This "mass mailing" of ballots is SO well planned and thought out -- What could possibly go wrong? Maybe the whole security of voting IN PRIVATE with as few eyes as possible on your ballot? Maybe folks returning mass mailed ballots can not follow simple directions?
It's been legally required to provide an inner envelope (secrecy envelope) on absentee ballots in most states. That way there is less labor on election day and less folks in the "inner sanctum" to feed them to the counting machines.. This ruling confirms that folks MUST FOLLOW DIRECTIONS and use the secrecy envelope when returning mail ballots. Dems are outraged of course.. Any RULES that must be followed to protect the voting process is "voter disenchisement"..
So -- we're gonna test this shart bomb LIVE on Election day huh?? Without any legislation or hearings or process... Never let Dems design voting process.. They couldn't count to 100,000 in Iowa caucuses for their own puny primary with the people standing there right in front of them.
www.cnbc.com
The top elections official in Philadelphia is warning that a little-noticed aspect of a recent ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could cause over 100,000 votes statewide to be voided, creating the conditions for a post-election legal battle “the likes of which we have not seen since Florida in 2000.”
Lisa Deeley, the Democratic chairwoman of the city commissioners office, which oversees elections, cited the Thursday decision from the court that invalidated so-called “naked ballots,” or those that are submitted without secrecy envelopes that mask the identity of the voter, in a letter dated Monday and addressed to state lawmakers.
The ruling interpreted a law that specifies that those voting by mail must place their ballots inside envelopes that shield their name. Those envelopes are then placed in a second envelope which has the address of the voter’s election board.
The state Democratic Party had argued that while the election code directed voters to use the secrecy envelope, it did not authorize officials to discard their ballots if they did not do so. The state Republican Party, on the other hand, argued that counting naked ballots would compromise the integrity of the secret ballot.
Justice Max Baer wrote that based on the text of the law it was clear that the state legislature intended that “it should not be readily apparent who the elector is, with what party he or she affiliates, or for whom the elector has voted.”
It's been legally required to provide an inner envelope (secrecy envelope) on absentee ballots in most states. That way there is less labor on election day and less folks in the "inner sanctum" to feed them to the counting machines.. This ruling confirms that folks MUST FOLLOW DIRECTIONS and use the secrecy envelope when returning mail ballots. Dems are outraged of course.. Any RULES that must be followed to protect the voting process is "voter disenchisement"..
So -- we're gonna test this shart bomb LIVE on Election day huh?? Without any legislation or hearings or process... Never let Dems design voting process.. They couldn't count to 100,000 in Iowa caucuses for their own puny primary with the people standing there right in front of them.
Philadelphia election official warns 'naked ballot' ruling could jeopardize 100,000 Pennsylvania votes
A top elections official in Philadelphia is warning that 100,000 ballots could be rejected because of a recent ruling regarding so-called "naked ballots."
www.cnbc.com
The top elections official in Philadelphia is warning that a little-noticed aspect of a recent ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could cause over 100,000 votes statewide to be voided, creating the conditions for a post-election legal battle “the likes of which we have not seen since Florida in 2000.”
Lisa Deeley, the Democratic chairwoman of the city commissioners office, which oversees elections, cited the Thursday decision from the court that invalidated so-called “naked ballots,” or those that are submitted without secrecy envelopes that mask the identity of the voter, in a letter dated Monday and addressed to state lawmakers.
The ruling interpreted a law that specifies that those voting by mail must place their ballots inside envelopes that shield their name. Those envelopes are then placed in a second envelope which has the address of the voter’s election board.
The state Democratic Party had argued that while the election code directed voters to use the secrecy envelope, it did not authorize officials to discard their ballots if they did not do so. The state Republican Party, on the other hand, argued that counting naked ballots would compromise the integrity of the secret ballot.
Justice Max Baer wrote that based on the text of the law it was clear that the state legislature intended that “it should not be readily apparent who the elector is, with what party he or she affiliates, or for whom the elector has voted.”
