Mark Thomsen (D) sounds to me as if he is alleging that the recount guidelines should be revised to comply with what he alleges is recent (post 2016 election, jill stein recount) changes to the legislation.
imho just reading Thomsen’s body language, he bobs and weaves... like a boxer. also he sounds like he has a new york city accent.
Meagan Wolfe (admin) says that the changes to the review process (absentee ballot log?) are in result to questions from county staff. makes it sound like it is a new codification to something that was previously absent.
what i don’t understand is why now and why not codification before the election? because codification now can be used or at least viewed as an attempt to change horses in the middle of a stream.
Knudson (R) wants certain ballots to be set aside due to the trump revote petition. he asks if we are revising, why not revise to set those aside at the state level as a matter of guidance instead at the county level. he wants the guidance if changed to reflect the petition.
glancey (D) wants that that rejection to remain at the county level.
so, the democrats seem like they are trying to make the changes they want to the 2020 manual at this late date, and leave out the changes they don’t want at this late date.
the republicans want to
ann jacobs thinks that thousands of unrequested ballots is an unfounded conspiracy theory and the committee should not have to provide for that (water that plant of baloney— that didn’t happen, we know that didn’t happen, etc.) iow discounting “conspiracy theories” ... they are arguing that since conspiracy theories (iow electoral fraud) was specifically looked for in the past that it should not specifically be required to be looked for in the present.
republicans don’t want any changes to the manual.
jacobs wants now to return to the timetable and see if there is agreement on that. then move to the manual and see if there can be agreement on that.
they are now considering a proposed order that apparently has just now been shared (should this not have been circulated before the meeting?).
this might be a place where the ussc could in theory step in and advise or direct the revote as to whether certain types of votes need to be segregated. we seem to be here because the ussc did not issue clear guidance about late ballots.
they are steamrolling the remainder of the order without one item #4.
knudsen objects on the basis that the vote should be on the totality of the order, not piecemeal. knudsen wants the dates in #4 removed and the paragraph refer to the statute. he also is concerned that he has not had a version to review without advance notice.
the democrats are saying the reason the order was delayed until now is because the attorney general was feeling ill (!?!?!?!— imho severely lame).
Very helpful. Thanks!