Posted on 11/02/2020 12:42:50 PM PST by Coronal
HOUSTON — Harris County's drive-thru votes will not be thrown out, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled on Monday morning.
It was a waiting game over the weekend for the fate of nearly 127,000 votes cast at drive-thru polling locations in the Houston area during early voting. A federal hearing was scheduled for Monday morning to rule on those votes with less than 24 hours until the polls open for Election Day. A conference call was set up for reporters to be able to listen in to what's being discussed at the federal courthouse, but many reported technical issues as the hearing got underway.
During the hearing, outside the courthouse, there was public reaction to the case. Dozens of people arrived with signs, with some in the park adjacent to the courthouse, demanding that the votes be counted.
Harris County's drive-thru votes were challenged by a Republican-led effort. Their argument is that the method of voting violates the United States Constitution. But the ACLU stepped in, saying it was an attempt at voter suppression.
(Excerpt) Read more at khou.com ...
How so, what was the argument.
#43 appointte
They had to vote by horse not a car?
The article doesn’t even explain the GOP case, the media is worthless
Houston ping
I would have assumed that forcing them to own cars was white privilege or something...
The judge ruled that people are free to vote from their own Accord.
Honestly this lawsuit didn’t make a lot of sense to me. If Texas law allows people to walk up to a ballot dropoff box and drop in their ballot, what would be the problem with people driving up to the same box to drop in their ballot?
LOL. It is their Civic duty.
Well, then where in the constitution does it demand Lord, to buy me a Mercedes Benz?
My guess is that somehow the voting wasn’t private, meaning people would be able to see who they voted for.
They certainly didn’t lack for Cometment.
That's not what happened. It was in-car early voting that was being contested. But like others on this thread, it isn't clear to me what the controversy is.
Basically, the argument is that drive-through voting does not comply with the methods prescribed by the Texas Legislature in the Texas Elections Code, and thus violates the Elections and Electors Clauses of Articles I and II. They also argue that it violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it was not adopted in any other Texas counties.
The plaintiffs made the same argument in the Texas Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court denied their petition.
The federal judge dismissed the case for lack of standing and because it was untimely. He also did not seem to agree on the merits, at least with regard to early voting. However, he commented that, had the plaintiffs had standing, he might grant an order preventing drive-through voting on election day, because the statute governing election day is different.
I’m afraid this is a Prelude to more litigation.
How did it work? Did they drive up to a box or hand the ballot to a poll worker? If it was just dropped in a box then it seems no worse than mailing or other drop-off methods. Once poll workers are in the chain of custody, things get out of hand (and into a dumpster), especially in heavily dem areas.
Basically, the Texas Elections Code requires that in-person voting occur at a “voting station” in a “polling place,” and the plaintiffs argue that the voter’s car does not qualify as either.
While I can think of some practical reasons why in-car voting presents a risk to the integrity of the election, the plaintiffs don’t make those arguments. They rely purely on the language of the statute.
While I think the plaintiffs have a technical legal point, I think they’re making a mistake from a strategic and political standpoint. This is making Harris County republicans look bad, and there’s a good chance that the votes at issue favor Republicans anyway.
Well played! LOL
[The federal judge dismissed the case for lack of standing and because it was untimely. He also did not seem to agree on the merits, at least with regard to early voting. However, he commented that, had the plaintiffs had standing, he might grant an order preventing drive-through voting on election day, because the statute governing election day is different.]
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.