Democrats Attempt to Keep 26K Dead People on MI Voter Rolls

@no1marauder said
So more people can vote?

It used to be a bipartisan thing to encourage higher turnout. But since the Republicans have moved so sharply to the right, they know their ideas are rejected by a majority so the only way they can hold onto power is by undemocratic means i.e. vote suppression, gerrymandering, etc. etc. etc.

aside from the psycho babble…no we dont want dead people voting

@mott-the-hoople said
aside from the psycho babble…no we dont want dead people voting

Could you explain how a dead person could possibly vote in a State with a voter ID requirement?

Michigan has over 8 million registered voters so the fact that a relatively small number of voters die and are not immediately removed from the rolls strikes me as a particularly tiny molehill.

@no1marauder said
Could you explain how a dead person could possibly vote in a State with a voter ID requirement?

Michigan has over 8 million registered voters so the fact that a relatively small number of voters die and are not immediately removed from the rolls strikes me as a particularly tiny molehill.

"Could you explain how a dead person could possibly vote in a State with a voter ID requirement?"

No courts will hear our cases...we want to know that too

@mott-the-hoople said
"Could you explain how a dead person could possibly vote in a State with a voter ID requirement?"

No courts will hear our cases...we want to know that too

They heard about 50 cases challenging the results in various States in the 2020 election.

All were unsuccessful in proving any irregularities that would have affected the results.

-Removed-

Only 'LIBERTARIAN,' I've ever run into that extols everything
REPUBLICAN and constantly criticizes DEMOCRATIC policy.
True Libertarians eschew ANY IMMIGRATION LAWS,
but Earl always seems to to take THE GOP/ Q-ANON, stance
and even agrees with the purveyors of ''a border invasion.''
Is LINO an acronym yet>?

@no1marauder said
They heard about 50 cases challenging the results in various States in the 2020 election.

All were unsuccessful in proving any irregularities that would have affected the results.

you are lying, link to one case

@no1marauder said
Could you explain how a dead person could possibly vote in a State with a voter ID requirement?

Michigan has over 8 million registered voters so the fact that a relatively small number of voters die and are not immediately removed from the rolls strikes me as a particularly tiny molehill.

Good question.....Anyone?

@mott-the-hoople said
you are lying, link to one case

HERE'S A BUNCH OF 'EM GENIUS
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-lawsuits-election-results-2020-11?op=1

@mott-the-hoople said
you are lying, link to one case

When are you going to get over this ridiculous habit of claiming someone is "lying" when it can be easily proved, usually by a 30 second Google search, that they are not?

"state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President Donald Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome."

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1

But you want one, so here goes:

"In re Bowyer, No. 20-858 (S. Ct.)
(electoral college)
Complaint Filed: December 2, 2020
State: Arizona

Current Status or Final Disposition: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied (March 1, 2021)

Summary: Plaintiffs, Republican Party nominees to be Presidential Electors for Arizona, filed suit against Arizona Governor Ducey and Arizona Secretary of State Hobbs. The plaintiffs argued that the Arizona election had violated the Elections and Electors Clauses, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as state election law. The allegations included fabricated ballots and fraudulent use of the election system’s hardware. The plaintiffs also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the governor from transmitting the certified election results to the Electoral College. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case, concluding that the court could not decertify the election results in the state and that accusations of election fraud “that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court.” The plaintiffs then filed an emergency petition for extraordinary writ of mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court on December 15, 2020. In January 2021, the Supreme Court denied the motion to expedite consideration of the case without issuing an opinion. On March 1, the Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus without issuing an opinion."

Lots of others are listed with that one here: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/election_law/litigation/

@jimm619 said
Only 'LIBERTARIAN,' I've ever run into that extols everything
REPUBLICAN and constantly criticizes DEMOCRATIC policy.
True Libertarians eschew ANY IMMIGRATION LAWS,
but Earl always seems to to take THE GOP/ Q-ANON, stance
and even agrees with the purveyors of ''a border invasion.''
Is LINO an acronym yet>?

Do you honestly think *all* democrats agree with the Democratic party's policy on the southern border?

But all in all, I don't give a crap what you and psycho-liar think I am. I'm a Libertarian, if you two don't like, go truck yourselves and eachother.

Have a nice day

@no1marauder said
So more people can vote?

It used to be a bipartisan thing to encourage higher turnout. But since the Republicans have moved so sharply to the right, they know their ideas are rejected by a majority so the only way they can hold onto power is by undemocratic means i.e. vote suppression, gerrymandering, etc. etc. etc.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, updated an election manual to impose new restrictions on poll observers and challengers without going through the correct rule making process. Court of Claims Judge Brock Swartzle ruled that Benson’s office must either remove a May manual or amend specific sections that he said violate state and federal law.

Democrats are doing exactly what you say republicans are doing. Jocelyn Benson violated state and federal law by imposing new restrictions on poll observers and challengers without going through the correct rule making process. I cannot think of any innocent reason she would do that. She compromised election integrity intentionally. What other reason could she have to do that?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/republicans-win-major-election-integrity-ruling-against-michigan-secretary-of-state_4812191.html

A New York judge recently struck down a law that would have added noncitizens to voter rolls.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-court-rules-unconstitutional-law-allowing-non-citizens-to-vote-in-local-elections_4561501.html

@metal-brain said
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, updated an election manual to impose new restrictions on poll observers and challengers without going through the correct rule making process. Court of Claims Judge Brock Swartzle ruled that Benson’s office must either remove a May manual or amend specific sections that he said violate state and federal law.

Democrats are ...[text shortened]... -york-court-rules-unconstitutional-law-allowing-non-citizens-to-vote-in-local-elections_4561501.html

You shouldn't just read the Epoch Times. She imposed these rules, one of which would have banned cell phones while overseeing absentee counting boards, because of incidents like this:

"The rules followed the 2020 presidential election, when Republican poll challengers in Detroit called activists to an absentee counting board in the middle of the night, causing dozens to swarm the building and attempt to enter it. "

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-court-scuttles-new-election-challenger-rules-benson-appeal

The ones trying to "compromise election integrity" were the ones trying to break into a counting room.

The decision by a lower court judge who was a "GOP-nominated Supreme Court candidate in 2020" will be appealed.

@no1marauder said
You shouldn't just read the Epoch Times. She imposed these rules, one of which would have banned cell phones while overseeing absentee counting boards, because of incidents like this:

"The rules followed the 2020 presidential election, when Republican poll challengers in Detroit called activists to an absentee counting board in the middle of the night, causing dozens ...[text shortened]... n by a lower court judge who was a "GOP-nominated Supreme Court candidate in 2020" will be appealed.

Jocelyn Benson violated state and federal law. The Bureau of Elections manual was an attempt to suppress poll challengers from their lawful duty, their constitutionally protected rights to supervising the election process

Cell phone bans do not prevent people from trying to enter buildings. A rumor on social media could easily cause that. You are bringing up a security issue. Restricting communication does not prevent that.