Connect with us

Election Theft

Supreme Court Hears Arizona Cases on Absentee Votes and Ballot Harvesting

Breitbart

Published

on

Arizona law requires each voter to cast his ballot in his assigned local precinct. The Grand Canyon State’s laws also forbid most third parties from collecting and delivering a voter’s ballot.

“The Court has a stark choice between two systems here,” Supreme Court heavyweight Michael Carvin said in conclusion of the Arizona Republican Party’s argument. “Ours is clear, and we think derived directly from the text, and is easy to apply.”

Chief Justice John Roberts kicked off the questioning of Carvin, with the chief questioning Carvin’s argument that VRA and the Constitution are violated when a legislature intends to disadvantage a racial group, rather than the Democrats’ argument that the law is violated whenever plaintiffs can show that a state law impacts one racial group more than others.

Carvin responded that such a rule would “eliminate all the valid anti-fraud concerns implicated” by these election integrity laws, adding that “the question is why a system that imposes no unfairness on the group should nonetheless be changed simply because they find a different method of voting more convenient.”

When Justice Clarence Thomas asked about this principle of intending to treat all races neutrally rather than looking at socioeconomic and other differences between racial groups, Carvin responded that virtually every election regulatory would have become illegal as a result, and that “if Congress had intended that kind of sea change,” the federal law would have been explicit about it.

“The question is not the outcome,” Carvin explained. “The question is the opportunity and if the state has provided everyone the same opportunity.”

As Justice Samuel Alito asked Carvin to explain this rule in the context of the “usual burdens of voting,” Carvin responded that the ordinary effort required to cast a ballot in an election does impose a burden on voters, but that Congress and the Constitution do not makes such burdens illegal, even though some voters may find them more burdensome than others.

“This is not some mystery,” Carvin later added. “We have a long history of how people go about voting. They show up at precincts and cast a vote.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused Republicans of rewriting the VRA, insisting that the VRA focuses on the effect of state government actions. Carvin disagreed, saying that the Constitution empowers state legislatures to pass laws on the time, place, and manner of elections, and that these laws do precisely that, while not denying the right of voters to cast ballots.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh followed up with the question, “Can you tell us how courts are supposed to distinguish ordinary regulations from extraordinary ones?”

Carvin responded that Democrats’ lawyers were casting countless voting laws in the latter category, that voters “can’t find precincts” or “get to mailboxes because of socioeconomic disparities, which means that the state needs to allow partisan operatives to go collect the ballots.”

The justices also heard arguments on the Republican side from Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who began, “Public servants have no more sacred duty than protecting the people’s right to vote while maintaining confidence in the integrity of election results,” insisting the law must have “a clear and constitutional test that allows states to meet these imperatives.”

“Requiring in-person voters to cast their ballots at assigned precincts ensures that they can vote in local races and helps officials monitor for fraud,” Brnovich said, describing such measures as commonsense. “Restricting early ballot collections by third parties, including political operatives, protects against voter coercion and preserves ballot secrecy.”

In response to a question from Alito regarding whether Democrats’ expressing alarm about how many voters would suffer burdens from the precinct requirement, Brnovich responded, “Mark Twain famously said there are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics,” explaining that the Ninth Circuit appeals court in this case had “cherry-picked” statistics that seemed to support the Democrats’ argument, but that in reality less than 0.1 percent of votes are potentially not counted under that Arizona law.

Brnovich added, “Arizona’s requirements that ballots be cast at assigned local precincts and its restrictions on ballot harvesting are appropriate election integrity measures that do not create any disparate impact on racial minorities but serve us all equally well.”

“The desire to enhance the convenience of voting must never outweigh the imperative of securing the integrity of the result,” he concluded.

Several of the justices – especially the chief justice – had probing questions for the Democrats’ lawyers, raising issues that have been in the news recently.

“You’re aware of what the Carter-Baker Commission found about ballot harvesting,” Roberts said to one of the Democrats’ lawyers, Jessica Amunson. “They said absentee ballots are the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

Citing different forms of voter intimidation, Roberts added that the 2005 bipartisan commission report “recommended that the practice of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots should be eliminated.”

“All election rules are going to make it easier for some to vote than others,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Amunson during her questioning, adding that “your approach risks ruling them all out.”

During Carvin’s part of the hearing, he concluded that the argument pushed by the Democratic National Committee and Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State:

… is one that requires the courts to engage in a maximization policy, which anything that has a disproportionate result is somehow taken out of the hands of state legislatures.

If you go down that path … that still gets the courts involved in an amorphous, manipulable situation where no one knows what the rules are going into the next election and they’ll all be decided on an ad hoc basis in a hyper-partisan environment.

So, in addition to the fact that our test is the only one that comports with the text of Section 2 [of the VRA] and the Constitution, it’s also the only one that gives lower courts the clarity that is especially important in the voting context.

A decision is expected by late June.

The cases are Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, Nos. 19-1257 and 19-1258 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Feedzy

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Election Theft

Five Months Since the Election, Georgia Still Lacks Legally Required Chain of Custody Documentation on 355,000 Votes (Most All Likely for Joe Biden)

Gateway Pundit

Published

on

Georgia still has over 350,000 votes (most likely nearly all for Joe Biden) that are invalid and yet were counted in the 2020 election.  These illegal ballots helped Joe Biden win Georgia by 11,000 votes.

We first reported on December 26, 2020, that Georgia had 460,000 ballots that were missing legally required chain of custody documentation from the 2020 Election.  Despite these legally required documents not being present, the Secretary of State Raffensperger and Governor Kemp (both Republicans) certified the election win for Joe Biden by 11,000 votes.

Georgia’s Corrupt Republican Leadership Gave Joe Biden Win By Less Than 12,000 Votes – Yet 460,000 Drop Box Ballots STILL MISSING Chain of Custody Documentation Required by Law

Now today, five months since the 2020 Election, these legally required documents are still nowhere to be found.

TRENDING: BRUTAL: Female Postal Worker Viciously Beaten in Flint, Michigan Over Delayed Stimulus Checks (VIDEO)

The Georgia Star reported yesterday:

Five months after the November 3, 2020 presidential election, officials at the state and county level in Georgia have failed to produce chain of custody records for more than 355,000 absentee vote by mail ballots deposited in drop boxes located around the state for that election.

Joe Biden was certified as the victor of Georgia and its 16 Electoral College votes by a margin of 11,599 votes, or less than 0.25 percent of the 5 million votes cast in the November 3, 2020 presidential election in Georgia. According to the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, 1.3 million of those votes were cast as absentee vote by mail ballots. Based on polling conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, 700,000 of those absentee vote by mail ballots were sent via regular mail and 600,000 were deposited in the estimated 300 drop boxes located around the state and were manually picked up and transported by election workers to the local county registrar for subsequent counting.

According to Georgia Election Code Emergency Rule 183-1-14-0.8-.14, promulgated by the Georgia State Election Board in July 2020, but not codified by the state legislature at the time as the Georgia Constitution requires, each of Georgia’s 159 counties is responsible for documenting the transfer of every batch of absentee ballots picked up at drop boxes and delivered to the county election offices with ballot transfer forms. The forms are required to be signed and dated, with time of pick up by the collection team upon pick up, and then signed, dated, with time of delivery by the registrar or designee upon receipt and accepted.

How could the results in Georgia and likely other states in the 2020 election include 355,000 invalid votes – most likely all for Joe Biden?  What happened to our laws and law enforcement?

Read More

Continue Reading

Election Theft

BREAKING UPDATE: New Hampshire Senate Joins House – Passes SB43 to Mandate an Audit of Windham’s Fradulent 2020 Election Results – Off to Governor to Sign!

Gateway Pundit

Published

on

UPDATE—   This is breaking news — via Ken Eyring at Granite Grok.

In a HUGE WIN for We, the People, and for New Hampshire election integrity, the NH Senate voted 24-0 just minutes ago to concur with the House amended version of SB43.  This Bill was championed by Senator Bob Giuda and will validate election integrity in our state by mandating a forensic audit on Windham’s 11/3/20 general election ballots and voting machines as configured on November 3, 2020.

The forensic audit will determine the huge discrepancy between the election day results and subsequent recount of Windham’s November 3, 2020 State Rep. race where a difference of 1,363 total votes from just 10,006 ballots was uncovered.

New Hampshire lawmakers were scheduled to vote on the Windham Amendment SB43 this week.

TRENDING: WOKE: United Airlines Says 50% of the Next 5,000 Pilots They Train Will be Black Women or People of Color

And now it has passed the New Hampshire House and Senate.

Via Granite Grok:

Why is SB43 Important?

Senate Bill SB43 mandates an audit of Windham’s disturbing November 3, 2020 general election results that produced a massive discrepancy between the machine vote tally for the State Rep race on election day and a hand recount 9 days later. The recount showed a difference of 1,363 votes for the State Rep race being shifted with only 10,006 ballots were cast. That is a big discrepancy – and we need to know why!

Senator Bob Giuda spearheaded a herculean effort to push SB43 through the Senate with a 24-0 vote in February because the AG’s office refused to perform an investigation into the disturbing results. The Bill was subsequently strengthened via a house amendment and passed by the House Election Law Committee 20-0. It will now be voted on by the full house tomorrow or Thursday.

The passage of SB43 into law is critical to ensure election integrity is verified not only in Windham, but across NH – because the same machines are used to count 85% of all votes in NH.

On Thursday morning we received word from GOP official Dave Strang that the bill passed through the New Hampshire House.

Hi Jim:
Just a quick FYI email. SB43, the NH bill that will compel the AG and Sec. of State to investigate the Windham voting anomaly, passed the House of Reps today by virtue of being on the consent calendar.” This is where bills that are expected to pass without opposition go. Because this bill was modified by the House Election Law Committee. (where stronger language was inserted), it must be revoted on in the NH Senate. That could happen as early as tomorrow. I expect it will pass the Senate without opposition (no one in the NH Legislature has voted against this bill yet) and conceivably it could be on the Governor’s desk as early as tomorrow evening. Feel free to do a follow up to your article on the website today with this info included.

Stay tuned,
Dave Strang

More from Dave — Once signed, the clock starts ticking. It requires the forensic audit of the machines and ballots
within 45 days of passage of the bill (signature by the Governor).

Read More

Continue Reading

Election Theft

ACLU Suing Georgia over ‘Illegal Voter Suppression Law’

Breitbart

Published

on

“BREAKING: We’re suing Georgia over its illegal voter suppression law,” the ACLU announced on Tuesday, claiming the law violates the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act.

“This legislation is a clear attack on voters of color. We’ll see Georgia Governor Kemp in court,” the ACLU warned:

The lawsuit plaintiffs are being represented by ACLU and WilmerHale, and the lawsuit itself alleges that S.B. 202 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as the ACLU detailed in its announcement.

Far-left politicians — from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to President Joe Biden — have continued to characterize the law as a relic of the Jim Crow era, spreading false assertions about fundamental aspects of the piece of legislation.

“What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick … deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o’clock when working people are just getting off work,” Biden said last week, later asserting the Georgia law cut voting hours “so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over.”

Biden’s claim triggered a fact check from the Washington Post, which issued Four Pinocchios, as the law does not affect Election Day hours in Georgia. Furthermore, the changes to early voting actually expand opportunities to voters across the state, as Heritage Action pointed out:

A recent National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) survey found a majority of likely voters disagreeing with key aspects of the “For the People Act,” a Democrat-supported bill that would effectively strip states of their ability to implement basic election integrity measures, such as requiring voter ID. Seventy-seven percent favor requiring voters to show a valid photo ID when voting. Even a majority of Democrats, 61 percent, agreed.

The case is African Methodist Episcopal Church, v. Kemp, No. 1:21-cv-02184 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Feedzy

Continue Reading

Trending