The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court

a reply to: Gryphon66

They did automatically send absentee ballots to people applying to register to vote -- whether they applied for an absentee ballot or not.

Link

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: interupt42

I don't think they've taken this case yet...if they do. So no case number.

I don't typically search for cases but from what it looks like it doesn't have to be taken and that all documents filed with the court will be made available with a few exceptions.

www.supremecourt.gov...

Posting of Documents. Electronic versions of all documents filed with the Court (except those containing sealed material or otherwise exempt from el ectronic posting) will be made available to the public without charge on the Supreme Court’s website at www.supremecourt.gov....

When will subsequent filings in a case be available on the docket?
Most subsequent filings in a case will become available on the docket within 10-15 minutes of the time that the document is submitted to the system.

How will the public be able to determine whether the Clerk’s Office has reviewed a document and accepted it for filing?

Before a document submitted through the system has been reviewed, the docket will indicate that it has been “submitted.” For example, it may read, “Brief in Opposition of the United States submitted.” Once that document has been reviewed and accepted, the docket entry will change to “Brief in Opposition of the United States filed.”

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

They did automatically send absentee ballots to people applying to register to vote -- whether they applied for an absentee ballot or not.

Link

That was for the Primaries on May 5.

We were under a medical emergency and a stay-at-home order from our Governor.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: putnam6

Dr. Eastman is not generally considered to be an unbiased source of information.

He also asserted that Kamala Harris, born in California, was ineligible to be Vice President.

That said, each of those items will have to be proven in court to be "illegal."

The changes made in 2018 have not meen shown in any way to be "illegal."

When those things are proven, there might be a basis for those claims.

Again during the hearing, this code of having observers present at all times was brought up over and over. It was not challenged once, the 2014 code basically says there must be observers from all parties unless that party waives the right to observers, there is no doubt the Republicans did not waive that right in Fulton county or any other metro county. The legislature never questions the validity of having observers the questioning was in regard to were they counting ballots.

And yes I'm aware that the source will be attacked but his thoughts on Kamala Harris aren't germane to what his testimony was in the hearing, obviously, if it gets heard in any courts including SCOTUS it will be argued against vigorously and then we will see.

Let me say this even though I'm leaning right I want cases to be opposed and argued if they have no merit or the judge decides it doesn't warrant action. That's how our system works. I want it to be hard to challenge the vote, it has to have merit to be heard.

While the attorney said they were going to file a case I haven't seen it yet, I'm sure I'm missing it or am not using the correct search terms. I know it wasn't listed on the Ballotpedia site

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, i thought that order was extended. Admittedly, I haven't looked at that because I don't see a point in spending time on it.

a reply to: putnam6

I posted the relevant laws and rules above regarding poll watchers. There is nothing that I can see there that there is a REQUIREMENT for Poll Watchers to be on site during counting. The law specifiies how they will be selected, and what areas they have access to. I encourage you to look over the info yoruself.

His statements about Harris certianly go to his bias.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, i thought that order was extended. Admittedly, I haven't looked at that because I don't see a point in spending time on it.

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I'm a Georgia Resident, I had to request an absentee ballot for the November 3 election.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, i thought that order was extended. Admittedly, I haven't looked at that because I don't see a point in spending time on it.

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I'm a Georgia Resident, I had to request an absentee ballot for the November 3 election.

Did you receive an unsolicited mail ballot also like some people did ? 😎🚬

originally posted by: InspiredByDesign
a reply to: network dude
"a better way for Trump to approach this" would have been to bring these suits BEFORE the election, not wait until after he loses in a landslide. There was plenty of time for Texas, the Trump campaign, or any other party to bring this before the Supreme Court after the various states adjusted their election process and before the actual voting began.

Maybe but could you imagine the squealing of the media and the left of A his is trying to steal the election and/or B He is doing this during a pandemic and C voting and how it's handled is up to each state there are limits to what he can change as that's up to the state legislature.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: putnam6

I posted the relevant laws and rules above regarding poll watchers. There is nothing that I can see there that there is a REQUIREMENT for Poll Watchers to be on site during counting. The law specifiies how they will be selected, and what areas they have access to. I encourage you to look over the info yoruself.

His statements about Harris certianly go to his bias.

where? in this post? Here is what I'm referring to and it is from 2019 voting code. If they were counting votes without obsevers it's against the 2019 Georgia Voting code.

2019 Georgia Code
Title 21 - Elections
Chapter 2 - Elections and Primaries Generally
Article 10 - Absentee Voting
§ 21-2-386. Safekeeping, certification, and validation of absentee ballots; rejection of ballot; delivery of ballots to manager; duties of managers; precinct returns; notification of challenged elector

(3) A county election superintendent may, in his or her discretion, after 7:00 A.M. on the day of the primary, election, or runoff open the inner envelopes in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this subsection and begin tabulating the absentee ballots. If the county election superintendent chooses to open the inner envelopes and begin tabulating such ballots prior to the close of the polls on the day of the primary, election, or runoff, the superintendent shall notify in writing, at least seven days prior to the primary, election, or runoff, the Secretary of State of the superintendent's intent to begin the absentee ballot tabulation prior to the close of the polls. The county executive committee or, if there is no organized county executive committee, the state executive committee of each political party and political body having candidates whose names appear on the ballot for such election in such county shall have the right to designate two persons and each independent and nonpartisan candidate whose name appears on the ballot for such election in such county shall have the right to designate one person to act as monitors for such process. In the event that the only issue to be voted upon in an election is a referendum question, the superintendent shall also notify in writing the chief judge of the superior court of the county who shall appoint two electors of the county to monitor such process.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Did you receive an unsolicited mail ballot also like some people did ? 😎🚬

LMAO (at the unasked half of that question)

a reply to: putnam6

Link

a reply to: Gryphon66

What bothers me most, and it happened in many states, is that photo ID was voluntary. In my state, they asked for my DL at the polls and swiped it to verify it. I then signed the poll book for my ballot. If the state did not verify my DL when they swiped it, I wouldn't have been given a ballot.

But other people could just say they didn't have an ID and sign to get a ballot.

That is so obviously prohibited by the Voting Rights Act. Uniform standards...not arbitrary and voluntary. Bugs me that none of these cases are touching on that. That's why I am so skeptical about them.

(EDIT: People who voted by mail, in my state, weren't asked for any ID, at all, BTW.)

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, i thought that order was extended. Admittedly, I haven't looked at that because I don't see a point in spending time on it.

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I'm a Georgia Resident, I had to request an absentee ballot for the November 3 election.

Did you receive an unsolicited mail ballot also like some people did ? 😎🚬

For the primaries?

Nope.

a reply to: jrod

Texas has been messing with elections for a long time,


www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

What bothers me most, and it happened in many states, is that photo ID was voluntary. In my state, they asked for my DL at the polls and swiped it to verify it. I then signed the poll book for my ballot. If the state did not verify my DL when they swiped it, I wouldn't have been given a ballot.

But other people could just say they didn't have an ID and sign to get a ballot.

That is so obviously prohibited by the Voting Rights Act. Uniform standards...not arbitrary and voluntary. Bugs me that none of these cases are touching on that. That's why I am so skeptical about them.

I fully support whatever methodology we can establish on a national level for those candidates that aer elected to national office to both facilitate and verify every single American being able to vote.

I doubt the politicians will ever support that however. They depend on the apathy of most Americans.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Exactly. People are apathetic about it.

I am not suggesting everyone should have to prove they are a US citizen, not a felon, not found mentally capacitated...but they should be required to prove their identity if a signature is going to serve as fit proof of their qualifications to vote.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

They did automatically send absentee ballots to people applying to register to vote -- whether they applied for an absentee ballot or not.

Link

Not according to your link.

The Department of State may assist local clerks, county clerks, and election administrators with: the mailing of absent voter ballot applications with a postage-prepaid, pre-addressed return envelope to each registered voter within any jurisdiction conducting a May 5, 2020 election; the preparation of postage-prepaid absent voter ballot return envelopes; the coordination of county and state assistance in processing ballots; changes to election dates; and other local clerk functions to the extent local jurisdictions are unable to perform them.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

Yeah, what a waste of their precious time. I know they're essentially booked 24/7/365.

The rigorous schedule is why they all die so young.

But but the SC is spending over 3 years and 40 million on this knowing up front all the evidence was falsified...

Wait...that was something different...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Exactly. People are apathetic about it.

I am not suggesting everyone should have to prove they are a US citizen, not a felon, not found mentally capacitated...but they should be required to prove their identity if a signature is going to serve as fit proof of their qualifications to vote.

In Georgia (in compliance with Real ID) all those with Driver's Licenses are required to put our signatures on file with the State. As I undertand it, either a Driver's License or other official ID (with a signature) is required to vote.