It's a legal and constitutional principle that voting must be accessible and within means. The pandemic changed the parameters for what is necessary to meet that standard.
Nor does it say we can't. There is the principle of counting all the votes in a supposedly legitimate election, though.
Funny it only changed the parameters of the constitution in Pennsylvania, and not the 27 other states that don't accept late ballots. It's also funny that in an effort to avoid congregating in person, they instituted physical locations where one could do a mail-in ballot by congregating in person.
It's not "funny", it's literally how states are run. They all take care of their own elections. Some states either didn't need to change or didn't give enough of a shit
Nope, it was 12. Stop lying
What I posted is the difference between election night results and the final hand recount.
Yes, every state determines their own electoral rules, that's true. And protected in the constitution.
...which still lessens the necessity of going all at the same time to the same place.
Where did the numbers in their chart even come from? Trump won Antrim county in the first place. The 11/3 total was Trump: 9,748 to Biden: 5,960
What I posted is the difference between election night results and the final hand recount.
It's not though
Do none of you understand how the government is supposed to work here? The state legislature is free write its election laws. They did that. Those laws didn't include many changes pushed through by local election officials and the state court system. The courts should only be involved if the rules formulated by the legislature violate other laws.
Which rule are we talking specifically? Because it looks like you're very wrong on every count
www.npr.org
I'm pretty sure we both know where they pulled those numbers from.
What are you talking about? In the article you linked to, the court was acting because lawsuits were filed. Who is supposed to act on these lawsuits then? How was the court the originator of these orders?That's not the proper perspective when considering judicial decisions. The organization of the government here is the legislature makes the rules, the executive enacts the rules, the judiciary interprets the rules.
When legislature writes laws, you ask "what of that is against the constitution"? In fact, that's the courts job, to determine what is and isn't against the laws established by the constitution and legislature.
The courts are supposed to act when the law has been violated. You understand the states are largely allowed to conduct their elections as they see fit. The PA legislature has large discretion on what the election laws for the state are. The court should not be involved unless those laws are in conflict with state or federal constitutions or existing law.
Like, I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that ballots put in the mail by election day should count. My problem with the court isn't the idea of the policy they ordered. It's that they ordered it. Not in response to election laws being illegal as written. Nothing in the federal or state constitutions dictates we have to count late mail-in ballots. The court shouldn't be able to just decide that because they want to. But they did, literally because the Democratic Party asked them to. Like, look at this:
Pennsylvania Democrats notch key election-related court wins
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania’s highest court gave the Democratic Party a series of victories Thursday in the presidential battleground state, relaxing deadlines in its fledgling mail-in voting law, approving more ballot collection sites and kicking the Green Party’s presidential candidate offapnews.com
The Democratic majority of the court decided, because the Democratic Party asked them to, to extend the deadline (because of conspiracy theories that Trump was going to stop the mail, lest we forget that nonsense), to keep open de facto early voting stations, and to kick the Green Party candidate off the ballot for faxing paperwork instead of delivering the original copy. (That last one, a lower court had said "ok, just let them hand in the originals now, problem solved", and they overturned that.)
Seriously, these people acted like scum. Partisan scum. It's really infuriating.
Yeah, they changed their numbers
Oh so it is bullshit, got it. They're using an unofficial number made before the tallying finished, which has no bearing anywhere on anything related to this, since this was an audit of the Dominion voting machines if I understand correctly, and the audit done on the 17th shows that the machines did not do anything untoward to the vote total.Yeah, they changed their numbers
Antrim Co. Clerk: Every Vote Will Be Counted As Cast Despite Early Unofficial Result Error - 9 & 10 News
The Antrim County Clerk has new unofficial results after an issue with their election software skewed their original ones. Those results, now retracted, turned the reliably red county very blue. The county wants voters to rest assured that despite this error, their vote will count the way it was...www.9and10news.com
" The retracted version said President Trump only had 4,509 votes in Antrim County. Election officials began working towards new unofficial results after learning early Wednesday morning that something wasn’t right. "
I'd say you don't really understand the proscribed role of the judiciary very well. The state legislature is free to determine its election laws. It's meant to do so according to the legal principle that voting should be reasonably accessible. The PA judiciary decided that in order to keep to that principle, additional measures were justified to make mail-in voting easier.
