BREAKING NEWS

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment" is specific to PA, and has nothing to do with "found" ballots after polls close in PA or any other state, and about which I doubt any current state constitution says much of anything.

I know you very much want this to be about the constitutionality of collecting ballots after polls closing, but it just isn't.

Federal constitution trumps (no pun intended) state constitution when it comes to Presidental Elections, not local state elections... so when it comes to the presidential election, the state constitution does not override federal.

I am not sure what parts of the US constitution you are referring to, since I don't think it says anything about states collecting ballots after the polls close, or anything about how PA is allowed to make changes to her election laws.

[The Conservative]

"a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment" is specific to PA, and has nothing to do with "found" ballots after polls close in PA or any other state, and about which I doubt any current state constitution says much of anything.

I know you very much want this to be about the constitutionality of collecting ballots after polls closing, but it just isn't.

Federal constitution trumps (no pun intended) state constitution when it comes to Presidental Elections, not local state elections... so when it comes to the presidential election, the state constitution does not override federal.

I am not sure what parts of the US constitution you are referring to, since I don't think it says anything about states collecting ballots after the polls close, or anything about how PA is allowed to make changes to her election laws.

It says it pretty clear...

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... lauses/750

https://encyclopedia.lexroll.com/encycl ... ns-clause/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/7

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Likewise the counterpart to the Elections Clause for the Executive Branch provides: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Id. art. II, § 1, cl. 3.

Simply put, election day is on one day, not days... and votes "found" after said day are null and void.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Seems like a stretch - especially given the fact that collecting a counting ballots after polls close has been a regular feature of every election we have ever had.

I doubt any SCOTUS would find the practice unconstitutional, but you sound pretty confident in your interpretation.

[The Conservative]

Seems like a stretch - especially given the fact that collecting a counting ballots after polls close has been a regular feature of every election we have ever had.

I doubt any SCOTUS would find the practice unconstitutional, but you sound pretty confident in your interpretation.

No, it has not. Not at this level, and not to this extreme. Also, for absentee ballots, not unsolicited or unaccounted mail-in ballots. Especially when more ballots come in than went out.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Seems like a stretch - especially given the fact that collecting a counting ballots after polls close has been a regular feature of every election we have ever had.

I doubt any SCOTUS would find the practice unconstitutional, but you sound pretty confident in your interpretation.

No, it has not. Not at this level, and not to this extreme. Also, for absentee ballots, not unsolicited or unaccounted mail-in ballots. Especially when more ballots come in than went out.

Ah. I see. It is constitutional unless it happens a lot.

Real sharp legal reasoning.

[The Conservative]

Seems like a stretch - especially given the fact that collecting a counting ballots after polls close has been a regular feature of every election we have ever had.

I doubt any SCOTUS would find the practice unconstitutional, but you sound pretty confident in your interpretation.

No, it has not. Not at this level, and not to this extreme. Also, for absentee ballots, not unsolicited or unaccounted mail-in ballots. Especially when more ballots come in than went out.

Ah. I see. It is constitutional unless it happens a lot.

Real sharp legal reasoning.

No, you are missing the point, and being obtuse on purpose.

Absentee ballots are verified. Unsolicited ballots or ballots based on unkempt voter registration lists are not, and with how there has been proof that enough shenanigans have occurred you have two recourses

1. Votes counted as after 12:00 AM (midnight) would not be allowed.

All ballots mailed in and otherwise, were already on record. Any votes after the day of election are unverifiable and null and void by US conventional law as well as state constitutional law.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I'll have you know that when I am obtuse it is always and entirely accidental.

Anyway - you keep talking about proof of shenanigans that would turn this election to favor Trump, but, to date, the only lawsuit within pissing distance of a judge has nothing to do with fraud or the general constitutionality of ballots collected after polls close.

[TheOneX]

Votes only have to be cast by that time. As long as they are cast the counting can take place after that time. The only point of contention would be receiving mail-in ballots after that time. I would agree with those who say any mail-in ballots received after election day should not be counted. A postmark is not secure enough to confirm the vote was cast by the deadline, only having the ballot physically in hand is enough security.

Going forward I do think we should just out-right ban mail-in voting. It is too insecure, too easily manipulated. The primary reason we even have it is due to military men serving overseas. With today's technology, though, we should be able to accommodate them without the need to use something as insecure as mail.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Breaking News: Mike Tyson is still the baddest motherfucker on the planet.

[The Conservative]

Votes only have to be cast by that time. As long as they are cast the counting can take place after that time. The only point of contention would be receiving mail-in ballots after that time. I would agree with those who say any mail-in ballots received after election day should not be counted. A postmark is not secure enough to confirm the vote was cast by the deadline, only having the ballot physically in hand is enough security.

Going forward I do think we should just out-right ban mail-in voting. It is too insecure, too easily manipulated. The primary reason we even have it is due to military men serving overseas. With today's technology, though, we should be able to accommodate them without the need to use something as insecure as mail.

If you do an absentee vote request that is secure. A generic mail-in-ballot is not.