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

[Monk-Eye]

" 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 an election would not have votes included in the total count of electorates from states for president .

Those election methods amended by secretaries of states , that wronged the lawful privilege of the state legislature , and that introduced sufficient and confirmed uncertainty for election integrity that the results cannot be validated , should represent malfeasance of office .

Where have secretaries of state committed malfeasance of office , whether elections results are validated or not validated ?

The rand paul voiced that state laws should specify by direct law that secretaries of state are unable to amend policy for election methods .

Which laws specify that legislatures alone designate election policy ?

State election agencies - Ballotpedia

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

State election agencies are responsible for monitoring all aspects of an election, from ballot access to voting provisions. Responsibility for election administration commonly falls to the secretary of state; in 38 states, the secretary of state is involved to some extent in election administration. In a handful of states, dedicated agencies (usually boards of elections) administer elections. In addition, 18 states have ethics commissions, which are typically involved in the administration and/or enforcement of campaign finance laws.



* First Time Voter Identity Sufficiency By Law Not Satisfied By Main In Voting *

Disqualified by state law , where signature verification is not sufficient , and secretary of state duped another voter out of representation and introduced sufficient ambiguity into an election outcome that it could not be certified .

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.

 

[Crepitus]

" 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 an election would not have votes included in the total count of electorates from states for president .

Those election methods amended by secretaries of states , that wronged the lawful privilege of the state legislature and introduced sufficient and confirmed uncertainty for election integrity that the results cannot be validated .

Where have secretaries of state committed malfeasance of office , whether elections results are validated or not validated ?

The rand paul voiced that state laws should specify by direct law that secretaries of state are unable to amend policy for election methods .

Which laws specify that legislatures alone designate election policy ?

State election agencies - Ballotpedia

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

State election agencies are responsible for monitoring all aspects of an election, from ballot access to voting provisions. Responsibility for election administration commonly falls to the secretary of state; in 38 states, the secretary of state is involved to some extent in election administration. In a handful of states, dedicated agencies (usually boards of elections) administer elections. In addition, 18 states have ethics commissions, which are typically involved in the administration and/or enforcement of campaign finance laws.



* First Time Voter Identity Sufficiency By Law Not Satisfied By Main In Voting *

Disqualified by state law , where signature verification is not sufficient , and secretary of state duped another voter out of representation and introduced sufficient ambiguity into an election outcome that it could not be certified .

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.

Where are you from?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Apologies About Time Of Edits Post Sent Seemed Okay At The Moment "

* Whose Asking *

Where are you from?

When having to reread posts after a pause to remove mental blocks and construct correct sentences , mine mind agent would be from some module scrying .

 

[Moonglow]

" Apologies About Time Of Edits Post Sent Seemed Okay At The Moment "

* Whose Asking *

Where are you from?

When having to reread posts after a pause to remove mental blocks and construct correct sentences , mine mind agent would be from some module scrying .

You are aware the election is over, the votes have been certified by all the states and the District of Columbia, the Electoral College has already voted thus awarding Biden as the president elect..

 

[Crepitus]

" Apologies About Time Of Edits Post Sent Seemed Okay At The Moment "

* Whose Asking *

Where are you from?

When having to reread posts after a pause to remove mental blocks and construct correct sentences , mine mind agent would be from some module scrying .

Me. I'm asking.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Cut To Quick "

* Yes Or No *

You are aware the election is over, the votes have been certified by all the states and the District of Columbia, the Electoral College has already voted thus awarding Biden as the president elect..

Was identification presented as per law by first time voters in pennsylvania ?

Where an answer to the question is no , those votes are to be excluded , whereby secretary of state disenfranchised those citizen voters , thereby nullifying the election integrity such that legislators do not have a choice other than to not validate the election results and refrain from casting electorates for president .

 

[Moonglow]

" Cut To Quick "

* Yes Or No *

You are aware the election is over, the votes have been certified by all the states and the District of Columbia, the Electoral College has already voted thus awarding Biden as the president elect..

Was identification presented as per law by first time voters in pennsylvania ?

If that is what they require, every state can create its own rules on elections.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Nothing Ambiguous "

* Voter Compromise And Results Cannot Be Validated *

If that is what they require, every state can create its own rules on elections.

Where the requirement for presenting a valid id for first time voters was not met those ballots must be removed from the count .

Such compromise of voting integrity invalidates the election results .

 

[Moonglow]

" Nothing Ambiguous "

* Voter Compromise And Results Cannot Be Validated *

If that is what they require, every state can create its own rules on elections.

Where the requirement for presenting a valid id for first time voters was not met those ballots must be removed from the count .

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the matter and told those suing that they had waited to long to fight the issue.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Poignant Arguments Of Issues Versus Conjectural Vagaries "

* Escape Not Sew Fast Easy *

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the matter and told those suing that they had waited to long to fight the issue.

The issue remains with the legislatures and lawsuits can be filed until inauguration when actual electoral votes are cast .

 

[Moonglow]

" Poignant Arguments Of Issues Versus Conjectural Vagaries "

* Escape Not Sew Fast Easy *

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the matter and told those suing that they had waited to long to fight the issue.

The issue remains with the legislatures and lawsuits can be filed until inauguration when actual electoral votes are cast .

They can file lawsuits to make changes to the law or the operations but they can't overturn the certified results.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Precedence Without Necessity For Audit Or Recount "

* Litigation Persuading Political Posture *

They can file lawsuits to make changes to the law or the operations but they can't overturn the certified results.

The legislators remain able to change the validation status of the results until inauguration day .

That first time voters did not provide sufficient identification , those votes must be exluded and the election count of votes that invalidates the election for lack of voting integrity .

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Agit8r]

" Cut To Quick "

* Yes Or No *

You are aware the election is over, the votes have been certified by all the states and the District of Columbia, the Electoral College has already voted thus awarding Biden as the president elect..

Was identification presented as per law by first time voters in pennsylvania ?

If that is what they require, every state can create its own rules on elections.

Well, there are certain federal restriction on who can vote. But only what is already law.

That's the reason the courts have sided against Troompa Loompa. There isn't any legal case for invalidating results.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Intransigent Fine Print Of Legislated Ship Codes Directing Stern Citizen Requirements For First Time Voters "

* Distributed Ballots Misguiding A Way To Ignore Statutes Of Law Requiring In Person Identification For First Time Voters *

Well, there are certain federal restriction on who can vote. But only what is already law.
That's the reason the courts have sided against Troompa Loompa. There isn't any legal case for invalidating results.

Which are reasons affirming the ethical basis for requiring in person identification for first time voters ?

Any offense against a legal statute set by legislatures that requires a presentation of voter identity for voting information of first time voters is not a triviality of law , it is a dictum with actionable consequences by law , it being the elections cast by the vote are not legal and must be excluded from the accepted ballots .

Once votes counted are reduced for first time voters whom did not provide in person identification , the election must be invalidated .

A policy that would have mitigated the malfeasance would be where secretaries of state provisioned locations for in person collection of voter petitions from first time voters .

While secretaries of state may be privileged to mass distribute ballots to optimize voter participation , secretaries of state are not privileged to ignore state law for the method of collecting votes from first time voters that being in person identification .

The in person first time voter identification rule is common among a number of states , and some secretaries of states have committed an egregious technical fault against election policy set forth by state legislative bodies that creates an adverse loss of election integrity by debasing equal representation of citizens that implicates an official act of malfeasance occurred .

Where secretaries of state orchestrated the collection of ballots for first time voters without in person identification against that requirement , the secretary of state is accountable for the legal consequence that votes are invalidated which includes being unable to validate electors for presidency and deprives state citizens equal representation .

The methods for collecting voter petitions , inappropriately termed mail in ballots , differs among states ; and , the statutes set forth passed by legislators were scrutinized by committees , articulated by legal experts and ratified by legislators to avoid deleterious consequences , including potential consequences if first time voting without verification were allowed to occur .

Ballot collection methods implemented by secretaries of state violated statutes in law that require in person identification for first time voters , where the legal consequence is exclusion of votes by first time voters that invalidates election confidence through a lack of equal representation among citizens and through a loss of confidence by legislators for voter integrity of the election process .

The voters of those states were wanton to weigh in on the presidential choice by providing electorates , however , which are realizations of those citizens more content to know the electorates were not cast for an invalid election based on an uncompromising technicality ?

 

[miketx]

" Apologies About Time Of Edits Post Sent Seemed Okay At The Moment "

* Whose Asking *

Where are you from?

When having to reread posts after a pause to remove mental blocks and construct correct sentences , mine mind agent would be from some module scrying .

Don't tell him where you're from because he'll want you to meet him at a bathhouse.

 

[Crepitus]

" Apologies About Time Of Edits Post Sent Seemed Okay At The Moment "

* Whose Asking *

Where are you from?

When having to reread posts after a pause to remove mental blocks and construct correct sentences , mine mind agent would be from some module scrying .

Don't tell him where you're from because he'll want you to meet him at a bathhouse.

Stop projecting Mikey. We all remember when you were "out".

 

[konradv]

" Intransigent Fine Print Of Legislated Ship Codes Directing Stern Citizen Requirements For First Time Voters "

* Distributed Ballots Misguiding A Way To Ignore Statutes Of Law Requiring In Person Identification For First Time Voters *

Well, there are certain federal restriction on who can vote. But only what is already law.
That's the reason the courts have sided against Troompa Loompa. There isn't any legal case for invalidating results.

Which are reasons affirming the ethical basis for requiring in person identification for first time voters ?

Any offense against a legal statute set by legislatures that requires a presentation of voter identity for voting information of first time voters is not a triviality of law , it is a dictum with actionable consequences by law , it being the elections cast by the vote are not legal and must be excluded from the accepted ballots .

Once votes counted are reduced for first time voters whom did not provide in person identification , the election must be invalidated .

A policy that would have mitigated the malfeasance would be where secretaries of state provisioned locations for in person collection of voter petitions from first time voters .

While secretaries of state may be privileged to mass distribute ballots to optimize voter participation , secretaries of state are not privileged to ignore state law for the method of collecting votes from first time voters that being in person identification .

The in person first time voter identification rule is common among a number of states , and some secretaries of states have committed an egregious technical fault against election policy set forth by state legislative bodies that creates an adverse loss of election integrity by debasing equal representation of citizens that implicates an official act of malfeasance occurred .

Where secretaries of state orchestrated the collection of ballots for first time voters without in person identification against that requirement , the secretary of state is accountable for the legal consequence that votes are invalidated which includes being unable to validate electors for presidency and deprives state citizens equal representation .

The methods for collecting voter petitions , inappropriately termed mail in ballots , differs among states ; and , the statutes set forth passed by legislators were scrutinized by committees , articulated by legal experts and ratified by legislators to avoid deleterious consequences , including potential consequences if first time voting without verification were allowed to occur .

Ballot collection methods implemented by secretaries of state violated statutes in law that require in person identification for first time voters , where the legal consequence is exclusion of votes by first time voters that invalidates election confidence through a lack of equal representation among citizens and through a loss of confidence by legislators for voter integrity of the election process .

The voters of those states were wanton to weigh in on the presidential choice by providing electorates , however , which are realizations of those citizens more content to know the electorates were not cast for an invalid election based on an uncompromising technicality ?

PASC & USSC both say you're wrong.