Posted on 12/16/2020 10:01:40 AM PST by RightGeek
Under the Litigation Settlement, the following language added to the pressures and complexity of processing defective absentee ballots, making it less likely that they would be identified or, if identified, processed for rejection:
County registrars and absentee ballot clerks are required, upon receipt of each mail-in absentee ballot, to compare the signature or make of the elector on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope with the signatures or marks in eNet and on the application for the mail in absentee ballot. If the signature does not appear to be valid, registrars and clerks are required to follow the procedure set forth in O.C.G.A. § 21- 2-386(a)(l )(C). When reviewing an elector’s signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope, the registrar or clerk must compare the signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope to each signature contained in such elector’s voter registration record in eNet and the elector’s signature on the application for the mail-in absentee ballot.
If the registrar or absentee ballot clerk determines that the voter’s signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope does not match any of the voter’s signatures on file in eNet or on the absentee ballot application, the registrar or absentee ballot clerk must seek review from two other registrars, deputy registrars, or absentee ballot clerks. A mail-in absentee ballot shall not be rejectedunlessamajorityoftheregistrars,deputy registrars,or absentee ballot clerks reviewing the signature agree that the signature does not match any of the voter’s signatures on file in eNet or on the absentee ballotapplication.
If a determination is made that the elector’s signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope does not match and of the voter’s signatures on file in eNet or on the absentee ballot application, the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall write the names of the three elections officials who conducted the signature review across the face of the absentee ballot envelope, which shall be in addition to writing “Rejected” and the reason for the rejection as required under 0.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(l )(C ).
Imagine trying to do this process with millions of votes. What ended up happening is most just went through and our rejection rate went to from 5-6% normally to .3%
I have to move on, but just so you know, many things you suggest already have witnesses from the 11/3 election that are part of lawsuits that are getting dismissed.
Not on merit, on standing,
Not fully developed... but useful to consider...
The facilities contracts that allow the use in counting. Get them, and study them for security issues and compliance with law, and openings not filled.
Poll watchers have been threatened... so hire separate security to ensure they’re protected and not obstructed in conducting official business. What does the law require (or enable) in relation to facilities control re security, and in relation to personal security of officials (including poll watchers) being obstructed from performance of duty ?
“Security” that is obstructing... needs to be... defeated.
Plan how to do that with elements that work, one way of the other. With time now, have the ability to declare precincts that fail in tests of openness are invalid in count. Legislative action, or court action... or both... ?
The effort keeping the watchers out is not legitimate... so it needs to challenged and defeated... or otherwise countered with “equal and opposite” options in alternatives.
Should have judges lined up ready to issue immediate injunctions to stop the process in any place where observers are kept out.
Other court orders... arranged w law enforcement... sufficient to the task... ? What does that mean ?
Short of a legislative solution to rogue courts or corrupt judges denying a proper hearing ?
The legislature controls that... times, places, manner... includes the requisite oversight... so structuring the issue of standing is made a part of the requirement by the malfeasance of the courts ?
What should the legislature do to safeguard their power to determine the “manner” from rogue executives and rogue judges... What CAN they do... since the legislature’s power comes direct from the Constitution ?
Well, they CAN direct that the security for polling places... will NOT be local... but from outside the region ?
They can direct that only non-locals, or state police or feds provide the security. They can direct that only PRIVATE security perform that task... only that funded by the legislature for that purpose ?
It obviates “standing”... if you defeat the obstacle...
Your post refers to the process of verifying absentee ballots. My post refers to the process of verifying the eligibility to vote in-person. Each in-person voter is subject to a signature match between the form filled out at the poll and the signature on the photo ID, except for first-time voters (for some odd reason).
The consent decree was about absentee ballots. It is here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.283580/gov.uscourts.gand.283580.1.1.pdf
Wow Raffenshiter just violated the Equal Protection Clause. Cobb County votes are now ‘elevated’ above all other Georgia county votes.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger ordered an absentee ballot signature verification audit for Cobb County late Monday afternoon.
“The consent decree was about absentee ballots.”
Yes, but the gist of the decree was that absentee voters were being treated differently than in-person voters with regard to the signature verification process. For in-person voters, my understanding is only one other person (not two) is required to verify a signature with eNet or the on-site voter form that is filled out. Is that incorrect?
Not knowing the difference is how idjits are made. You may not see unicorns but you are certainly drinking the kool aid. If the plaintiff has no standing, you find one that does. Noooo, you would rather just sit back and believe the LSM and take the decision as final. Like I said how idjits are made. Right now there probably isn’t time to do so but in another case it is how the envirowhackos did this. Learn. Adapt. Keep moving forward. You would rather sit on your derriere and claim you are the victim. May not be unicorns but I am not drinking the kool aid either. BEcause I know unicorns don’t fart rainbows.
I wan't the one here that kept telling us not to worry there is a plan, Durham will nail them good and Barr is drawing up all these cases. We have heard every excuse in the book and none of them are working anymore.
Some of us tried to warn about all your heroes and everyone of them failed.
You think the Supremes turned down that Texas case rightly, so you saying that Thomas and Alito are novices that just don't understand the law. Ok got it.
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.