How much Voter Fraud do you think we will see this year?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am not debating the legislature has a right to chose the electoral. I am arguing that the constitution has been broken by the judicial branch of the state.

I believe this is the relevant phrase:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

The states in question have legislatures that have directed that electors are chosen in accordance with the popular vote. Whence the constitutional problem?

This clause:

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.

has to do with the date the electors are chosen and the day the electors cast their ballots. The constitution doesn't say much of anything about how the states run the popular votes that direct the legislators in their choice of electors.

States have a lot of discretion over that, and the constitution is essentially mute on the minutia of procedural changes.

The place to litigate these procedural issues is the state court, and the time was before the election. The state and supreme court have already agreed on this laches issue with Kelly v PA.

[The Conservative]

I am not debating the legislature has a right to chose the electoral. I am arguing that the constitution has been broken by the judicial branch of the state.

I believe this is the relevant phrase:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

The states in question have legislatures that have directed that electors are chosen in accordance with the popular vote. Whence the constitutional problem?

This clause:

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.

has to do with the date the electors are chosen and the day the electors cast their ballots. The constitution doesn't say much of anything about how the states run the popular votes that direct the legislators in their choice of electors.

States have a lot of discretion over that, and the constitution is essentially mute on the minutia of procedural changes.

The place to litigate these procedural issues is the state court, and the time was before the election. The state and supreme court have already agreed on this laches issue with Kelly v PA.

Get off the electors stint you fucking git.

I am not debating that part.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The entire case is about how states choose electors.

If you aren't debating that, you aren't talking about the case that was brought before SCOTUS.

I have no idea what you are talking about, other than constitutional violations based on clauses you have imagined into the constitution.

[Ph64]

I am not debating the legislature has a right to chose the electoral. I am arguing that the constitution has been broken by the judicial branch of the state.

I believe this is the relevant phrase:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

The states in question have legislatures that have directed that electors are chosen in accordance with the popular vote. Whence the constitutional problem?

Correct, but the legislature also decides what constitutes a valid/legal vote does it not? And they are constrained by the state's constitution (or above that the US Constitution)?

So what happens then if the legislature passes a "law" that is then challenged and found unconstitutional? Or if the courts or state governor, secretary of state, etc, try to skirt around the legislature by changing the rules without the legislature's approval?

Are we saying that if the constitution says discrimination is illegal, but the secretary of state decides that - I dunno, Hispanics can't vote - that if it wasn't challenged before the election then "latches" apply and its a moot point? Sounds ludicrous, right? Does it become any less ludicrous if the state supreme court allows it? What about if the legislature sneaks it in a year before the election and nobody notices? I mean, in any case it's still a violation of the constitution (state or federal).

I'll leave it up to you to stand in front of the angry mob of disenfranchised voters and explain to them they can't take it to court because they didn't take action "soon enough".

[TheOneX]

Latches is a bullshit ruling to give these courts an escape from doing their job. The only time it is too late to challenge something is when the thing you are challenging is moot. In the case of an election, it is only moot when those elected have already finished their term. Up until that point they can be removed from office if it is found out something illegal happened that resulted in them getting in that office.

Our elections are the most sacred aspect of our republic. We have to treat them with the utmost respect and guard them vigilantly, even if that means nullifying an election. You can always perform a new election. The bar for examining an election should be very low. When one county in Michigan found an error that cause votes to flip, that should have automatically triggered a hand recount in all of Michigan (at a minimum) to make sure that same error did not occur in other counties. When you find statistical anomalies that you would expect to see if there was fraud should be enough to trigger a full audit of an election. There is nothing wrong or sinful about doing an audit. When one state thinks another state is breaking its own laws in its election it is ok to examine if that is the case.

You should have a high standard of proof to overturn an election, but a low standard of evidence to investigate an election. That is all anyone is asking for an investigation. If an investigation finds nothing, then 99% of people will move on and accept the results. If the courts and governors refuse to hear claims or to investigate then all you are doing is increasing suspicion and division. A ruling on merit will always be better than punting. The reason why these courts do not want to rule on merit is because they know if they do, they will probably have to nullify the results. We have a bunch of milksops for judges.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am not debating the legislature has a right to chose the electoral. I am arguing that the constitution has been broken by the judicial branch of the state.

I believe this is the relevant phrase:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

The states in question have legislatures that have directed that electors are chosen in accordance with the popular vote. Whence the constitutional problem?

Correct, but the legislature also decides what constitutes a valid/legal vote does it not? And they are constrained by the state's constitution (or above that the US Constitution)?

So what happens then if the legislature passes a "law" that is then challenged and found unconstitutional? Or if the courts or state governor, secretary of state, etc, try to skirt around the legislature by changing the rules without the legislature's approval?

Are we saying that if the constitution says discrimination is illegal, but the secretary of state decides that - I dunno, Hispanics can't vote - that if it wasn't challenged before the election then "latches" apply and its a moot point? Sounds ludicrous, right? Does it become any less ludicrous if the state supreme court allows it? What about if the legislature sneaks it in a year before the election and nobody notices? I mean, in any case it's still a violation of the constitution (state or federal).

I'll leave it up to you to stand in front of the angry mob of disenfranchised voters and explain to them they can't take it to court because they didn't take action "soon enough".

The problem of covert disenfranchisement is essentially the argument Stacey Abrams used reject the midterm she lost. I didn't think it was convincing then, and I don't find it convincing now.

As to an actual state law that specifically disenfranchises some class of voter, and somehow escapes all detection - I suppose it is technically possible, but I don't think it is all that likely, and we can cross that legal bridge when we get to it.

The TX case isn't really about disenfranchisement.

The laches doctrine might not be something the angry mob likes, and they might not understand why it exists, but it is still a part of our legal system, and it neither violates the constitution nor the rule of law.

I certainly hope you aren't suggesting we should abandon the constitution or the rule of law because an angry mob doesn't like or understand them.

[PartyOf5]

What a total letdown all of these lawsuits have been.

Giuliani has been an incompetent boob for years now. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the Wood and Powell lawsuits were a setup by the Democrats to basically run out the clock. 6 weeks in and while everyone knows the election was rigged, no one has done jack shit about it. The entire system has failed us. I feel sorry for the people on those hundreds of pages of affidavits who thought they were making a difference. Now they will get doxxed, harassed and canceled for nothing. The GOP has shown that 99% of them are worthless swamp creatures who don't give a damn about the constitution, this country, or it's people.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

When one county in Michigan found an error that cause votes to flip, that should have automatically triggered a hand recount in all of Michigan (at a minimum) to make sure that same error did not occur in other counties.

That is what the canvass is for. Michigan had one of those, as did every other state. Many states had recounts. Georgia had multiple recounts.

If an investigation finds nothing, then 99% of people will move on and accept the results. If the courts and governors refuse to hear claims or to investigate then all you are doing is increasing suspicion and division. A ruling on merit will always be better than punting.

Many of the cases that weren't dropped without comment by the plaintiff, and made it to court, were judged on merit. The judges found there were allegations and hearsay, but little actionable evidence.

People didn't move on and accept this, they doubled down on even broader allegations that all withered when plaintiffs were under oath, leaving us with "this isn't about fraud, or irregularities, because they are undetectable."

Laches exists for a reason. Like much of our law, it exists to protect the accused from unreasonable, or bad faith litigation.

[The Conservative]

https://outline.com/8jMm6A

Powell Asks Supreme Court to Immediately Order States Decertify Election Results

[PartyOf5]

So now rule of law and legal technicalities matter, but when Trump was being investigated for Russia collusion and was being impeached you were fine with allegations and hearsay, but little actionable evidence.

Why are you people even trying to have a reasonable conversation with him/her/they/them?

Martin's response was best. Fuck You. And that came from the one most qualified to answer what the rest of you armchair lawyers are arguing about.