Well there you have it folks.
Absentee ballot. Not the same thing as a mail-in ballot.
5-3 ruling. Roberts voted with majority. Bodes well for the TX case.
The paper seems to think it is against it.
But then Roberts sided with the Liberals in the PA case. His reason:
In the Pennsylvania case, Roberts sided with the liberals. He wrote Monday that he voted the other way in the Wisconsin case because the lower court ruling came from a federal judge, not a state court, as it did in the Pennsylvania case.
Anyone understand this reasoning?
Which resulted in back dating ballots. It was as rampant as any other cheat method and how do you prove it...I don’t think you can other than witness testimony.
Absentee ballots didn’t have to be returned via the mail. LostThread and I handed them to the City Clerk to be sure they were counted in time. We were able to verify they were counted online.
Absentee ballots had to be applied for in advance. Our resident information was verified in advance, as well as our signatures. We received the ballots a month in advance of the election.
If this quote becomes the standard understanding with the justices, then I believe that the Texas case will likely succeed.
The constitution is not optional. Laws are not optional.
Will the SC first tell us whether they will accept the case before they make a ruling on the case?
I hold out hope that the SC will hold that election fraud is unconstitutional and laws and procedures that facilitate it are, also. The constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government not a banana republic.