Two tiered system? Many Pa. counties didn't allow voters to cure rejected mail-in ballots

. Out of the 7 million votes cast in P.A. how many were cured besides the 90 suspected ballots.

 

In sworn statement, prominent mathematician flags up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots
https://justthenews.com/politics-po...rn-statement-many-56000-gop-ballots-pa-may-be

Put that cork back in the bottle Democrats. This aint over.

 

You haven't seen the majority of them and have no basis for your statement.

 

Gosh. There you are, defending the disenfranchisement of registered voters by insisting that votes from non registered voters or machines who printed those ballots should count. You and tyranny these days....

 

Lol...maybe trump shouldn’t have relied so heavily on the poorly educated. Citizens need to be smart enough to fill in a ballot.

 

And so are you. In fact, the legislature NEVER said that this was an appropriate method, the election board (non representative and partisan board fyi). Learn the facts. The state election board did something not authorized by the law. They did so absent any legal authority to do so, and manufactured an illegitimate condition that robbed folks of fairness and equal protection. The cure is to throw out the votes, which doesn't mean all the votes, but just those where the unequal condition occurred. This isn't hard, but you seem willing to go to the mat to protect what are obviously illegal votes in those counties that practiced this.

 

So, your objective here was what? We saw plenty of fraud, we've seen hundreds of cases of both irregularities and malfeasance. Joe is the master cribber of others, a plagiarist of epic proportions. He has a history of this. The democratic party has a history of ballot stuffing, and voter disenfranchisement. What is actually disturbing are folks, like you, who are so actively attempting to beat down this narrative, and your proof is "cause you said so". It's laughable. You literally have zero credibility. You might as well be writing about how Biden isn't a reliably racist throwback to the Klan. But that's another story...

Here, you would not just protect, but promote the idea that counting votes and systematically robbing the public of their confidence in the vote count is not only laudable but appropriate. That's what dictators do. That's what authoritarian states must do to stay in power. And democrats obviously have decided that this was their only way to achieve having Biden installed.

 

They are setting up their battle cry.
Since they have rendered their vote counts indeterminate by blatantly counting mountains of votes without proper verification, as prescribed by state law, they will cry "disenfranchisement " from the hiltops when the SCOTUS has no choice but to declare their counts unacceptable.

Blatatantly an openly accept an astronomical number of ballots in contradiction to established state law, then expect their opponent to roll over and concede withoud a challenge to that fraud.
Classic

 

You have a simplistic and therefore largely erroneous understanding of the equal protections clause, Pennsylvania's election code, and completely disregard larger constitutional issues in play.

For example, the equal protections clause doesn't require or expect uniformity and perfect equality in all cases. Provided that regulations don't burden anyone's right to vote, variations and a degree of inequality in the adoption and application etc. of voting regulations is perfectly permissible. The only expectation is that they have a rational basis, which in this case they do - there is nothing irrational about allowing voters to cure their ballots.

Additionally, the email encouraging counties to notice-and-cure did not contravene any rights or statutes. Pennsylvania's election code is completely silent on ballot curing - it's neither required nor prohibited. This means counties are in any event free to adopt notice-and-cure regardless of any encouragement (or lack of such), because they have the discretion to manage their elections as they see fit. Which, of course, is illustrated by the fact that some chose to and some didn't.

The fact that some chose to did not "rob anyone of fairness and equal protection". Expanding the right to vote for some did not burden the right to vote of others. Again, where there's no burden, uniformity is not required, hence no equal protections clause violation.

Even if there was a valid equal protections clause claim, the remedies sought are not available because for one thing, the remedy must apply to the individual's injury. The injury claimed is that their vote was discarded. This is not remedied by invalidating other people's votes. Further - and most importantly - it would be unconstitutional for a court to invalidate just one person's vote, let alone the votes of 6.8 million people.

 

Lol is that what I did? I guess I missed it.
PA just certified btw. Why doesn’t Trumps lawyers tell these tall tales to a judge??

 

Have you come up with a new handle for this forum after all these ridiculous predictions get exposed?

 

Giggles.
Can you say "disenfranchisement" ?

 

As in what trump is hoping to do in states he lost? Yes I think I can say that.

 

I knew you could do it. Yay

 

The counties that didn't allow curing plainly violated equal protection, and should be sued, so that they don't act that way again.

The Trump strategy of "Some counties screwed their voters, so the counties that helped their voters should have their votes thrown out!" was laughed out of court. "Equal protection" does not mean "Honest people have to act badly, so that everyone is equally screwed!".

 

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news...cle_9cfd4228-2e03-11eb-b2ac-bb9c8b2bfa7f.html
---
Miller told The Eagle that he made a mistake separating his analysis of the data from questions about the reliability of the data itself.
---

True. I'm sure you'll still amuse us with many more faceplants.

 

Have fun reconciling you ballots to legal voter rolls. You know you're gonna have to.

 

Remember, we don't read the kook conspiracy blogs that you get your "news" from, so we have no idea what particular conspiracy lunacy you're referring to. Why would you think any state would have trouble doing that? We're certainly not worried about it.

 

It would have to be authorized by the legislature, did it?

 

Says you? Lmao.

 

You wouldn't be replying if you weren't worried about it.
You've known since the morning of Nov 4 that you would eventually have a reckoning day

 

Lmao. I didn't run for president. Are you okay?

My replies are directed at calling you on your BS. Nothing more.

 

It said what the ballot needs, now how it needs to get there

 

Interesting thing about Pa I just noticed. They've certified the vote, but the SOS website has this disclaimer.



I wonder what's going to happen there? None of it will change the EC votes, but somebody (US Scotus) needs to decide at some point if they are going to take that case or let the PA Scotus ruling stand...

Interesting..

 

No they set the rules for how ballots will be counted and what constitutes a spoiled ballot and any remedies if any that election officials can take.