We need moles and cameras. Lots of em.
Okay, so if this is known, WHO will STOP it? This is what always gets me. It has to be stopped prior to the election.
If Linda Graham had expedited dispensed with the non-mandated “hearings”, Amy Coney Barrett would already be Justice Barrett by now, and blatant election lawlessness might ultimately have been stopped. Hopefully it is not too late.
Mrs. Kalamata
This is the scenario that prompted democrats to gain control of virtually all the election boards across the country. And again, the GOP did nothing.
According to the U.S. Constitution, voting is a right and a privilege. When group voting burdened by the classification is “suspect” or when the classification burdens what the Court determines to be a “fundamental right,” such as the right to vote, it violates the Equal Protection Under the Law Clause of the Constitution.
One man, one vote (or one person, one vote) expresses the principle that individuals should have equal representation in voting. In the United States, the “one person, one vote” principle was invoked in a series of cases by the Supreme Court in the 1960s.
If only one party is in attendance when the other party wants to be there and able to discern what the votes say, then that is conflict of interest as the ability to change, dispose of, or miscount votes is created and by changing the votes, the counting party has violated the court provisions of the 1960’s decision at the Supreme Court Level.
rwood
Actually the provisional votes are only opened for counting if the number involved could be expected to make a difference in the results. In our state, anyway.