It seems a bit suspicious that Rep. Elise Stefanik’s lawyers, who filed for an “irreparable harm" preliminary injunction against NY’s Early Voting Act while its constitutionality is being argued in NY’s Supreme Court, would fail to list the actual, and legitimate irreparable harm that will occur, if an injunction is not granted before February’s special election.
Instead, Stefanik’s lawyers LISTED three absurd claims for the injunction which were easily refuted, while failing to list the fundamental irreparable harm which unquestionably will occur if an injunction is not granted before February’s special election, and no-excuse mail-in ballot voting is allowed.
The irreparable harm is, the legitimacy of February’s special elections’ supposed winner will never be known because there is no practical way, when counting mailed in ballots under the Act, to scrutinize them to confirm, that the one who filled out a mailed-in ballot and made the choices thereon and sent it in, is the qualified and legitimate voter of that ballot.
Either Stefanik’s lawyers have been negligent in not understanding the security vulnerabilities of mail-in ballot voting, and how moving to no-excuse mail-in ballot voting under NY’s Early Voting Act exasperates an existing problem and unnecessarily increases the risks for vote stealing and election fraud, or, Stefanik’s lawyers are intentionally sabotaging Stefanik’s case against New York’s unconstitutional Early Voting Act, which, if upheld, will lead to the same kind of elections held in in China, Russia and Cuba, where there is one party rule.
JWK
The troubling truth about allowing no-excuse mail-in voting in one state is, when acts of corruption infect an electoral process in one jurisdiction “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain.” Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)”.
Instead, Stefanik’s lawyers LISTED three absurd claims for the injunction which were easily refuted, while failing to list the fundamental irreparable harm which unquestionably will occur if an injunction is not granted before February’s special election, and no-excuse mail-in ballot voting is allowed.
The irreparable harm is, the legitimacy of February’s special elections’ supposed winner will never be known because there is no practical way, when counting mailed in ballots under the Act, to scrutinize them to confirm, that the one who filled out a mailed-in ballot and made the choices thereon and sent it in, is the qualified and legitimate voter of that ballot.
Either Stefanik’s lawyers have been negligent in not understanding the security vulnerabilities of mail-in ballot voting, and how moving to no-excuse mail-in ballot voting under NY’s Early Voting Act exasperates an existing problem and unnecessarily increases the risks for vote stealing and election fraud, or, Stefanik’s lawyers are intentionally sabotaging Stefanik’s case against New York’s unconstitutional Early Voting Act, which, if upheld, will lead to the same kind of elections held in in China, Russia and Cuba, where there is one party rule.
JWK
The troubling truth about allowing no-excuse mail-in voting in one state is, when acts of corruption infect an electoral process in one jurisdiction “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain.” Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)”.
