Criminal Charges for Hand-Counting Ballots?

[Harpy Eagle]

I am often times confused over what we are arguing. I ask and it rarely gets addressed but I will try here one more time.

What are we arguing? According to the judge he is enforcing election laws. What is the argument here? That he should just ignore them and rule counter to the laws?

That does seem to be the case. The "law and order" party is saying they should not have to follow the laws passed by the law and order party.

 

[billyerock123]

I am often times confused over what we are arguing. I ask and it rarely gets addressed but I will try here one more time.

What are we arguing? According to the judge he is enforcing election laws. What is the argument here? That he should just ignore them and rule counter to the laws?

you won't get an answer you will get a shiny object ... meaning they will say something that a democrat did and not answer the question that's what they do ... now your answer ...they feel that the election laws are biased for democrats and they feel they are being cheated by these election laws ... republicans don't like playing by the rules ... the rule is what the say it is ...

 

[SweetSue92]

Then your Arizona Republican legislature, should have written it in to their election law!

Why didn't they?

I have no problem with it if the town can pay for it, but it is against Arizona law....according to the courts.

It is not, it just has to be done "at random". Which they will do.

 

[Moonglow]

If the ballots are on the up-and-up there should be no problem with this.

Except it is not legal.

 

[SweetSue92]

The town wanted to run their election via all paper ballot and hand count.

Arizona sued the town, because Arizona election law, written by the republican majority legislature, does not permit it.

The court ruled it was against election law for the town to do it.

Town said it was gonna do it anyway.....or something like that....?

I'm talking about a hand RECOUNT, which is different

 

[SweetSue92]

Not the tab thing again, good god doesn't politicians know statistics?, Human behavior?

You can not be accurate hand counting ballots

No one uses "chads" anymore

 

[candycorn]

I am often times confused over what we are arguing. I ask and it rarely gets addressed but I will try here one more time.

What are we arguing? According to the judge he is enforcing election laws. What is the argument here? That he should just ignore them and rule counter to the laws?

Good luck getting a straight answer.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

well, this is the new may of counting ... the accuracy of the ballots count is 100 times more accurate than the hand counting of ballots ... when you vote now a computer longs your count ... each computer on-site is time to a mainframe that records your count and kicks out a paper ballot record of your vote and you are now logged into the systems where you have voted ... now the most accurate voting devices is the mail in ballot... it is 100 % accurate ... there it isn't any way for you to cheat ... that kills these republicans where they try and claim they are being cheated, its impossible to cheat ...

Way to go!

Keep that TV-to-brain download cable firmly connected so that you never have to do anything but open up your mouth and let the DNC talking points spew out! (poorly)

 

[pknopp]

Good luck getting a straight answer.

I haven't yet.

 

[SweetSue92]

That does seem to be the case. The "law and order" party is saying they should not have to follow the laws passed by the law and order party.

Well funny, the Dem Sec of State wrote Election Procedures that allowed for a full recount. Now she doesn't want it. What gives?

The county and its attorneys relied on a section in the state Election Procedures Manual written by the secretary of state’s office that allows counties to choose a larger number of early ballots for the hand-count audit, saying it gave them authority to do a 100% hand-count. McGinley said because that sentence wasn’t in the actual election law it “runs afoul of (the statute) and its requirement that the initial hand-count audit not exceed a review of 5,000 ballots.”

Stevens said he was surprised by that part of the ruling.

“The procedures manual was developed and written with the help of the recorders and election directors, approved by the secretary of secretary of state, approved by the governor and attorney general and now that line is illegal?” Stevens asked. “The court’s ruled — what am I to do? I just find it odd that they can pick one line and say ‘that’s illegal.’”

Arizona county's plan to hand-count ballots blocked by judge

A judge has blocked a rural Arizona county's plan to hand-count all the ballots in this week’s election.

apnews.com

 

[pknopp]

Well funny, the Dem Sec of State wrote Election Procedures that allowed for a full recount. Now she doesn't want it. What gives?

The county and its attorneys relied on a section in the state Election Procedures Manual written by the secretary of state’s office that allows counties to choose a larger number of early ballots for the hand-count audit, saying it gave them authority to do a 100% hand-count. McGinley said because that sentence wasn’t in the actual election law it “runs afoul of (the statute) and its requirement that the initial hand-count audit not exceed a review of 5,000 ballots.”

Stevens said he was surprised by that part of the ruling.

“The procedures manual was developed and written with the help of the recorders and election directors, approved by the secretary of secretary of state, approved by the governor and attorney general and now that line is illegal?” Stevens asked. “The court’s ruled — what am I to do? I just find it odd that they can pick one line and say ‘that’s illegal.’”

Arizona county's plan to hand-count ballots blocked by judge

A judge has blocked a rural Arizona county's plan to hand-count all the ballots in this week’s election.

apnews.com

The judge ruled based upon the actual law. Are you arguing the judge should ignore the actual law?

 

[SweetSue92]

Well funny, the Dem Sec of State wrote Election Procedures that allowed for a full recount. Now she doesn't want it. What gives?

The county and its attorneys relied on a section in the state Election Procedures Manual written by the secretary of state’s office that allows counties to choose a larger number of early ballots for the hand-count audit, saying it gave them authority to do a 100% hand-count. McGinley said because that sentence wasn’t in the actual election law it “runs afoul of (the statute) and its requirement that the initial hand-count audit not exceed a review of 5,000 ballots.”

Stevens said he was surprised by that part of the ruling.

“The procedures manual was developed and written with the help of the recorders and election directors, approved by the secretary of secretary of state, approved by the governor and attorney general and now that line is illegal?” Stevens asked. “The court’s ruled — what am I to do? I just find it odd that they can pick one line and say ‘that’s illegal.’”

Arizona county's plan to hand-count ballots blocked by judge

A judge has blocked a rural Arizona county's plan to hand-count all the ballots in this week’s election.

apnews.com

It's just amazing to me that Public Health officials can completely overwrite laws to puts masks on all our mugs, close schools and businesses, fine! But now when the Dems want to cheat, NO! Only by the letter of the law!

 

[Curried Goats]

Thus far not a single Democrat in this or any other thread saying, "Hey that's a great idea. They should hand count the votes to make sure the election is secure!"

Wow...now that's a mystery huh?

You're a fucking dipshit. What does this ruling by a judge have to do with the feelings of Democrats? Go ahead and count whatever you like. Relive your loss over and over and over again if it makes you feel better. It definitely makes me feel better.

 

[SweetSue92]

The judge ruled based upon the actual law. Are you arguing the judge should ignore the actual law?

I'm saying what's wrong with hand counting all the votes with so many people skeptical?

IF it was okay to override the "actual law" to put cotton cloth over all our mugs and close our schools TO OUR CHILDREN'S DETRIMENT--then what's wrong with a complete hand count as the Sec of State's office prescribed?

 

[SweetSue92]

I haven't yet.

Here's another straight answer.

I went to my county commissioners over and over and over and cited to them where their "health order" to force me to mask at work was against the law.

They didn't care.

So what? Who cares about laws?

 

[ColonelAngus]

I will keep repeating, in 2012, the New York Times published a piece that said mail in ballots were not secure.

Now they are somehow secure?

Ballot harvesting is actually legal in a bunch of states.

Dems are cheaters.

 

[SweetSue92]

I am pretty sure it was not Dems that passed those laws.

Why do you think these people should be allowed to ignore state laws?

Tell my why my county and state ignored law FOR MONTHS when they closed our schools and businesses and forced me to wear ineffective, and stupid, cloth over my mug.

Well, go on. I brought up the law to them many times. THey didn't care.

Neither.

Do.

We.

Deal with that.

 

[pknopp]

I'm saying what's wrong with hand counting all the votes with so many people skeptical?

IF it was okay to override the "actual law" to put cotton cloth over all our mugs and close our schools TO OUR CHILDREN'S DETRIMENT--then what's wrong with a complete hand count as the Sec of State's office prescribed?

No idea what "actual law" you are referencing. But then again, neither do you.

But again, you are repeating your claim, not answering my question. The judge should ignore the actual law?

 

[SweetSue92]

I am often times confused over what we are arguing. I ask and it rarely gets addressed but I will try here one more time.

What are we arguing? According to the judge he is enforcing election laws. What is the argument here? That he should just ignore them and rule counter to the laws?

Another judge will decide between what the SEC of STATE wrote and what the law says.

But I'm not that worried. The truth will out. When the cheat is big enough, the truth always outs.

 

[SweetSue92]

No idea what "actual law" you are referencing. But then again, neither do you.

But again, you are repeating your claim, not answering my question. The judge should ignore the actual law?

The county health depts had no lawful right to tell individual free American citizens to wear cloth over our mugs.

They didn't care.

Neither. Do. We.

I have been telling you folks:

Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.