Category Archives: voting

Rule By Law

Posted on by
Reply

Rather than Rule of Law, which is how we do things here.

The men and women of the government of the People’s Republic of China change the nation’s laws whenever convenient to their personal aims and whenever convenient to their personal power. This is how those men and women have acted, have preserved their power, since the beginning of the days of Chinese emperors.

Two current examples: their enactment in 2017 of an intelligence cooperation law that requires all PRC companies, whether state-owned or “private,” to cooperate with any intelligence community request for information, including about any company affiliate or customer wherever in the world that affiliate or customer might be.

There’s also the just-enacted law that permits the PRC government to remove—outside of the courts—anyone in the Hong Kong governance apparatus of whom the emperor’s men the men and women of the PRC government might decide to disapprove.

Now we come to the Progressive-Democratic men and women of the Wisconsin State government.

At a special meeting that lasted more than five hours, [Progressive-]Democrats on the state elections commission sought to change recount guidelines after the Trump 2020 Campaign filed a petition to review the state’s votes in Dane and Milwaukee counties.

Existing State law on the matter had become inconvenient to those Progressive-Democrats, so—time to change the rules. As Reince Priebus noted,

The Trump campaign sent the Wis Election Comm. $3 mil and filed its petition for a recount. Then the WEC immediately called a special meeting to change certain recount rules that deal with the issues brought up in the petition? You can’t make this up!

Here are Progressive-Democrats in action.

Misunderstanding the Court’s Role

Posted on by
Reply

Here, the misunderstanding is of the role our court system, including our Supreme Court, plays in our elections.

Recall that President Donald Trump’s campaign lawyers have filed a number of lawsuits challenging various States’ vote counting procedures. In particular, the lawyers have filed, in Federal court, alleging that

some of the state’s [Pennsylvania’s] actions, and particularly the exclusion of Republican poll-watchers during the counting of hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, violated federal constitutional requirements.

The complaint can be read here. (Aside: this is a separate complaint from one also filed that Pennsylvania’s Executive Branch officials altered the State’s vote handling procedures in violation of our Constitution’s Article I, Section 4, and, from that, in violation of established Pennsylvania election law (including an explicit decision last summer by Pennsylvania’s legislature to make no changes to the State’s election law).)

American Thinker‘s James DeLong, at the link, provided a sound analysis of the legal strategy underlying the lawyers’ move. But DeLong went off the rails at the end of his piece.

Everyone in the legal world assumes that the justices, bruised by the excoriation the Court has received over Bush v Gore (even though the result was right), would never put itself in the position of reversing the apparent results of a presidential election.  This assumption is the reason for the Democrats’ efforts to create an irresistible bandwagon effect, but the president’s lawyers may have out-maneuvered them.  The justices may have no choice except to decide the election, one way or the other, and to be put to the choice of reversing the media-claimed results or ratifying massive fraud.

No, the Bush Court most assuredly did not revers[e] the apparent results of the Bush-Gore election contest. That Court merely upheld the choice of the citizens of Florida, which citizens decided for themselves and joined with the decision of the aggregated citizens of the nation, who our President would be.

Similarly, our courts, including most likely our Supreme Court, will not be deciding the current election with their rulings on the Pennsylvania case or any other cases that come before them.

On the contrary, our courts—including our Supreme Court—will only be upholding and enforcing the decision of us American citizens.

A Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

John Yoo, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY), and others, are suggesting that, given the apparent irregularities (because I’m being polite) in several States’ ballot acceptance and counting procedures, “the courts may decide the election.”

McConnell, et al., misunderstand the situation. The courts won’t decide anything. This election has been decided by American voters. It may take the courts to enforce our decision, though.

There would seem to be strong cases, too, for reversing those…irregularities. Our Constitution’s Article I, Section 4 says pretty explicitly that State legislatures set the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections… and that Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. There’s no wiggle room there.

State non-legislative officials—elections board commissioners, Secretaries of State, governors, et al.—do not have the legal capacity to alter States’ laws, for instance, deadlines for receiving ballots, requirements regarding signature comparison and witness signatures on absentee ballots and mail-in ballots. They do not have that capacity even under the guise of emergencies like the Wuhan Virus situation.

In particular, the virus situation was in full bore by last spring, and both Congress and the States’ legislatures have had months in which to adjust election laws to account for the virus’ impact—and they universally chose to make no adjustments.

Those non-legislative officials’ adjustments are not merely illegal, they’re unconstitutional.

Full stop.

Progressive-Democrat Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

Again.

California’s Progressive-Democrats have been busily rewriting election laws to help their party “ballot harvest.”

In 2016 California [Progressive-]Democrats passed a law allowing anybody, including paid campaign operatives and political parties, to collect and return mail-in ballots. Two years later [Progressive-]Democrats prohibited “disqualifying a ballot solely because the person returning it did not provide on the identification envelope his or her name, relationship to the voter, or signature.”

And

[Progressive-]Democrats boasted that they used ballot harvesting to flip seven House seats in California that year including four in Orange County. Before this year’s March primary, hospitality unions threw a “ballot party” for workers outside of Anaheim hotels.

This election season, Republicans have decided to take them at their law. Even worse, according to the Progressive-Democrats,

[Republicans have] also learned to harvest ballots more efficiently by setting up drop boxes at shooting ranges, churches, gun shops, and GOP offices. The boxes, which are locked and supervised, received permission from the site hosts.

Oh, the Progressive-Democrat hue and cry over being challenged in accordance with their own book, Alinsky style. They’re accusing Republicans of voter suppression. And they’re actually serious in their accusation.

As the WSJ put it near the end of its editorial,

When Democrats harvest ballots, they are increasing voter access. When Republicans do it, it’s cheating. Glad we cleared that up.

Election Interference

Posted on by
Reply

Here we go.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says expects the social media giant will impose fewer restrictive rules on content following the conclusion of November’s presidential election.

After having used is restrictive rules on content to suppress Conservative speech, posting, and post-sharing. After having explicitly and deliberately “restricted” posts related to the Biden father and son influence peddling in Ukraine and the People’s Republic of China as reported by the New York Post.

“Once we’re past these events, and we’ve resolved them peacefully, I wouldn’t expect that we continue to adopt a lot more policies that are restricting of a lot more content,’ Zuckerberg said, according to BuzzFeed News.

Translation: “Once Biden is elected, I wouldn’t expect that we continue to adopt a lot more policies that are restricting of a lot more content,” because he will have achieved the purpose of his interference.

It’s hard for Zuckerberg’s interference in our election through his Facebook company to get any more blatant than this.