a statement. “We’re pleased the Supreme Court reinstated the witness signature requirement and recognized its importance in helping to prevent election fraud.”
State Democratic Party Chairman Trav Robertson expressed disappointment with the decision. “Our hope is that no one gets COVID-19 trying to find a witness. We are disappointed but elections have consequences,” he said in a statement.
What? Are people going to go door to door to find someone to sign their ballot? What’s the Democrat talking about? Sheesh.
South Carolina has had a witness requirement for absentee voters since 1953. Under the current law, voters returning mail-in ballots swear an oath printed on the return envelope that confirms they are eligible to vote and that the ballot inside is theirs, among other things. The oath has to be witnessed by one other person who has to sign below the voter’s signature and write their address.
The requirement had been stricken before the primary in July. SCOTUS ruled that any ballots received without signatures within two days of the order are valid.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
What was the final Supreme Court vote? Who was for, who was against?
It’s frustrating to read the news without them mentioning how the decision went. My guess is 5-4 AT BEST.
All I am reading from the mainstream press are these:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said reinstating the restriction is appropriate because it is supported by state election officials and could help avoid disruption that may accompany the lifting of the witness requirement just weeks away from the vote.
“For many years, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The court’s more conservative members - Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - would have gone further by requiring those who have already cast absentee ballots without a witness signature to vote again.
There were no noted dissents from the order.
Sorry, I should have said the vote would be 5-3 at best ( RBG is not there to do her damage anymore ).
I was right...
See here:
By a 5-3 vote, however, the court directed South Carolina to accept any absentee ballots returned through Wednesday without a witness signature. More than 150,000 absentee ballots already have been mailed to voters, according to court papers; some 7,891 ballots in South Carolina had been returned as of Oct. 1, according to data collected by the Associated Press.
It’s not good news, it’s not bad news.
It’s bad news followed by a proper ruling.
But repairing the damage done is not permitted.
Three other justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — would have required ballots that have already been returned to have a witness signature to count.
That’s 3 Justices who would have caused mail-in ballots without signature to be returned.
Where was Kavanaugh?
Kavanaugh was the only Justice to provide commentary for the decision. Why? Was Kavanaugh making excuses?
It’s appalling to allow so many unverified ballots pour into election offices. The lack of verification started in July and ends in early October. SCOTUS is allowing these unverified ballots to be counted.
RE: Kavanaugh was the only Justice to provide commentary for the decision. Why? Was Kavanaugh making excuses?
All I am reading from the mainstream press are these:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said reinstating the restriction is appropriate because it is supported by state election officials and could help avoid disruption that may accompany the lifting of the witness requirement just weeks away from the vote.
“For many years, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Yes, those are good comments from Kavanaugh but what’s not reported is that Kavanaugh apparently ALSO ruled that mail-in ballots already received since July within two days of this SCOTUS ruling, that those ballots will be considered as valid.
So there are two stories here. The good news story is reported here. The bad news story is kept in the background.
It can be caricatured as SCOTUS telling SC Dems “No No No Johnny, no more cheating from now on but that cheating you did before? We’ll let it go this time but don’t do it again.”
The core question is, are the unverified ballots already delivered, are they of enough numbers to tip the election? What about Lindsay Graham? As much as conservatives hold their noses for this fella, will the unverified mail-in ballots already received be enough to take him out of the Senate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.