Posted on 10/19/2004 12:05:05 PM PDT by Chicos_Bail_Bonds
Another Clinton appointee, another victory for vote fraud.
U.S. District Judge David Lawson today ignored the Department of Justice's reasoning and decreed that Michigan must count provisional ballots even when cast in the wrong precinct(s). The ruling against fair elections is a major victory for the Democrat party and the Democrat group NAACP, which had sued for the fraud-friendly fiat.
Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, a Republican, had noted that only votes cast in the correct precinct were legal and should count.
In a a friend-of-the-court brief, attorneys for the Department of Justice wrote: "American elections have long been precinct-based. A well-understood premise of such a system is that a voter must appear at the correct polling place - the one to which the voter was assigned, and on whose rolls the voter appears - or else the voter will not be able to vote."
Lawson, like fellow fraud-fostering U.S. District Judge James Carr in Ohio, is a Clinton appointee. The Democrat-run Florida Supreme Court, however, ruled yesterday against such abuses of provisional ballots. A judge in Colorado yesterday issued a mixed ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
:o)
LANSING, Mich. A federal judge has ruled that Michigan must count provisional ballots cast by voters who show up at the wrong polling precincts but are in the right city, township or village.
U-S District Judge David Lawson issued an injunction today barring Republican Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land from ordering election officials to NOT count provisional ballots unless voters appear in the right precinct.
Provisional, or backup, ballots are used when voters say they are properly registered but their names do NOT appear on the voter registration rolls.
Note to Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land:
Just say no.
(A constitutional crisis is not the problem, it's the solution.)
Notice how these provisional ballot fights are mostly in the bigger states (more electoral votes) like OH, MI, PA, MY, FL etc....If the Dems don't like a law, they just get one of their puppet judges to overturn it. Amazing.
And when I get stopped on the highway there, I'll just get a provisional driver's license from the cop, and when I try to get back into this country from abroad, I'll use my provisional passport that they'll give me at Immigration.
What a great country!
Why is it that these cases are always assigned to judges who are clinton appointees? A bit odd, isn't it, since more than half the district judges were appointed by Reagan or the Bushes.
I still have to read the entire article, but this is BS.....
I hope the state plans on appealing the decision.
Calling Mike Cox!
Why have any rules at all? *sigh*
If that's the case, then I pick Ohio, and New Jersey, and New York, and Florida, and California, and...
Clearly, one of the big problems with allowing "other precinct" ballots is that while each precinct has a list of who's registered (and who has already voted) in *their* precinct, they have no quick way of verifying whether an "out of precinct" voter is even registered, or has already voted in two dozen other precincts on the same day...
I realize that what's really behind this is a free pass on Democrat voter fraud, but I still don't understand the legal basis, from a judge's standpoint, of how you can cast a ballot, provisional or otherwise, where a certain percentage of the items on that ballot do not even legally pertain to you!
I know this is off topic, but I love your FReep Name. Do many people know where that's from? Did you happen to go to U of I
If that's the case, then I pick Ohio, and New Jersey, and New York, and Florida, and California, and... "
Lord Save Us. Banana Republic here we come and fast...
CALLING SCOTUS: Lower court slap down needed.
OK, someone tell me how a Federal court has jusridiction over what is clearly a state matter. The state officials should just say, "Thank you for your opinion," and go on with obeying the laws as they're written.
This ruling will not stand, but it SURE looks like the Judiciary, and most probably SCOTUS is going to be forced to decide the 2004 Presidential election . . . .
I agree. That's what is so CRAZY about this. Apparently the judges have no problem letting these people vote for President in any precinct, but that disenfranchises those candidates that are running for local elections because they aren't no the ballot. Furthermore, it could benefit other local politicians in those other precincts.
It's just assinine what is happening.
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.