Posted on 11/19/2022 9:41:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Give the warlock, I mean Warnock, a new jar of wax and shine up and polish his round head for the victory party.
McConnell: May I suggest Turtle Wax?
That’s outright legislating from the bench
on what the F### grounds does a judge get to make up law like this? Is it unconstitutional? If not WTF!!!
The law says this cannot be done. The judge ruled it can be done because the Democrats want it to, and who cares about the law, which the judge is legally bound to uphold?
Extraordinary.
That, most likely, takes care of that election result...
Amateurs always lose to professionals...
The American communists are professionals who are unequaled at corrupt electioneering...
“That’s outright legislating from the bench”
It certainly appears to be.
Is ballot harvesting legal in Georgia? If it is we have learned our lesson. The Republicans need to out do the dems. They have given us the playbook.
If the Democrats can get away with that, then why not?
How about appealing the judge's decision. There is time for that. Don't give up and fight only too late.
Let the heavens rain down upon the earth.
Somehow the rats always find a Judge that gives them what they want. Always.
You are correct and Rush said as much before he died.
Rush was Right.
Wow, the law is terribly written. The legislators must think they sound smart if they never start a new sentence, but in doing it all in one sentence, they make it impossible to tell what refers to what.
This paragraph establishes that when a runoff is intended, a runoff is specified as a separate thing:
“There shall be a period of advance voting that shall commence:
1489 (A) On the fourth Monday immediately prior to each primary or election; and
[a]s soon as possible prior to a runoff from any other general primary or election
in which there are only state or county candidates on the ballot in the runoff but no later
than the second Monday immediately prior to such runoff
and shall end on the Friday immediately prior to each primary, election, or runoff.”
The next paragraph describes when to have Saturday voting:
“Voting shall be conducted beginning at 9:00 A.M. ending at 5:00 P.M. on weekdays,
other than observed state holidays, during such period and shall be
conducted on the second and third Saturdays during the hours of
9:00 A.M. through 5:00 P.M. ...
It then states when, PRIOR TO A PRIMARY OR AN ELECTION, the clerk allows a vote on a Sunday. This time, “runoff” is omitted:
“... and, if the registrar or absentee ballot clerk so chooses, the
second Sunday, the third Sunday, or both the second and third Sundays prior to a primary
or election during determined by the registrar or absentee ballot clerk,
but no longer than 7:00 A.M. through 7:00 P.M.;...”
The next part, which bans elections on Saturdays after holidays refers to “such a Saturday.” Since the previous portion, which refers only to a primary or (general) election cited made no mention of a Saturday, this must refer to the first part of the absurdly compound sentence, which applies also to runoff elections.
“... provided, however, that if such second Saturday is a public and legal holiday pursuant to Code Section 1-4-1, if
such second Saturday follows a public and legal holiday occurring on the Thursday or
Friday immediately preceding such second Saturday, or if such second Saturday
immediately precedes a public and legal holiday occurring on the following Sunday or
Monday, ...”
Sounds like balloting can’t take place on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. But then the NEXT part allows for the voting to be moved to the following (third) Saturday, referencing specifically primary and (general) elections but not run-off elections:
“...such advance voting shall not be held on such second Saturday but shall be held
on the third Saturday prior to such primary or election beginning at 9:00 A.M. and ending
at 5:00 P.M. “
Normally, I’d hold that this last part only applied to SOME times when second Saturday balloting is disallowed. The fact it doesn’t seem to apply to runoff elections doesn’t change the fact that second Saturday balloting is disallowed on holiday weekends before runoff elections.
So two references to “such second Saturday” both seem to refer to the same thing, but this thing seems to be defined in two contradictory ways: in the first case, Saturdays before general, primary AND runoff elections, but in the second case, only general and primary elections.
I would read this as saying that the clause about prohibited Saturdays less ambiguously includes those before runoffs than the clause which allows make-up days excludes those before runoffs. So the legislation is poorly written, but there doesn’t seem just cause for a judge to rewrite the legislation; the judge should read it in the way that requires the least presumed inadequacy of language.
But if a judge reads the law as establishing Saturday voting to meet a need (not merely a potential benefit), then it seems odd that the legislature established a need, remedied this need, disallowed that remedy under certain circumstances, and then only selectively provided an alternative remedy. Now, it’s not so plain that “such second Saturday” refers to the same thing.
It’s a mess. The judge should interpret the language in the way that presumes it to be the least poorly written. But hooboy, that’s a controversial assertion.
Ballot harvesting takes time.
Appeal? Fight? Rafflespitzenheimer? The guy was born a RINO.
Appeal? Fight? Rafflespitzenheimer? The guy was born a RINO.
Because the judges are “in on it”.
(BAR association attorneys, judges)
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.