You must log in or register to comment.

Eyesopen52 t1_iv98z9r wrote

The repubs Know that more Dems requested mail in ballots by a wide margin, so OfCouse they want to reject as many as possible. Repubs don’t win if they don’t cheat. BTW if an undated ballot Arrives before Election Day WHY would you not count it? Anywhere in the constitution that says must be dated?


ScienceWasLove t1_iv9iy20 wrote

The regulations for mail in ballots says it should be dated. Just like most other official documents you sign that require a date.

Where in the constitution does it allow for mail in voting in general?


thenewtbaron t1_iv9n3yq wrote

The signature on other offical forms are important for relaying the date that you agreed to a thing. Such as, if I transfer a car to you, the date that we both sign is the date that the car is now yours and your responsiblity. The same for a mortgage, that signature date is important to determine when you are responsible for the mortgage, and the start date of bills/taxes/interest.

What benefit does a signature on the 2nd outside envelope have? The date that you agreed to fill out the document and provide it? It already has a cut off date of election day. Notice ,they aren't talking about signing the ballot itself but an outside envelope. In most cases that envelope will be discarded, so the date is not maintained anywhere but there is no need to. The county will know the date they sent it, the general date they have received it, and that they have it before election day.

There is another concern, notice the PA supreme court also stated that "incorrectly" dated ballots must be separated out, however there is no definition of what "incorrect" means in the Supreme Court decision or the Law. Is mm/dd/yy ok, or does it have to be mm/dd/yyyy? Can you put "Nov" or do you have to put "November", what if someone misspells "November" is that incorrect since there is no month called "Novimber"

The Federal law does not allow states to bar votes for unrelated things other than ability to vote. Those laws came about when southerners decided to use Poll tests and various other poll related things to try to stop certain folks from voting.


A nonsensical example would be if there was a law that every voter had to show a poll worker their feet before being able to cast a vote in-person. It maybe the law but that wouldn't mean it would make sense. Since owning feet isn't a prerequisite for voting.

Ah, so you are against soldiers voting? That will be a tough row to hoe but you can do that if you like. Soldiers have been voting by mail since like 1864.


mcs0301 t1_iv9oxfo wrote

Great answer. Too bad the people that need to see it won't bother.

If you want Trumpanzees to follow you'll need lots of pictures.


IsTh1sNameTaken t1_ivad6u4 wrote

> A nonsensical example would be if there was a law that every voter had to show a poll worker their feet before being able to cast a vote in-person.


They would champion the rights of double-foot amputees, make it seem double-foot amputees were the majority, regulate/de-regulate systems and laws to the point of being ineffective gray-area legalese that can be manipulated in any direction for their benefit.

Manufacture a movement called DFALM (double-foot amputee lives matter) and funnel the donations into personal accounts, perhaps buy some mansions with the $$.

The corrupt will use their platform to silence or cancel anyone who disagrees or questions the extreme measures being taken in order to cater to all 3 people that exist that qualify as a double-foot amputee.

Those same 3 people look at each other and say, "... we've been fine voting on our own this whole time... why are you doing th-------- [[The Corrupt]] "SHUT UP, WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU!!!"


ScienceWasLove t1_iv9yd92 wrote

I never said I was against soldiers voting. I never said I was against mail in voting.

I asked you where in the constitution it allows for mail in voting because you asked where in the constitution its says it must be dated.


thenewtbaron t1_ivai1xt wrote

You didn't ask me anything.

Well, you do know that new laws are allowed beyond the constitution, infact, it is how the Republicans made this a law.

But generally the federal government can't do certain things to citizens, and it requires that states follow the same rules. Such as freedom of speech and the like. There are a couple of things about voting that the state can't do... One of which is turn away votes because of none needed details that are immaterial to the voting.

Once again, if we are using the feet pics to vote, would you also be for that requirement for mail in voting?


ScienceWasLove t1_ivaw6mc wrote

I stand corrected. I was replying to the OP above which asked where in the constitution it says things must be dated.

It obviously doesn’t. Which is why he asked the rhetorical question.

It obviously doesn’t mandate mail in voting, which I why I also asked my rhetorical question.

The stupidness of his statement prompted the stupidness of my statement.

Obviously laws/policies and regulations dictate a whole variety of voting procedures from mail-in to in-person voting. All external to the constitution.


Diarygirl t1_iv9tbwz wrote

As if a MAGA cares about the Construction.


Open_Veins_8 OP t1_iv8nws4 wrote

Additional plaintiffs in the suit include the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, Philadelphians Organized to Witness, Empower and Rebuild, Common Cause Pennsylvania, Black Political Empowerment Project and Make the Road Pennsylvania.


CltAltAcctDel t1_iv9yi9a wrote

Act 77 was widely supported in both House and Senate then signed by a Democrat governor. So why is following the bipartisan law suddenly partisan? And is an onerous burden to sign and date an envelope?


StupiderIdjit t1_ivadc6h wrote

Bipartisan law passed by Republican majorities* to boot.


CltAltAcctDel t1_ivado7f wrote

The democrat governor could have vetoed it and the democrats who voted for it could have voted no but they didn’t.


StupiderIdjit t1_ivadtqb wrote

Oh I know. It was a good law. That's why it got bipartisan support. I'm just saying it's disingenuous for Republicans to suggest anything otherwise now.

Edit: We're talking about different things. My bad. I was taking about when republicans were on board with expanding mail in voting in 2019, now suddenly it was a Democrat plot.

Have you seen the date spot everyone is talking about? There's no format for it. They're going to use it to throw out ballots. That's the point. Create some minute detail that you must get right, then throw out the ballots that don't meet it.


HonBurgher t1_ivdfbnf wrote

The issue becomes whether the government can make up and enforce certain parts of laws to unnecessarily raise the bar for voting, or just catch enough people making dumb mistakes to cut into their margins or discourage them from voting in the future.

Yes, the law says you "shall" sign and date your ballot. But did you know that the law also says that if you vote in person, you "shall" shut a privacy curtain or door behind you, and "shall" fold your ballot before handing it over to the poll workers to be stuck in the box to be counted? Have you ever voted at a polling place with cardboard screens instead of curtains, or stuck your ballot into a blank folder, or just turned it over without folding it? Should everyone who didn't shut a curtain or door, or fold their ballot have their vote disqualified, or does the privacy-preserving purpose of that rule have other methods of fulfillment that don't justify tossing all those votes? The language is the same as the date provision, but you have to look at the purpose of it and whether enforcement of that language is material to that purpose, if it has one.

That's the "materiality" argument that this case is making (it had been made before and was accepted by a federal appeals court, but got tossed out by SCOTUS on a technicality; the state's Supreme Court was short a judge and tied 3-3 on whether throwing out all these undated/wrongly-dated ballots violated federal civil rights) -- and the argument will be very important if any election in the state is close enough for these ballots to matter.


Sabotround73 t1_ivb8axr wrote

They literally have no evidence of voter suppression.


Zmoser1794 t1_iv9p6np wrote

I'm so confused over these mail in ballot things. I have already talked to multiple people about why some people would like to send an absentee ballot, and I have seen how that could be beneficial for a lot of people. I also have talked to people who said they don't like where they have to vote, so that's why they send one instead of just showing up to vote. My question is, if it's such a fuss with these mail in ballots that haven't been an issue pre covid, are now such a shit show? It seems to me that both sides of this binary political theater have been using them to push their agenda.


ell0bo t1_iv9qolc wrote

I don't think this one falls under both sides. It's really a matter of one side passing a law, then realizing the other side would enjoy its benefit too, and wanting to take it away. The other side is just standing there and saying "could you not?" Republicans wouldn't care about the law if dems weren't taking advantage of it.

For me, mailing in my vote means I can just work Tuesday and don't need to figure out when I'm going to vote. Voted a week ago, I'm good.


CltAltAcctDel t1_iv9you8 wrote

One side didn’t pass the law. It was passed with bipartisan support. Now it’s just a matter of following the law.


jesterwords t1_iva3v6d wrote

It was a GOP bill that had DEM support.

Since the GOP has controlled the PA Congress, no DEM bills get off the floor. Only GOP bills, and some of those get DEM support.


CltAltAcctDel t1_iva5ajx wrote

PA House has 113 Rs and 88 D

PA Senate has 28 Rs and 22 D

The bill passed the House 138 - 61 and 35 - 14.

It was then signed by a democrat governor.

That’s as bipartisan as you’re going to get. ⅓ of the Democrats plus the governor were in favor of the law. Who initiated the bill is irrelevant.


MacDynamite71 t1_iv9v9tn wrote

We just saw in the primaries, a lot of republicans used mail in ballots in that election.


Alfa505 t1_iv9zdhi wrote

The PA supreme court has 1, literally one, conservative judge. NAACP another amazing liberal organization.


DirtyHippyBastard t1_iva43uu wrote

Didn’t Democrats sue to remove the Green candidate from the last presidential election? Now you want to pretend they stick up for my voting rights? Sorry, both parties suppress voting. They operate in a controlled duopoly that doesn’t permit anyone but the fully approved and indoctrinated candidates from having any chance of seeing office.


TheRealMajour t1_ivagv3k wrote

Do you have proof or any source for that statement? All I can find was they attempted to sue in NC, not the presidential race and not in PA. Otherwise I agree with you. Even the crazy politicians, they only say what they say for votes, they have no interest in destabilizing the status quo.


TheRealMajour t1_ivkvc79 wrote

“You didn’t even try”

Save the passive aggressive bullshit for your mom. I literally googled 3 different variations of it and even with Pennsylvania included there was nothing except a lawsuit in North Carolina on the front page of Google. I simply asked for a source because I couldn’t find one, if you take issue with it, that’s on you.


DirtyHippyBastard t1_ivpa941 wrote

Instead of getting mad at me for looking this up again, perhaps you should ask yourself why you continue to use a search engine that censors results so much that it changes your reality.


TheRealMajour t1_ivpxfes wrote

I didn’t get mad, I simply called you out on your douchebag attitude towards someone asking for a source to a statement you made. I wasn’t even doubting that it happened, I just had never heard about it and couldn’t find anything on it and wanted to read about it.

Perhaps you shouldn’t assume that everyone who asks for a link or a source is doing so to argue with you, rather they just want to learn about it.


cashonlyplz t1_ivbd021 wrote

Source (not doubting you; I seem to recall hearing something about it, too)?