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.

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.

I said “you seem to think”.

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

See above. In the meantime, link to where I supported riots, because that is a pretty damn serious accusation. I will wait.

In the meantime, back to the original discussion...changing rules. I actually don’t agree with rules right before ( as in a week or two) Without a darn good reason. I see both sides trying to leverage their sides, do you?

I don’t really care that much as long as no voters are obstructed or disenfranchised from exercising their right on either side, and election integrity is preserved. I have been consistent on voter rights period. What I SEEM to see from you is a greater concern for whinch team might be getting an advantage than with voter rights. In this case in Georgia, the judge cited clear election law in her ruling, which would be violated by purging the rolls at this particular time.

Since we’ve been talking generalities, what specific rule change did you feel was made to close to an election that justified, in your view, this Republican tit for tat, as you describe it?

Rather than

 

[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.

I said “you seem to think”.

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

See above. In the meantime, link to where I supported riots, because that is a pretty damn serious accusation. I will wait.

In the meantime, back to the original discussion...changing rules. I actually don’t agree with rules right before ( as in a week or two) Without a darn good reason. I see both sides trying to leverage their sides, do you?

I don’t really care that much as long as no voters are obstructed or disenfranchised from exercising their right on either side, and election integrity is preserved. I have been consistent on voter rights period. What I SEEM to see from you is a greater concern for whinch team might be getting an advantage than with voter rights. In this case in Georgia, the judge cited clear election law in her ruling, which would be violated by purging the rolls at this particular time.

Since we’ve been talking generalities, what specific rule change did you feel was made to close to an election that justified, in your view, this Republican tit for tat, as you describe it?

Rather than

You don't understand what I am saying and you never will.

 

[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.

I never said you had to like Trump.

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

I said “you seem to think”.

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

See above. In the meantime, link to where I supported riots, because that is a pretty damn serious accusation. I will wait.

In the meantime, back to the original discussion...changing rules. I actually don’t agree with rules right before ( as in a week or two) Without a darn good reason. I see both sides trying to leverage their sides, do you?

I don’t really care that much as long as no voters are obstructed or disenfranchised from exercising their right on either side, and election integrity is preserved. I have been consistent on voter rights period. What I SEEM to see from you is a greater concern for whinch team might be getting an advantage than with voter rights. In this case in Georgia, the judge cited clear election law in her ruling, which would be violated by purging the rolls at this particular time.

Since we’ve been talking generalities, what specific rule change did you feel was made to close to an election that justified, in your view, this Republican tit for tat, as you describe it?

Rather than

You don't understand what I am saying and you never will.

So much for attempting to discuss the issues

 

[Synthaholic]

Suck it losers!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Georgia State Law Directs Only Those Eligible To Vote In Initial Election Are Allowed To Vote In Runoff Election Denied By Activist Judges Over Stepping Federal Jurisdiction Against Us Tenth Amendment And Common Sense "

* Demon Rat Criminals *

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.

Is the Ga Constitution Being Violated with New Voter Registrations for January Runoff? - AllOnGeorgia

As Trump campaign attorney Lin Wood tweeted that the Georgia Secretary of State was ‘blatantly violating’ the Georgia Constitution - specifically a clause that prohibits voting in runoff elections if the voter was not registered ‘and eligible’ in the general election - many Georgians are asking...

allongeorgia.com

The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office reported last week that nearly 76,000 new voters registered between the November 3, 2020 election and the voter registration deadline on December 7, 2020.

In Georgia, our Constitution reads that “[a] run-off election shall be a continuation of the general election and only persons who were entitled to vote in the general election shall be entitled to vote therein; and only those votes cast for the persons designated for the runoff shall be counted in the tabulation and canvass of the votes cast.”

A settlement from 2017 following a suit by the The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (representing the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda, ProGeorgia State Table, Third Sector Development, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Atlanta) against the state of Georgia is what led the state to stop enforcing Article II, Section II, Paragraph II of the Constitution as it pertains to federal elections.

Previously, a ‘blackout period’ for voter registration was in place between an election and a runoff election.

The lawsuit filed in April 2017 alleged that Georgia’s practice of cutting off voter registration for federal run-off elections two months earlier than guaranteed was a violation of federal law, particularly Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 [52 USC 20507(a)(1)].

On October 13, 2017, a Consent Decree was signed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten (a Bush appointee) ruled that against the state. It dismissed ‘the State of Georgia’ from the suit and ordered the Secretary of State’s Office to stop enforcing the aforementioned section of the state Constitution and any similar state statute. In short, the Consent Decree stated that Georgia cannot prescribe a voter registration deadline in any federal election, “including all future federal runoffs, that is longer than the deadline provided under state law and in no case longer than 30 days before an election.”


* Democrats Explain How To Cheat In Elections By Casting Votes For Senators From Two States By Compromising Runoff Election Integrity *

Lawsuit alleged out-of-staters coming to Georgia to vote; 2nd suit attacks voting process

A judge dismissed the voter registration lawsuit. A new lawsuit is pending about absentee ballots and voting machines.

www.savannahnow.com

Georgia Republicans, including the campaigns of U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, sued on Thursday to get election officials to remove from the ballot count the ballots of new Georgia residents who vote in the ongoing runoff elections for Georgia’s two U.S. Senate seats.

A federal judge on Friday evening rejected their case.

Loeffler and Perdue are defending their seats from Democratic challengers Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff. Polling says the races are close. If the Democrats win, they will snatch control of the U.S. Senate away from the Republicans as Democrat Joe Biden becomes president.

In the voter residency lawsuit filed Thursday, the plaintiffs believe some new Georgia residents “raced to Georgia to register to vote” specifically to cast ballots in Georgia’s elections for the U.S. Senate, lawyer George Meros of Tallahassee, Florida, said in a hearing late Friday afternoon. Voters shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the same election cycle for senators in two states, Meros told the judge.

He contended that it is illegal under the federal Voting Rights Act and unfair to Georgia’s other voters.

The lawsuit cites statements made in November on Twitter and on CNN in which commentators said people should quickly move to Georgia in order to vote in the runoff.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whose office is in charge of elections, previously said his office is investigating whether several groups were bringing people to Georgia to fraudulently vote.

Voter registration reopened following the Nov. 3 general election and closed on Dec. 7 for the runoff balloting. Residents who weren’t registered to vote in Georgia the Nov. 3 balloting (when no U.S. Senate candidates obtained a majority) were allowed to register to vote in the runoff elections. Early voting and absentee voting are underway, and balloting ends Jan. 5.

* Bantering An Alternate Election Faux Pas Invalidating Election And No Electoral College Votes Should Be Allowed *

Voter identification laws by state

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Pennsylvania does not require voters to present identification while voting in most cases. However, first-time voters must show identification. Accepted forms include both photo and non-photo ID.

Secretaries Of State Malfeasance Causing Elections Not To Be Validated And Electoral Votes Are Not Included In Those For President

" Secretaries Of State Malfeasance Causing Elections Not To Be Validated And Electoral Votes Are Not Included In Those For President " * Proclivities Of Whomping Non Citizen Usurpers And Correcting Despotic Officials Harming Citizens Of The State * It is direct that states unable to validate...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Coyote]

" Georgia State Law Directs Only Those Eligible To Vote In Initial Election Are Allowed To Vote In Runoff Election Denied By Activist Judges Over Stepping Federal Jurisdiction Against Us Tenth Amendment And Common Sense "

* Demon Rat Criminals *

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.

Is the Ga Constitution Being Violated with New Voter Registrations for January Runoff? - AllOnGeorgia

As Trump campaign attorney Lin Wood tweeted that the Georgia Secretary of State was ‘blatantly violating’ the Georgia Constitution - specifically a clause that prohibits voting in runoff elections if the voter was not registered ‘and eligible’ in the general election - many Georgians are asking...

allongeorgia.com

The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office reported last week that nearly 76,000 new voters registered between the November 3, 2020 election and the voter registration deadline on December 7, 2020.

In Georgia, our Constitution reads that “[a] run-off election shall be a continuation of the general election and only persons who were entitled to vote in the general election shall be entitled to vote therein; and only those votes cast for the persons designated for the runoff shall be counted in the tabulation and canvass of the votes cast.”

A settlement from 2017 following a suit by the The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (representing the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda, ProGeorgia State Table, Third Sector Development, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Atlanta) against the state of Georgia is what led the state to stop enforcing Article II, Section II, Paragraph II of the Constitution as it pertains to federal elections.

Previously, a ‘blackout period’ for voter registration was in place between an election and a runoff election.

The lawsuit filed in April 2017 alleged that Georgia’s practice of cutting off voter registration for federal run-off elections two months earlier than guaranteed was a violation of federal law, particularly Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 [52 USC 20507(a)(1)].

On October 13, 2017, a Consent Decree was signed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten (a Bush appointee) ruled that against the state. It dismissed ‘the State of Georgia’ from the suit and ordered the Secretary of State’s Office to stop enforcing the aforementioned section of the state Constitution and any similar state statute. In short, the Consent Decree stated that Georgia cannot prescribe a voter registration deadline in any federal election, “including all future federal runoffs, that is longer than the deadline provided under state law and in no case longer than 30 days before an election.”


* Democrats Explain How To Cheat In Elections By Casting Votes For Senators From Two States By Compromising Runoff Election Integrity *

Lawsuit alleged out-of-staters coming to Georgia to vote; 2nd suit attacks voting process

A judge dismissed the voter registration lawsuit. A new lawsuit is pending about absentee ballots and voting machines.

www.savannahnow.com

Georgia Republicans, including the campaigns of U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, sued on Thursday to get election officials to remove from the ballot count the ballots of new Georgia residents who vote in the ongoing runoff elections for Georgia’s two U.S. Senate seats.

A federal judge on Friday evening rejected their case.

Loeffler and Perdue are defending their seats from Democratic challengers Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff. Polling says the races are close. If the Democrats win, they will snatch control of the U.S. Senate away from the Republicans as Democrat Joe Biden becomes president.

In the voter residency lawsuit filed Thursday, the plaintiffs believe some new Georgia residents “raced to Georgia to register to vote” specifically to cast ballots in Georgia’s elections for the U.S. Senate, lawyer George Meros of Tallahassee, Florida, said in a hearing late Friday afternoon. Voters shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the same election cycle for senators in two states, Meros told the judge.

He contended that it is illegal under the federal Voting Rights Act and unfair to Georgia’s other voters.

The lawsuit cites statements made in November on Twitter and on CNN in which commentators said people should quickly move to Georgia in order to vote in the runoff.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whose office is in charge of elections, previously said his office is investigating whether several groups were bringing people to Georgia to fraudulently vote.

Voter registration reopened following the Nov. 3 general election and closed on Dec. 7 for the runoff balloting. Residents who weren’t registered to vote in Georgia the Nov. 3 balloting (when no U.S. Senate candidates obtained a majority) were allowed to register to vote in the runoff elections. Early voting and absentee voting are underway, and balloting ends Jan. 5.

* Bantering An Alternate Election Faux Pas Invalidating Election And No Electoral College Votes Should Be Allowed *

Voter identification laws by state

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Pennsylvania does not require voters to present identification while voting in most cases. However, first-time voters must show identification. Accepted forms include both photo and non-photo ID.

Secretaries Of State Malfeasance Causing Elections Not To Be Validated And Electoral Votes Are Not Included In Those For President

" Secretaries Of State Malfeasance Causing Elections Not To Be Validated And Electoral Votes Are Not Included In Those For President " * Proclivities Of Whomping Non Citizen Usurpers And Correcting Despotic Officials Harming Citizens Of The State * It is direct that states unable to validate...

www.usmessageboard.com

So...in all that, I'm not clear on something.

Is the issue of "4000" votes - 4000 people who voted in the initial election? Or is it 4000 new people who registered after the initial election?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Will Supposedly Be Denied To Vote So Why Not Purge "

* Demon Rats Working To Sneak Illegitimate Votes *

So...in all that, I'm not clear on something.
Is the issue of "4000" votes - 4000 people who voted in the initial election? Or is it 4000 new people who registered after the initial election?

Allowing 76,000 voters to register from other states for a runoff election is criminal .

Otherwise , in address of this op , imho the judge appears to be a disingenuous imbecile , in that according to georgia secretary of state public notice the idiot is too stupid to understand georgia voting laws , in that nothing will prevent the state from not sending an absentee ballot , in that nothing will keep the state from not accepting the +4000 voters should they proceed to the poles , if they have not followed the correct method for reinstating their qualifications to vote .

]Obama Appointed Judge Strikes Blow To Rule Of Law In Georgia Elections | Elections
On December 28, 2020, Judge Abrams Gardner enjoined the Muscogee and Ben Hill Boards of Elections from proceeding with challenges to 4,033 and 152 registered voters respectively who have also filed a National Change of Address notice with the United States Postal Service, indicating they had moved. Last week, the Secretary Raffensperger sent letters to 8,000 such individuals warning them of the consequences of voting while not a resident of Georgia.

By Georgia law, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-217, “If a person removes to another state with the intention of making it such person's residence, such person shall be considered to have lost such person's residence in this state.”

At no point in the ruling does Judge Abrams Gardner acknowledge the voter challenge procedures allowed by Georgia law (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230). Georgia law outlines a specific process by which Georgians can challenge the qualifications of other registered Georgia voters up until 5:00pm on the day before Election Day if the voter casts an absentee ballot. Any “such challenge shall be in writing and specify distinctly the grounds of such challenge.” At that point, each challenged voter is entitled to a hearing at which “[t]he burden shall be on the elector making the challenge to prove that the person being challenged is not qualified” (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-229).

Additionally, throughout her order, Judge Abrams Gardner repeatedly refers to removing individuals from the voter lists. The provisions of Georgia law utilized by the Muscogee and Ben Hill Boards of Elections, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230, deal specifically to the acceptance or rejection of ballots cast by a challenged individual, not to the removal of individuals from voter lists.