Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

[Coyote]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

You really don't see the difference here do you?

By opening our system up to fraud you are stealing votes from those who do it legally.

Again, you allow last minute changes, you allow, last minute changes. Crying foul the other side does it too?

That's why we are in this bag of shit.

Oh I do see the difference, you are now adding another element to the argument that wasn’t in it before. So let’s examine it. Some fraud occurs whether you vote in mail or at the polls, yet rarely has there been any sort of wide scale fraud that would alter the results. Most claims of fraud end up being inadvertent or human error. Despite all the screaming by opponents of mail in voting, this election ended up being one of the most secure elections we’ve had. No evidence of any wide spread fraud and that is per the DoJ (specifically directed to investigate claims of fraud) on down to tbe (mostly Republican) election officials and the courts.

Who was disenfranchised?

I'm not adding an element.

You allow side a to change things, you allow side b to change also. Rules we all follow.

Bitching someone is making changes you don't agree with is at this point, to me, shutting the barn door after you let the cows out.

You fail to understand I see things as pieces that fit a whole. You see them all as unrelated singular events that should be judged all individually.

I see a set of rules for all to play by
You see each situation needing itscown set of rules.

It makes that common ground a bitch to get to.

No. What makes common ground a bitch is you have no idea what I see. At all.

Your total focus is partisan tit for tat.

Rules change and rules need to change according to what is happening. But there is a process (different for each state) and there is a process for challenging it (the courts). A lot of what you are calling last minute rule changes were not exactly last minute (they went into effect for the primaries) and were made in attempt to have safe voting during a pandemic.

As long as the rule changes are done legally, maintain election integrity, and no one is disenfranchised as a result, I don’t have a problem with it.

I can only think of one case where the legality of who was allowed to make the change was challenged and that was PA. That was also case where the Republicans allowed it to go unchallenged through the primaries and did not challenge it until after the general election. The judge appropriately told them they had waited to long. They would have disenfranchised thousands of voters who voted in good faith.

As for partisan shit, I want 1 set of rules that do not change as one side needs them too for their side. Don't care the rule or side, all must follow.

I have NEVER seen you condem the actions of the left. Best I've seen is you finally said rioting may be wrong HOWEVER it's emotionally justified because of their reasons.

I don't care the reasons. Follow law.

There we go again. And again. And again. And frankly you lie. I have NEVER said rioting is ok. EVER. Protest yes. Riot no. I have NEVER justified it. Just like you claimed my use of "Trumptard" was my go-to response when a quick check showed I used it exactly 3 times, on one day in June, in response to stuff like "Libtard" (which you seem to have no problem with).

"Never" ... "always"...for ONCE why don't you take what I actually say instead of claiming stuff I don't?

THIS is why we can't find common ground.

 

[Coyote]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

Trump: "my judges".

The real truth..."Prog Judges".

The real truth....they transform into "Prog Judges" as soon as they refuse to rule to Trump's bidding.

 

[Coyote]

A REMNDER from the open link...



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Gardner's ruling said that booting thousands of voters from the rosters appeared to violate a federal law that requires a voter be given an opportunity to provide written confirmation of a change of address prior to being removed from the list. In addition, the necessary protocols for purging the roster were not followed within 90 days of a federal election

and that judge should have refused herself since her sister Stacy Abrams is in charge of collecting voter registration

Her sister isn't one of the litigants and voter registrations were collected by multiple groups. The group her sister founded was not one of the ones in the court case. She had no reason to recuse.

 

[Coyote]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

One topic at a time. What are your thoughts on what is happening here?

if they should not be there, remove them.

....
The counties seemed to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations, the judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner, said in her order filed late on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
.....
"seeme to have"? how do we not know? they did or they did not.

Is it appropriate to do a voter roll purge a week before an election?

Is it appropriate to change election laws months before an election ?

She thinks so, yes.

IF you are going to change election laws or, in this case RULES (I don't think any laws were changed) then yes, MONTHS before IS appropriate. Not days before.

 

[Synthaholic]

SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas has a VERY active activist wife whose activities have never caused Thomas to recuse himself.

 

[Care4all]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

Her sister ran for Governor there, for the Dem Party. She was appointed by Obama, who is still very active in politics.

Are we to pretend her and her sister don't speak anymore?

Plus Stacy Abrams was credited with "getting out the Dem vote" during the general election, and is doing the same thing for this election.

WOW! How evil could one get, than to encourage citizens to utilize their Constitutional right to vote! That's just HORRIBLE! Criminal!

So people who moved from an address should still be able to vote from that address, even if they moved to another State?

Marty, where did your common sense disappear to?

- Not all people who change their address temporarily with the post office, are giving up Their state residency.... I put in a change of address form when I go to stay with my parents a few months a year down in Florida, people change their mailing address when they are going g to be at their vacation homes, people change their address with the mail service when they are in the Military and transfer to another State or country, but always keep their home state, as their legal residence and citizenship with.....

What I SAID. WAS IT BROKE THE LAW, to remove people from the state's voter rolls, within 90 days of an election, giving them no opportunity to show they are still citizens.

These two counties, were BREAKING THE LAW by purging voters from the voter roll one or two weeks, before an election, and this is why the judge, justly ruled against them.

WHAT LAW.

Judges in Penn "broke the law" when changing voting rules, but there you don't seem to have a problem with it.

I wonder why......

Fake news. They didn't break the law. It was already brought to court in one of the Trump lawsuits that he lost earlier... the ruling was the changes DID NOT break the law....

READ THE OP LINK.

It tells YOU which laws were broken by the counties.

How is a postal change of address form not a written acknowledgement of changing addresses?

Changing an address with the post office is not necessarily changing one's State citizenship..... duh.....

I've already explained WHY.... read my earlier post AGAIN.

it changes things besides your State citizenship, ED's, council districts, etc.

Yes, it doesn't matter in a Senate Election, but again we have Dems saying "eh" votes are OK because we think they will vote for us.

It means that automatically....only in a demented person's head....Marty....

 

[martybegan]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

Her sister ran for Governor there, for the Dem Party. She was appointed by Obama, who is still very active in politics.

Are we to pretend her and her sister don't speak anymore?

Plus Stacy Abrams was credited with "getting out the Dem vote" during the general election, and is doing the same thing for this election.

WOW! How evil could one get, than to encourage citizens to utilize their Constitutional right to vote! That's just HORRIBLE! Criminal!

So people who moved from an address should still be able to vote from that address, even if they moved to another State?

Marty, where did your common sense disappear to?

- Not all people who change their address temporarily with the post office, are giving up Their state residency.... I put in a change of address form when I go to stay with my parents a few months a year down in Florida, people change their mailing address when they are going g to be at their vacation homes, people change their address with the mail service when they are in the Military and transfer to another State or country, but always keep their home state, as their legal residence and citizenship with.....

What I SAID. WAS IT BROKE THE LAW, to remove people from the state's voter rolls, within 90 days of an election, giving them no opportunity to show they are still citizens.

These two counties, were BREAKING THE LAW by purging voters from the voter roll one or two weeks, before an election, and this is why the judge, justly ruled against them.

WHAT LAW.

Judges in Penn "broke the law" when changing voting rules, but there you don't seem to have a problem with it.

I wonder why......

Fake news. They didn't break the law. It was already brought to court in one of the Trump lawsuits that he lost earlier... the ruling was the changes DID NOT break the law....

READ THE OP LINK.

It tells YOU which laws were broken by the counties.

How is a postal change of address form not a written acknowledgement of changing addresses?

Changing an address with the post office is not necessarily changing one's State citizenship..... duh.....

I've already explained WHY.... read my earlier post AGAIN.

it changes things besides your State citizenship, ED's, council districts, etc.

Yes, it doesn't matter in a Senate Election, but again we have Dems saying "eh" votes are OK because we think they will vote for us.

It means that automatically....only in a demented person's head....Marty....

It's reality. Dem's don't care about fraud because they think it helps them.

 

[iceberg]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

One topic at a time. What are your thoughts on what is happening here?

if they should not be there, remove them.

....
The counties seemed to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations, the judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner, said in her order filed late on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
.....
"seeme to have"? how do we not know? they did or they did not.

Is it appropriate to do a voter roll purge a week before an election?

Is it appropriate to change election laws months before an election ?

She thinks so, yes.

IF you are going to change election laws or, in this case RULES (I don't think any laws were changed) then yes, MONTHS before IS appropriate. Not days before.

of course the way you wish it to be is appropriate. the way others wish it to be never seems to be.

have you ever looked at what "the left" does in instances like this and thought "that is bullshit" or is it justified because you agree with "the cause"?

all i am saying is - once you bypass common laws and working for both sides to achieve a singular goal, others will do the same and no - you won't always agree with what they choose to do it for.

but you validated the path by taking it for what you wanted, which puts you in a bad position to bitch about "them" doing the same but for their own reasons.

i don't care the reasons. i keep telling you that. i care we all follow the same set of rules. you keep saying that is partisan and near as i can tell, that is about as far from it as you can be.

the rule is - don't go fucking with the election laws before an election. not days, weeks or months. do it when there is no election to give yourself time to ensure it's fair to all sides.

now go ahead and call that idea / goal partisan. it's your next move.

 

[iceberg]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

You really don't see the difference here do you?

By opening our system up to fraud you are stealing votes from those who do it legally.

Again, you allow last minute changes, you allow, last minute changes. Crying foul the other side does it too?

That's why we are in this bag of shit.

Oh I do see the difference, you are now adding another element to the argument that wasn’t in it before. So let’s examine it. Some fraud occurs whether you vote in mail or at the polls, yet rarely has there been any sort of wide scale fraud that would alter the results. Most claims of fraud end up being inadvertent or human error. Despite all the screaming by opponents of mail in voting, this election ended up being one of the most secure elections we’ve had. No evidence of any wide spread fraud and that is per the DoJ (specifically directed to investigate claims of fraud) on down to tbe (mostly Republican) election officials and the courts.

Who was disenfranchised?

I'm not adding an element.

You allow side a to change things, you allow side b to change also. Rules we all follow.

Bitching someone is making changes you don't agree with is at this point, to me, shutting the barn door after you let the cows out.

You fail to understand I see things as pieces that fit a whole. You see them all as unrelated singular events that should be judged all individually.

I see a set of rules for all to play by
You see each situation needing itscown set of rules.

It makes that common ground a bitch to get to.

No. What makes common ground a bitch is you have no idea what I see. At all.

Your total focus is partisan tit for tat.

Rules change and rules need to change according to what is happening. But there is a process (different for each state) and there is a process for challenging it (the courts). A lot of what you are calling last minute rule changes were not exactly last minute (they went into effect for the primaries) and were made in attempt to have safe voting during a pandemic.

As long as the rule changes are done legally, maintain election integrity, and no one is disenfranchised as a result, I don’t have a problem with it.

I can only think of one case where the legality of who was allowed to make the change was challenged and that was PA. That was also case where the Republicans allowed it to go unchallenged through the primaries and did not challenge it until after the general election. The judge appropriately told them they had waited to long. They would have disenfranchised thousands of voters who voted in good faith.

As for partisan shit, I want 1 set of rules that do not change as one side needs them too for their side. Don't care the rule or side, all must follow.

I have NEVER seen you condem the actions of the left. Best I've seen is you finally said rioting may be wrong HOWEVER it's emotionally justified because of their reasons.

I don't care the reasons. Follow law.

There we go again. And again. And again. And frankly you lie. I have NEVER said rioting is ok. EVER. Protest yes. Riot no. I have NEVER justified it. Just like you claimed my use of "Trumptard" was my go-to response when a quick check showed I used it exactly 3 times, on one day in June, in response to stuff like "Libtard" (which you seem to have no problem with).

"Never" ... "always"...for ONCE why don't you take what I actually say instead of claiming stuff I don't?

THIS is why we can't find common ground.

1. i don't lie. you just don't like what i say and as usual, go all extreme and run to the furthest extreme you can.
2. you have said rioting justified when you ignore someone for "so long" (real definite time period there to go by). you do the "yea it's wrong BUT HEY - YOU IGNORED THEM" crap.
3. "trump-tard" was never meant to be a YOU ALWAYS SAY TRUMPTARD. it's meant to say you "trump-wash" everything into it always coming back to TRUMP. you have chosen him to be your posterchild of evil i suppose so when someone does something you don't like, you seem to think they do it to defend trump; not simply tell you you're wrong.

and you bitching about FOR ONCE TAKE WHAT I SAY - woman, i tried to define this once before. remember "tell me what a successful "mexico paying for the wall" could consist of" so we could get a baseline. you refused and called me a troll. why? dunno except i was trying to pin you down to a specific answer because you tend to BOUNCE AROUND a lot as your emotions dictate.

THIS is why we cannot find common ground.

 

[iceberg]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

One topic at a time. What are your thoughts on what is happening here?

if they should not be there, remove them.

....
The counties seemed to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations, the judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner, said in her order filed late on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
.....
"seeme to have"? how do we not know? they did or they did not.

Is it appropriate to do a voter roll purge a week before an election?

Is it appropriate to change election laws months before an election ?

She thinks so, yes.

IF you are going to change election laws or, in this case RULES (I don't think any laws were changed) then yes, MONTHS before IS appropriate. Not days before.

Let me put it like this.

I don't believe it's OK to change election laws just ahead of an election. If you do it, do it as a side process for all to attend and provide input as a group decision or discussion.

Period.

You seem to think it's OK to change "some" laws.

OK fine. I disagree but if you do this, OTHERS will want to also and seldom in a manner you approve of.

To me you want to pick and choose ONLY laws that benefit your mindset while passing it off as "for all".

SO... I don't want either side changing shit ahead of an election HOWEVER if you allow it for your side, to me its now allowed for all.

This is why you hear "rules for me and not for thee" about the left so often.

 

[flacaltenn]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

Post #80 in this thread on recusals. Fed law.. Similar at all levels of judgeships.. The bolded "family" part..

There is no family involvement. Stacey Abrams is not part of tbe case, neither is the group she founded.

Abrams org is DIRECTLY involved in vote scamming.. Just the fact they are sisters is more than reason enough to SUSPECT the judge is corrupt for not recusing.. Abrams org WILL LIE and CHEAT and SCAM until some form of justice materializes... That's what they VOWED to do.. And that's what they BRAGGED about having done..

The Karma will get you... If this is FUTURE of American politics and YOU IGNORE IT -- you're helping to destroy America... NO crime will ever be punished, but we as a country will be...

 

[flacaltenn]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

Post #80 in this thread on recusals. Fed law.. Similar at all levels of judgeships.. The bolded "family" part..

There is no family involvement. Stacey Abrams is not part of tbe case, neither is the group she founded.

I just posted on THIS PAGE an email blast from HER ORGANIZATION... It's asking "out of state" students at GA universities to temporary CHANGE THEIR REGISTRATION to vote in the UPCOMING RUN-OFF.. This is a State election. Out of state students have NO business voting in it.. It's NOT for THEIR senators..

This is EXACTLY WHAT THE CASE IN THE OPost was about,.. Removing NON-Georgians illegally registered..

Somehow you rationalize this as "no connection" to the case.. It takes an uber partisan warrior to come to that conclusion.. The judge IS CORRUPT, UNPROFESSIONAL and involved in the stealing of elections..

 

[Coyote]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

Post #80 in this thread on recusals. Fed law.. Similar at all levels of judgeships.. The bolded "family" part..

There is no family involvement. Stacey Abrams is not part of tbe case, neither is the group she founded.

I just posted on THIS PAGE an email blast from HER ORGANIZATION... It's asking "out of state" students at GA universities to temporary CHANGE THEIR REGISTRATION to vote in the UPCOMING RUN-OFF.. This is a State election. Out of state students have NO business voting in it.. It's NOT for THEIR senators..

This is EXACTLY WHAT THE CASE IN THE OPost was about,.. Removing NON-Georgians illegally registered..

Somehow you rationalize this as "no connection" to the case.. It takes an uber partisan warrior to come to that conclusion.. The judge IS CORRUPT, UNPROFESSIONAL and involved in the stealing of elections..

First off, if out of state students are residing there, have a residence there and pay state taxes, they should be able to vote there. Students do that around the country. It is not illegal.

Frankly, it is uberpartisan to insist the election was stolen in face face of reality. The judge has no reason to recuse, neither her sister nor her sister's group are among the litigants.

 

[Coyote]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

Post #80 in this thread on recusals. Fed law.. Similar at all levels of judgeships.. The bolded "family" part..

There is no family involvement. Stacey Abrams is not part of tbe case, neither is the group she founded.

Abrams org is DIRECTLY involved in vote scamming.. Just the fact they are sisters is more than reason enough to SUSPECT the judge is corrupt for not recusing.. Abrams org WILL LIE and CHEAT and SCAM until some form of justice materializes... That's what they VOWED to do.. And that's what they BRAGGED about having done..

The Karma will get you... If this is FUTURE of American politics and YOU IGNORE IT -- you're helping to destroy America... NO crime will ever be punished, but we as a country will be...

I think the karma is not as partisan as you think.

 

[Coyote]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

One topic at a time. What are your thoughts on what is happening here?

if they should not be there, remove them.

....
The counties seemed to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations, the judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner, said in her order filed late on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
.....
"seeme to have"? how do we not know? they did or they did not.

Is it appropriate to do a voter roll purge a week before an election?

Is it appropriate to change election laws months before an election ?

She thinks so, yes.

IF you are going to change election laws or, in this case RULES (I don't think any laws were changed) then yes, MONTHS before IS appropriate. Not days before.

Let me put it like this.

I don't believe it's OK to change election laws just ahead of an election. If you do it, do it as a side process for all to attend and provide input as a group decision or discussion.

Period.

You seem to think it's OK to change "some" laws.

OK fine. I disagree but if you do this, OTHERS will want to also and seldom in a manner you approve of.

To me you want to pick and choose ONLY laws that benefit your mindset while passing it off as "for all".

SO... I don't want either side changing shit ahead of an election HOWEVER if you allow it for your side, to me its now allowed for all.

This is why you hear "rules for me and not for thee" about the left so often.

I dont think any rules that affect voter participation or understanding, should be changed close to an election.

But as I pointed out, you can have some rules that are mostly administrative, such as when mail in ballot processing can begin, that have no effect on the voting process and election integrity, so I see no reason not to make changes if election officials anticipate an unusually large volume.

 

[iceberg]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

One topic at a time. What are your thoughts on what is happening here?

if they should not be there, remove them.

....
The counties seemed to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations, the judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner, said in her order filed late on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
.....
"seeme to have"? how do we not know? they did or they did not.

Is it appropriate to do a voter roll purge a week before an election?

Is it appropriate to change election laws months before an election ?

She thinks so, yes.

IF you are going to change election laws or, in this case RULES (I don't think any laws were changed) then yes, MONTHS before IS appropriate. Not days before.

Let me put it like this.

I don't believe it's OK to change election laws just ahead of an election. If you do it, do it as a side process for all to attend and provide input as a group decision or discussion.

Period.

You seem to think it's OK to change "some" laws.

OK fine. I disagree but if you do this, OTHERS will want to also and seldom in a manner you approve of.

To me you want to pick and choose ONLY laws that benefit your mindset while passing it off as "for all".

SO... I don't want either side changing shit ahead of an election HOWEVER if you allow it for your side, to me its now allowed for all.

This is why you hear "rules for me and not for thee" about the left so often.

I dont think any rules that affect voter participation or understanding, should be changed close to an election.

But as I pointed out, you can have some rules that are mostly administrative, such as when mail in ballot processing can begin, that have no effect on the voting process and election integrity, so I see no reason not to make changes if election officials anticipate an unusually large volume.

Like I said, you wanna go changing the rules means everyone can. Justifying YOUR change is pointless

Again, I see you focus on individual battles and why your changes are good, others bad. .

I don't really care about people or how they play within the rules as long as they abide by them. When you start putting your changes, to the rules ahead of others REGUARDLESS OF THE REASON, others will do the same for their own reasons.

You keep acting as if I advocate one change over another.

I don't.

I simply realize you go making drastic changes others will too. Then we get to fight about who had the better reason for 4he changes.

 

[Coyote]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

You really don't see the difference here do you?

By opening our system up to fraud you are stealing votes from those who do it legally.

Again, you allow last minute changes, you allow, last minute changes. Crying foul the other side does it too?

That's why we are in this bag of shit.

Oh I do see the difference, you are now adding another element to the argument that wasn’t in it before. So let’s examine it. Some fraud occurs whether you vote in mail or at the polls, yet rarely has there been any sort of wide scale fraud that would alter the results. Most claims of fraud end up being inadvertent or human error. Despite all the screaming by opponents of mail in voting, this election ended up being one of the most secure elections we’ve had. No evidence of any wide spread fraud and that is per the DoJ (specifically directed to investigate claims of fraud) on down to tbe (mostly Republican) election officials and the courts.

Who was disenfranchised?

I'm not adding an element.

You allow side a to change things, you allow side b to change also. Rules we all follow.

Bitching someone is making changes you don't agree with is at this point, to me, shutting the barn door after you let the cows out.

You fail to understand I see things as pieces that fit a whole. You see them all as unrelated singular events that should be judged all individually.

I see a set of rules for all to play by
You see each situation needing itscown set of rules.

It makes that common ground a bitch to get to.

No. What makes common ground a bitch is you have no idea what I see. At all.

Your total focus is partisan tit for tat.

Rules change and rules need to change according to what is happening. But there is a process (different for each state) and there is a process for challenging it (the courts). A lot of what you are calling last minute rule changes were not exactly last minute (they went into effect for the primaries) and were made in attempt to have safe voting during a pandemic.

As long as the rule changes are done legally, maintain election integrity, and no one is disenfranchised as a result, I don’t have a problem with it.

I can only think of one case where the legality of who was allowed to make the change was challenged and that was PA. That was also case where the Republicans allowed it to go unchallenged through the primaries and did not challenge it until after the general election. The judge appropriately told them they had waited to long. They would have disenfranchised thousands of voters who voted in good faith.

As for partisan shit, I want 1 set of rules that do not change as one side needs them too for their side. Don't care the rule or side, all must follow.

I have NEVER seen you condem the actions of the left. Best I've seen is you finally said rioting may be wrong HOWEVER it's emotionally justified because of their reasons.

I don't care the reasons. Follow law.

There we go again. And again. And again. And frankly you lie. I have NEVER said rioting is ok. EVER. Protest yes. Riot no. I have NEVER justified it. Just like you claimed my use of "Trumptard" was my go-to response when a quick check showed I used it exactly 3 times, on one day in June, in response to stuff like "Libtard" (which you seem to have no problem with).

"Never" ... "always"...for ONCE why don't you take what I actually say instead of claiming stuff I don't?

THIS is why we can't find common ground.

1. i don't lie. you just don't like what i say and as usual, go all extreme and run to the furthest extreme you can.
2. you have said rioting justified when you ignore someone for "so long" (real definite time period there to go by). you do the "yea it's wrong BUT HEY - YOU IGNORED THEM" crap.
3. "trump-tard" was never meant to be a YOU ALWAYS SAY TRUMPTARD. it's meant to say you "trump-wash" everything into it always coming back to TRUMP. you have chosen him to be your posterchild of evil i suppose so when someone does something you don't like, you seem to think they do it to defend trump; not simply tell you you're wrong.

and you bitching about FOR ONCE TAKE WHAT I SAY - woman, i tried to define this once before. remember "tell me what a successful "mexico paying for the wall" could consist of" so we could get a baseline. you refused and called me a troll. why? dunno except i was trying to pin you down to a specific answer because you tend to BOUNCE AROUND a lot as your emotions dictate.

THIS is why we cannot find common ground.

1. I gave two examples.
2. link to it.
3.Trump wash? I am up front about not liking either Trump or his policies. You seem to think I should say good about him when his policies (not to mention conduct) are the antithesis of what I support. I am perfectly happy to argue policy aspects but you inevitably start up on how it is all just Trump hate or fall back on splitting hairs when I do. Expecting me to like Trump would be like expecting to like Hilary, who, I might add, you seem to see as the personification of evil.

 

[iceberg]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

You really don't see the difference here do you?

By opening our system up to fraud you are stealing votes from those who do it legally.

Again, you allow last minute changes, you allow, last minute changes. Crying foul the other side does it too?

That's why we are in this bag of shit.

Oh I do see the difference, you are now adding another element to the argument that wasn’t in it before. So let’s examine it. Some fraud occurs whether you vote in mail or at the polls, yet rarely has there been any sort of wide scale fraud that would alter the results. Most claims of fraud end up being inadvertent or human error. Despite all the screaming by opponents of mail in voting, this election ended up being one of the most secure elections we’ve had. No evidence of any wide spread fraud and that is per the DoJ (specifically directed to investigate claims of fraud) on down to tbe (mostly Republican) election officials and the courts.

Who was disenfranchised?

I'm not adding an element.

You allow side a to change things, you allow side b to change also. Rules we all follow.

Bitching someone is making changes you don't agree with is at this point, to me, shutting the barn door after you let the cows out.

You fail to understand I see things as pieces that fit a whole. You see them all as unrelated singular events that should be judged all individually.

I see a set of rules for all to play by
You see each situation needing itscown set of rules.

It makes that common ground a bitch to get to.

No. What makes common ground a bitch is you have no idea what I see. At all.

Your total focus is partisan tit for tat.

Rules change and rules need to change according to what is happening. But there is a process (different for each state) and there is a process for challenging it (the courts). A lot of what you are calling last minute rule changes were not exactly last minute (they went into effect for the primaries) and were made in attempt to have safe voting during a pandemic.

As long as the rule changes are done legally, maintain election integrity, and no one is disenfranchised as a result, I don’t have a problem with it.

I can only think of one case where the legality of who was allowed to make the change was challenged and that was PA. That was also case where the Republicans allowed it to go unchallenged through the primaries and did not challenge it until after the general election. The judge appropriately told them they had waited to long. They would have disenfranchised thousands of voters who voted in good faith.

As for partisan shit, I want 1 set of rules that do not change as one side needs them too for their side. Don't care the rule or side, all must follow.

I have NEVER seen you condem the actions of the left. Best I've seen is you finally said rioting may be wrong HOWEVER it's emotionally justified because of their reasons.

I don't care the reasons. Follow law.

There we go again. And again. And again. And frankly you lie. I have NEVER said rioting is ok. EVER. Protest yes. Riot no. I have NEVER justified it. Just like you claimed my use of "Trumptard" was my go-to response when a quick check showed I used it exactly 3 times, on one day in June, in response to stuff like "Libtard" (which you seem to have no problem with).

"Never" ... "always"...for ONCE why don't you take what I actually say instead of claiming stuff I don't?

THIS is why we can't find common ground.

1. i don't lie. you just don't like what i say and as usual, go all extreme and run to the furthest extreme you can.
2. you have said rioting justified when you ignore someone for "so long" (real definite time period there to go by). you do the "yea it's wrong BUT HEY - YOU IGNORED THEM" crap.
3. "trump-tard" was never meant to be a YOU ALWAYS SAY TRUMPTARD. it's meant to say you "trump-wash" everything into it always coming back to TRUMP. you have chosen him to be your posterchild of evil i suppose so when someone does something you don't like, you seem to think they do it to defend trump; not simply tell you you're wrong.

and you bitching about FOR ONCE TAKE WHAT I SAY - woman, i tried to define this once before. remember "tell me what a successful "mexico paying for the wall" could consist of" so we could get a baseline. you refused and called me a troll. why? dunno except i was trying to pin you down to a specific answer because you tend to BOUNCE AROUND a lot as your emotions dictate.

THIS is why we cannot find common ground.

1. I gave two examples.
2. link to it.
3.Trump wash? I am up front about not liking either Trump or his policies. You seem to think I should say good about him when his policies (not to mention conduct) are the antithesis of what I support. I am perfectly happy to argue policy aspects but you inevitably start up on how it is all just Trump hate or fall back on splitting hairs when I do. Expecting me to like Trump would be like expecting to like Hilary, who, I might add, you seem to see as the personification of evil.

I never said you had to like Trump.

And to think recently you bitched at me for telling you what you were saying.

Show me where I said that. I now, want to be as literal as "trumptard" or you are as you called me, a liar.

 

[Coyote]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

One topic at a time. What are your thoughts on what is happening here?

if they should not be there, remove them.

....
The counties seemed to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations, the judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner, said in her order filed late on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
.....
"seeme to have"? how do we not know? they did or they did not.

Is it appropriate to do a voter roll purge a week before an election?

Is it appropriate to change election laws months before an election ?

She thinks so, yes.

IF you are going to change election laws or, in this case RULES (I don't think any laws were changed) then yes, MONTHS before IS appropriate. Not days before.

Let me put it like this.

I don't believe it's OK to change election laws just ahead of an election. If you do it, do it as a side process for all to attend and provide input as a group decision or discussion.

Period.

You seem to think it's OK to change "some" laws.

OK fine. I disagree but if you do this, OTHERS will want to also and seldom in a manner you approve of.

To me you want to pick and choose ONLY laws that benefit your mindset while passing it off as "for all".

SO... I don't want either side changing shit ahead of an election HOWEVER if you allow it for your side, to me its now allowed for all.

This is why you hear "rules for me and not for thee" about the left so often.

I dont think any rules that affect voter participation or understanding, should be changed close to an election.

But as I pointed out, you can have some rules that are mostly administrative, such as when mail in ballot processing can begin, that have no effect on the voting process and election integrity, so I see no reason not to make changes if election officials anticipate an unusually large volume.

Like I said, you wanna go changing the rules means everyone can. Justifying YOUR change is pointless

Again, I see you focus on individual battles and why your changes are good, others bad. .

I don't really care about people or how they play within the rules as long as they abide by them. When you start putting your changes, to the rules ahead of others REGUARDLESS OF THE REASON, others will do the same for their own reasons.

You keep acting as if I advocate one change over another.

I don't.

I simply realize you go making drastic changes others will too. Then we get to fight about who had the better reason for 4he changes.
[/QUOTE

You totally missed the point. Completely. Woosh, right over your head. Did you feel a breeze?

WHAT drastic rule change is starting the processing of mail in ballots earlier?

You assume it is all about what benefits who. I want rules that benefit the voter and his right to vote, nit rules that hinder or prevent it. I want rules that maintain the security and integrity of our elections, and so far, given all court challenges and DoJ looking into it, that has been achieved.

 

[iceberg]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

One topic at a time. What are your thoughts on what is happening here?

if they should not be there, remove them.

....
The counties seemed to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations, the judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner, said in her order filed late on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
.....
"seeme to have"? how do we not know? they did or they did not.

Is it appropriate to do a voter roll purge a week before an election?

Is it appropriate to change election laws months before an election ?

She thinks so, yes.

IF you are going to change election laws or, in this case RULES (I don't think any laws were changed) then yes, MONTHS before IS appropriate. Not days before.

Let me put it like this.

I don't believe it's OK to change election laws just ahead of an election. If you do it, do it as a side process for all to attend and provide input as a group decision or discussion.

Period.

You seem to think it's OK to change "some" laws.

OK fine. I disagree but if you do this, OTHERS will want to also and seldom in a manner you approve of.

To me you want to pick and choose ONLY laws that benefit your mindset while passing it off as "for all".

SO... I don't want either side changing shit ahead of an election HOWEVER if you allow it for your side, to me its now allowed for all.

This is why you hear "rules for me and not for thee" about the left so often.

I dont think any rules that affect voter participation or understanding, should be changed close to an election.

But as I pointed out, you can have some rules that are mostly administrative, such as when mail in ballot processing can begin, that have no effect on the voting process and election integrity, so I see no reason not to make changes if election officials anticipate an unusually large volume.

Like I said, you wanna go changing the rules means everyone can. Justifying YOUR change is pointless

Again, I see you focus on individual battles and why your changes are good, others bad. .

I don't really care about people or how they play within the rules as long as they abide by them. When you start putting your changes, to the rules ahead of others REGUARDLESS OF THE REASON, others will do the same for their own reasons.

You keep acting as if I advocate one change over another.

I don't.

I simply realize you go making drastic changes others will too. Then we get to fight about who had the better reason for 4he changes.
[/QUOTE

You totally missed the point. Completely. Woosh, right over your head. Did you feel a breeze?

WHAT drastic rule change is starting the processing of mail in ballots earlier?

You assume it is all about what benefits who. I want rules that benefit the voter and his right to vote, nit rules that hinder or prevent it. I want rules that maintain the security and integrity of our elections, and so far, given all court challenges and DoJ looking into it, that has been achieved.

and while i try to focus on the issue/topic, you come back at me, as usual.

later, Coyote - enough is enough.