A Republican gubernatorial candidate copying Trump

[Glitch]

sigh.
" Ballot by mail has been available in Arizona for over two decades and approximately 80% of Arizona voters already choose this method to vote.
Vote by Mail (azcleanelections.gov)
Arizona’s long history with voting by mail - AZPM

Any election may encounter minor problems. Even when done all in person. AZ has not had problems in its election that would change the outcome.

Since you say the SC agrees with you , what post number was it that you provided the link to the SC ruling?

Why not say 120% of Arizona voters have taken advantage of mail-in voting? That is closer to the truth. With mail-in ballots politicians can print their own ballots, and has been demonstrated in Arizona already - no signatures are required for mail-in ballots. Making it impossible to determine whether it is a valid ballot or not.

There isn't an election held in Arizona that can be trusted this century, if what you claim is true.

I will provide the decision again since you missed it, and I emphasized the relevant portion.

Held: Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet 3 U. S. C. § 5's December 12 "safe-harbor" date would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, the Florida Supreme Court's judgment ordering manual recounts is reversed. The Clause's requirements apply to the manner in which the voting franchise is exercised. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, Florida may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665. The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the state court's decision do not satisfy the minimum requirement for nonarbitrary treatment of voters. The record shows that the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another. In addition, the recounts in three counties were not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots. Furthermore, the actual process by which the votes were to be counted raises further concerns because the court's order did not specify who would recount the ballots. Where, as here, a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied. The State has not shown that its procedures include the necessary safeguards. Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. The court below has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to participate fully in the federal electoral process, as provided in 3 U. S. C. § 5, which requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is here, but there is no recount procedure in place under the state court's order that comports with minimal constitutional standards.

--- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

All ballots, regardless whether they are cast by mail-in, absentee, or in-person must be counted the same way, with the same signature verification process applied equally to all ballots. Alaska, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington State, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are ten States that I know for a fact that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment according to the Supreme Court. There are most likely others that I'm not aware.

 

[mike2810]

Why not say 120% of Arizona voters have taken advantage of mail-in voting? That is closer to the truth. With mail-in ballots politicians can print their own ballots, and has been demonstrated in Arizona already - no signatures are required for mail-in ballots. Making it impossible to determine whether it is a valid ballot or not.

There isn't an election held in Arizona that can be trusted this century, if what you claim is true.

I will provide the decision again since you missed it, and I emphasized the relevant portion.

--- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

All ballots, regardless whether they are cast by mail-in, absentee, or in-person must be counted the same way, with the same signature verification process applied equally to all ballots. Alaska, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington State, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are ten States that I know for a fact that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment according to the Supreme Court. There are most likely others that I'm not aware.

- You cannot have 120% of Arizona voters taking advantage of mail in voting. You must be doing Team Trump math.

- The Bush v Gore does not say what you posted regarding "all ballots, regardless............"

Sorry, but you do not have a clue of what you are talking about.

 

[Glitch]

- You cannot have 120% of Arizona voters taking advantage of mail in voting. You must be doing Team Trump math.

Of course you can. With mail-in ballots politicians can print as many ballots as they need to be reelected. Since the mail-in ballots don't require a signature or verification of any kind, they can be anyone real or imagined, that the politician wants and they can vote as often as the Arizona Secretary of State allows.

- The Bush v Gore does not say what you posted regarding "all ballots, regardless............"

Yes it does. It is a shame you lack the ability to comprehend it, but not surprising for someone who openly supports voter fraud.

 

[BlueTex]

Of course you can. With mail-in ballots politicians can print as many ballots as they need to be reelected. Since the mail-in ballots don't require a signature or verification of any kind, they can be anyone real or imagined, that the politician wants and they can vote as often as the Arizona Secretary of State allows.


Yes it does. It is a shame you lack the ability to comprehend it, but not surprising for someone who openly supports voter fraud.

Arizona doesn't use an absentee ballot return envelope with signatures lie this one?

 

[mike2810]

Of course you can. With mail-in ballots politicians can print as many ballots as they need to be reelected. Since the mail-in ballots don't require a signature or verification of any kind, they can be anyone real or imagined, that the politician wants and they can vote as often as the Arizona Secretary of State allows.


Yes it does. It is a shame you lack the ability to comprehend it, but not surprising for someone who openly supports voter fraud.

A ballot is not a voter.
You cannot have 120% of registered voters.

You insult is noted and dismissed.

 

[Glitch]

Arizona doesn't use an absentee ballot return envelope with signatures lie this one?

View attachment 67310644

Signatures aren't required for mail-in ballots, remember? Signatures are only required for in-person ballots. Which is why Arizona violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Oh, and in Arizona both Santa Cruz County (107%) and Apache County (106%) have more registered voters than eligible voters. Which is at least better than Alaska. Alaska statewide has 111% more registered voters than eligible voters.

Source: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/new-jw-study-voter-registration/

 

[BlueTex]

Signatures aren't required for mail-in ballots, remember? Signatures are only required for in-person ballots. Which is why Arizona violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Oh, and in Arizona both Santa Cruz County (107%) and Apache County (106%) have more registered voters than eligible voters. Which is at least better than Alaska. Alaska statewide has 111% more registered voters than eligible voters.

Source: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/new-jw-study-voter-registration/

LMAO... Judicial Watch.. How much time should I spend debunking this obvious bullshit.. Question. With all this evidence, why is the GOP so incompetent that can't find ONE court to hear all this evidence? Is the GOP basically powerless this at this point? Weak? Incompetent?

 

[Helix]

we should donate this to his campaign :

 

[Glitch]

LMAO... Judicial Watch.. How much time should I spend debunking this obvious bullshit.. Question. With all this evidence, why is the GOP so incompetent that can't find ONE court to hear all this evidence? Is the GOP basically powerless this at this point? Weak? Incompetent?

It is a matter of standing. Elections are controlled by the State exclusively. Trump is trying to use the federal government to intervene, and that is never going to happen. The US is a dual sovereignty, and the federal government has no jurisdiction over State elections. Also, if you actually look, and stop being spoon-fed propaganda by Democrats pretending to be journalists, you will see that there are numerous State court cases across the nation that have been successful. In Alaska, for example, Judge reverses dismissal of Rep. Lance Pruitt lawsuit against Elections Division.

 

[BlueTex]

It is a matter of standing. Elections are controlled by the State exclusively. Trump is trying to use the federal government to intervene, and that is never going to happen. The US is a dual sovereignty, and the federal government has no jurisdiction over State elections. Also, if you actually look, and stop being spoon-fed propaganda by Democrats pretending to be journalists, you will see that there are numerous State court cases across the nation that have been successful. In Alaska, for example, Judge reverses dismissal of Rep. Lance Pruitt lawsuit against Elections Division.

Are you suggesting the Trump campaign has incompetent lawyers working for the campaign? What exactly does this Judicial Watch "study" allege that is relevant to the election?

 

[Glitch]

Are you suggesting the Trump campaign has incompetent lawyers working for the campaign? What exactly does this Judicial Watch "study" allege that is relevant to the election?

I'm not suggesting anything. Trump, because he is President, is approaching this as a federal matter. The State courts are, correctly, tossing out the suit without even looking at it because elections are exclusively the province of the States and the federal government has no standing, except on civil rights grounds.

Which is why Trump, and Texas along with various other States, sought satisfaction with the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court has the right not to hear Trump's case, they violated Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution by refusing to hear Texas' suit.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

When one State sues another State the only place it can be heard is by the Supreme Court, and it cannot be denied or dismissed.

 

[BlueTex]

I'm not suggesting anything. Trump, because he is President, is approaching this as a federal matter. The State courts are, correctly, tossing out the suit without even looking at it because elections are exclusively the province of the States and the federal government has no standing, except on civil rights grounds.

Are you trying to suggest federal candidates for an election in state have no standing? Where has anyone ruled like that?

Which is why Trump, and Texas along with various other States, sought satisfaction with the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court has the right not to hear Trump's case, they violated Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution by refusing to hear Texas' suit.

When one State sues another State the only place it can be heard is by the Supreme Court, and it cannot be denied or dismissed.

How does Texas have standing in how another state runs its elections?

 

[Glitch]

Are you trying to suggest federal candidates for an election in state have no standing? Where has anyone ruled like that?




How does Texas have standing in how another state runs its elections?

I'm stating that the federal government cannot sue the state over election issues, unless it is specifically for civil rights violations. All election laws, regulations, and procedures are governed exclusively by each State. Which means to sue the State over an election issue it must be through that State court, and the individual bringing the suit must have standing. Trump only has standing in the one State (or presumably DC if that is where he is registered to vote) where he cast his ballot. He has no standing in any other State.

The same is not true for US Senators and US Representatives because only one State may vote for them. Presumably they also voted in their State, which would give them standing if they decide to sue their State over election issues. Presidents are elected by all 50 States and DC, but he only has standing in the one State/DC where he cast his vote.

 

[BlueTex]

I'm stating that the federal government cannot sue the state over election issues, unless it is specifically for civil rights violations. All election laws, regulations, and procedures are governed exclusively by each State. Which means to sue the State over an election issue it must be through that State court, and the individual bringing the suit must have standing. Trump only has standing in the one State (or presumably DC if that is where he is registered to vote) where he cast his ballot. He has no standing in any other State.

The same is not true for US Senators and US Representatives because only one State may vote for them. Presumably they also voted in their State, which would give them standing if they decide to sue their State over election issues. Presidents are elected by all 50 States and DC, but he only has standing in the one State/DC where he cast his vote.

Nonsense... Trump as a candidate has standing in every state in which he is on the ballot...

 

[dockside]

You need to read it again.



All ballots must be treated equally during the signature verification process. There cannot be one method for mail-in ballots, and a completely different method for in-person ballots. If you check your own State laws I'm quite certain you will find that requirement. It is with the State courts where the problem lies. For some bizarre reason the State courts decided they were going to arbitrarily, and illegally, change State election laws and no longer require signature verification for mail-in ballots. In-person ballots are still verified under the law, but anyone could print out mail-in ballots for anyone they pleased as often as they pleased. They didn't even have to have name or address of the voter, much less a signature, and they were still counted as a valid ballot. That is called election fraud.

I have no idea where you get this very erroneous information. You are not a resident of Washington state nor any of the other states you cite, yet you know how they count the ballots. Well, I am a resident of Washington state and have, on two occasions (one just a little over a year ago) actually seen how the ballots were counted in my county. First, in WA state, all the mail-in or drop box ballots are put in a secrecy envelope by the voter, then that secrecy envelope is inserted into the outer envelope. The outer envelope MUST be signed by the voter and dated. When it is received in the county auditor's office, the office in charge of elections, it first goes to a person who checks the signature against the voter's signature in the voter registration files. Then, it is sorted into voting districts from the bar code on the envelope. Then, the outer envelope is removed and given to an individual (there are at least 6 people in this room doing these jobs) who removes the secrecy envelope and checks the ballot to see if it is correctly voted. If there are any discrepancies, it is set aside. The correctly filled out ballots are then taken to a room that has at least one wall of windows where anyone can see what is going on in this room. Two people must always, from the time of pick-up of the ballots from the drop boxes forward, be present around any completed ballot. In this room is a machine into which the ballots are fed which counts the votes and sends that information to a computer which is locked until voting is complete at 8 p.m. on election day. The door to this room is always locked. This is the way it is done across the state. Always at least two people with ballots. Always a signature is required on the outside ballot. Always the signature is validated.

So, stop talking about things you may be reading on some RWNJ site. You are only making yourself look foolish.

 

[Glitch]

Nonsense... Trump as a candidate has standing in every state in which he is on the ballot...

Incorrect. Just because someone is on a ballot doesn't give them standing. Only those who have been harmed have standing, which in this case is the voter not the candidate. Depriving someone of their vote harms the voter, it does not harm the candidate. Which means only voters have any standing to sue over their State elections.

 

[Glitch]

I have no idea where you get this very erroneous information. You are not a resident of Washington state nor any of the other states you cite, yet you know how they count the ballots. Well, I am a resident of Washington state and have, on two occasions (one just a little over a year ago) actually seen how the ballots were counted in my county. First, in WA state, all the mail-in or drop box ballots are put in a secrecy envelope by the voter, then that secrecy envelope is inserted into the outer envelope. The outer envelope MUST be signed by the voter and dated. When it is received in the county auditor's office, the office in charge of elections, it first goes to a person who checks the signature against the voter's signature in the voter registration files. Then, it is sorted into voting districts from the bar code on the envelope. Then, the outer envelope is removed and given to an individual (there are at least 6 people in this room doing these jobs) who removes the secrecy envelope and checks the ballot to see if it is correctly voted. If there are any discrepancies, it is set aside. The correctly filled out ballots are then taken to a room that has at least one wall of windows where anyone can see what is going on in this room. Two people must always, from the time of pick-up of the ballots from the drop boxes forward, be present around any completed ballot. In this room is a machine into which the ballots are fed which counts the votes and sends that information to a computer which is locked until voting is complete at 8 p.m. on election day. The door to this room is always locked. This is the way it is done across the state. Always at least two people with ballots. Always a signature is required on the outside ballot. Always the signature is validated.

So, stop talking about things you may be reading on some RWNJ site. You are only making yourself look foolish.

I don't need to be a resident of any State to spot the blatant election fraud being perpetrated by Democrats in at least ten (and probably more) States.

Process for validating signatures varies widely in Washington - KitSap Sun

When you have multiple different processes for signature verification, then you have massive systemic election fraud. The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution requires every State to apply the law equally to everyone. You cannot have one signature verification standard for mail-in ballots, and a completely different signature verification standard for in-person ballots, or different signature verification standard between the various counties.

That is what the Supreme Court decided in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000):

Held: Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet 3 U. S. C. § 5's December 12 "safe-harbor" date would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, the Florida Supreme Court's judgment ordering manual recounts is reversed. The Clause's requirements apply to the manner in which the voting franchise is exercised. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, Florida may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. ...

As you can see, this is not the first time Democrats were busted committing massive election fraud.

If it makes you feel any better, Alaska is one of those ten States guilty of massive election fraud.

 

[BlueTex]

Incorrect. Just because someone is on a ballot doesn't give them standing. Only those who have been harmed have standing, which in this case is the voter not the candidate. Depriving someone of their vote harms the voter, it does not harm the candidate. Which means only voters have any standing to sue over their State elections.

How the heck is that different from a resident of the state? Of course you have to show harm, what else aoukd you expect a court to rule on? Hurt feelings?

 

[Glitch]

How the heck is that different from a resident of the state? Of course you have to show harm, what else aoukd you expect a court to rule on? Hurt feelings?

Then why are you claiming that candidate has standing to sue, when you know that they don't?

Trump never voted in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin, therefore has no standing with any of those State courts. Only the voters of those States who were robbed of their vote, or had different verification standards applied to their vote, have standing to sue their State government.

 

[BlueTex]

Then why are you claiming that candidate has standing to sue, when you know that they don't?

Trump never voted in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin, therefore has no standing with any of those State courts. Only the voters of those States who were robbed of their vote, or had different verification standards applied to their vote, have standing to sue their State government.

How has the Trump campaign been suing in state court after state court with no standing?

 

[Glitch]

How has the Trump campaign been suing in state court after state court with no standing?

Obviously very badly. In case you hadn't noticed every State court has thrown out Trump's suits without even looking at them. That is because he has no standing.

 

[BlueTex]

Obviously very badly. In case you hadn't noticed every State court has thrown out Trump's suits without even looking at them. That is because he has no standing.

Bullshit... In Nevada for example...

Judge rejects Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to block state’s presidential election results, says no evidence election was affected by fraud – The Nevada Independent

Judge James Russell ruled Friday against the Trump campaign’s unprecedented request to either block certification of the state’s presidential election results or award the state’s electoral votes to Trump, saying in a written order that the campaign’s claims of voter fraud to the level needed to...

thenevadaindependent.com

 

[Glitch]

Bullshit... In Nevada for example...

View attachment 67310744

Judge rejects Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to block state’s presidential election results, says no evidence election was affected by fraud – The Nevada Independent

Judge James Russell ruled Friday against the Trump campaign’s unprecedented request to either block certification of the state’s presidential election results or award the state’s electoral votes to Trump, saying in a written order that the campaign’s claims of voter fraud to the level needed to...

thenevadaindependent.com

Did you read NRS 293.410?

NRS 293.410  Statement of contest must not be dismissed for deficiencies of form; grounds for contest.

1.  A statement of contest shall not be dismissed by any court for want of form if the grounds of contest are alleged with sufficient certainty to inform the defendant of the charges the defendant is required to meet.
2.  An election may be contested upon any of the following grounds:

(a) That the election board or any member thereof was guilty of malfeasance.​

(b) That a person who has been declared elected to an office was not at the time of election eligible to that office.​

(c) That:​

(1) Illegal or improper votes were cast and counted;​

(2) Legal and proper votes were not counted; or​

(3) A combination of the circumstances described in subparagraphs (1) and (2) occurred, in an amount that is equal to or greater than the margin between the contestant and the defendant, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election.​

(d) That the election board, in conducting the election or in canvassing the returns, made errors sufficient to change the result of the election as to any person who has been declared elected.​

(e) That the defendant or any person acting, either directly or indirectly, on behalf of the defendant has given, or offered to give, to any person anything of value for the purpose of manipulating or altering the outcome of the election.​

(f) That there was a malfunction of any voting device or electronic tabulator, counting device or computer in a manner sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election.​

​

(Added to NRS by 1960, 264; A 1961, 293; 1971, 446; 1977, 246; 2017, 2171)

There is more than sufficient evidence that Nevada (specifically Clark County) did not count the legal and proper votes by a sufficient amount that would have altered the outcome of the election.

Once again Nevada used the same pathetic excuse to commit wide-spread election fraud - COVID-19. By claiming signatures are not required for mail-in ballots due to COVID-19 they invalidated their own election. Just like the other nine States that did the same thing.

When will you leftists grasp that the US Constitution does not go away just because you declare an emergency? Every American is still entitled to due process of law and the equal application of all laws, particularly election laws, despite there being a pandemic. The judges who illegally altered election law by ruling that signatures are not required on mail-in ballots need to be impeached and then imprisoned for their role in this election fraud.

 

[BlueTex]

Did you read NRS 293.410?


There is more than sufficient evidence that Nevada (specifically Clark County) did not count the legal and proper votes by a sufficient amount that would have altered the outcome of the election.

Once again Nevada used the same pathetic excuse to commit wide-spread election fraud - COVID-19. By claiming signatures are not required for mail-in ballots due to COVID-19 they invalidated their own election. Just like the other nine States that did the same thing.

When will you leftists grasp that the US Constitution does not go away just because you declare an emergency? Every American is still entitled to due process of law and the equal application of all laws, particularly election laws, despite there being a pandemic. The judges who illegally altered election law by ruling that signatures are not required on mail-in ballots need to be impeached and then imprisoned for their role in this election fraud.

Did you actually read the judge order and the findings? Why do you suppose he ruled on the ACTUAL evidence submitted if there was no standing? You appear to have already reached a conclusion and are merely looking for a court to agree with you... Not gonna happen..







The judge went to the trouble of writing 35 pages reviewing the bullshit submitted to the court and rejected it all...

 

[Glitch]

Did you actually read the judge order and the findings? Why do you suppose he ruled on the ACTUAL evidence submitted if there was no standing? You appear to have already reached a conclusion and are merely looking for a court to agree with you... Not gonna happen..

The judge went to the trouble of writing 35 pages reviewing the bullshit submitted to the court and rejected it all...

It is unnecessary to read anything the judge ordered since it is by an obviously corrupt judge. He didn't rule on the evidence, he summarily dismissed the suit like every other corrupt leftist judge.

No matter how you slice it, if a State has more than one method for verifying ballot signatures, then it is a fraudulent election. There are at least ten States, including Nevada, that violated their own election laws and they used COVID-19 as the vehicle for their deliberate fraud.