Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Judges Playing Fast and Loose with Election Laws
Before you know it, we won’t need Congress at all; we’ll just have judges make the laws in this country.
Apparently judges all over the country have decided that they are empowered to create or change election laws. After all, they are demonstrating compassion and understanding for all those people who have been victims of the Covid-19 pandemic. The fact that those citizens have had weeks to plan for their preferred method of voting is irrelevant. Just ask the Democrats.
Several states now have judges who are changing election laws. Their rulings cover a large and creative list of reasons:
Without any consistency of reason or justification beyond ‘Pandemic = limitations bad,’ several district court judges have limited or eliminated measures requiring witnessing or confirming signatures of absentee ballots, factual justification for absentee voting, extending deadlines for receipt of mailed ballots, excusing the absence of postmarks on mailed ballots, adopting of a presumption of timely mailing in the absence of evidence to the contrary, mandating that states/counties allow ballots to be deposited in a ‘drop boxes’ without any security features, allowing voters to access voting devices while sitting in their cars, eliminating limitations on third party ability to deliver ballots on behalf of absentee voters, express expansion of ‘vote harvesting’ authorization, etc.
When we look at the Federal Elections Clause, however, it is specific about the body that has the power to change election law (including the Federal government itself):
One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the ‘Legislature’ of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term ‘Legislature’ extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.
Neither election boards nor judges are included.
How serious is the problem of “legislating from the bench”?
Several states’ judges and election boards have over-reached their power. Here are just a few examples:
North Carolina
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the State Board of Elections’ attempt to rewrite N.C. elections law. The board had tried to use a state-level lawsuit settlement to change absentee ballot rules. U.S. District Court Judge James Dever issued a temporary restraining order on Saturday, Oct. 3, blocking a proposal to remove witness signature requirements from absentee ballots.
Georgia
On Friday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals entered a Stay with regard to a Preliminary Injunction granted by a District Court Judge of Georgia. Using COVID 19 as an excuse — as other district court judges are doing across the country — the federal judge in Georgia issued an Injunction preventing Georgia state election officials from enforcing the ‘7:00 pm on election day’ deadline for receiving absentee ballots to be counted, and ordering Georgia officials to count all ballots received up to three days after Election Day if validly postmarked on or before election day.
Alabama
U.S. District Judge Abdul K. Kallon issued the ruling today in favor of people and organizations who sued … election officials over …. ban on curbside voting, the requirement that absentee ballots be signed by a notary or two witnesses, and the requirement for a photo ID with absentee ballot applications. Kallon ruled that the ban on curbside voting, the witness requirement, and the photo ID requirement, as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, violated federal law and voting rights for people at serious risk of illness because of medical condition, disability, or being over 65.
Pennsylvania
Republicans want a state Supreme Court ruling blocked that would allow ballots to be counted in the swing state for the rest of election week, Axios reports. A stay from the justices would revert the deadline to 8pm on Election Day, Nov. 3. Not only do thousands of ballots hang in the balance, but the decision could be an indication of what the court will do in future election cases. President Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016, and his reelection campaign is against such extensions. The court invoked its power to extend deadlines during a disaster emergency, citing concerns about postal delays and increased requests for mail-in ballots this year.
Several other state judges are trying to “adjudicate” changes to election law. Many blame the pandemic; others appeal to the compassion of those involved with reviewing their rulings. None of these actions are being taken, as the law demands, by the state legislatures.
We already have evidence of errors, malfeasance, and confusion in those states that have tried to use universal mail-in ballots earlier this year. Ballots have disappeared, been thrown away, and been miscounted. To try this process for the first time when there will be great demands on the election process does not bode well. And now judges are determined to exert their own biases on the system.
Most of these cases have received a temporary stay; plaintiffs can then appeal to the Supreme Court. The hope by many who visualize major chaos ahead for the 2020 election, regardless of whether these changes are enacted, is that the Supreme Court will rule in a way that clarifies who is eligible to make changes to the election law. They could endeavor to send a message to every state that is undeniable:
Judges cannot legislate from the bench.
Published in Law
(sigh)
If it goes this way then all judges need to be elected.
We’ve watched the judges make outrageous rulings on cases where they technically have no power. They obviously don’t care. But the timing and potential impact of what they are doing right now is unbelievable. Then again, maybe it’s not.
I wish we could just throw out the whole group of them, and I can’t imagine trying to vote for them! Thanks, @rodin.
Main Feed! Voter fraud is and has been one of the most under reported situations / elephant on the room for years now. I’d argue that Trumps stating there were 3 million fraudulent votes in 2016 seems reasonable then and way too low an estimate now.
This is turning into a farce. GD the Left and Dems to Hell for this discord they sow.
Praying that the Supreme Court (even the Lefties and squishes on it) recognize the corrosive effect this is doing and have the wisdom to shut this nonsense down. This needs to be a 9-0 type of decision, where ACB is rendering her first opinion but it isn’t needed. They need to recognize these are Dred Scott level decisions. Make or break the Republic decisions.
Otherwise we may end up with Judge Dredd.
The left does not care about the rules in application to them. Only the right has to follow the rules.
Judges are elected by popular vote in Wisconsin, and those races are probably the most contentious ones in the state, because everyone knows that judges legislate. This needs to change. The Democrats stole this spring’s WI Supreme Court election on behalf of their favorite, knowing that they’ll need him to rule in their favor this fall.
I share your passion on this subject, @wicon. I hope the decision is obvious enough that a short number on the court see how important and appropriate the rulings should be. Thanks!
Would you share how they went about doing that, Drew?
If the Democrats pack the SCOTUS you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Indeed. It’s not even about “plain language” then. A packed Supreme Court could decide, as I’ve commented elsewhere, that the 2nd Amendment, or the 1st, or anything else you care to name, is, to quote an episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” just “a recipe for biscuits.”
Oh the usual thing we get here where more ballots are suddenly discovered after the counting is done. Plus failing to deliver requested absentee ballots or failing to count returned absentee ballots. (Many were found the following week. Even the New York Times reported on it.)
I consider this past spring’s election in Wisconsin to be completely invalid. Of course, I also think that the election that gave us the execrable Tony Evers was also invalid, given the sudden appearance of 50,000 ballots in Milwaukee after Milwaukee claimed to have finished counting. (Evers won by about 29,000 votes. Scott Walker was ahead when those 50,000 ballots were discovered.)
Already the Democrats are ballot-harvesting here, and though the Republican-led legislature complained, they took in at least 11,000 ballots on their first weekend event. Where are those ballots now? Are they secure? The media presents this as if it’s all on the up-and-up, but I question it.
I have been astonished at the brazenness with which courts have been literally rewriting election statutes (written laws) enacted by the legislatures. The courts aren’t even pretending to “interpret” the laws. They just declare that the plain language of the statute (usually a deadline) is changed to read something other than what the legislature passed and the executive signed.
Ballot harvesting is too tempting for those who are greedy. It’s just not responsible. There are so many ways that people can vote nowadays that it’s unacceptable. Of course, the Democrats don’t care. I’m so sorry for the outcome of your election.
Oh, but @fullsizetabby, they are trying to help those poor disadvantaged voters who need their help. [sarcasm off] Just one more misuse of the “victim mentality.” Sigh.
And of course, the biggest “help” of all is to just do all those peoples’ voting FOR them, so they don’t have to worry their little heads about it.
“If it goes this way then all judges need to be elected.”
Rodin, in my State of California most judges are elected but it makes no diff. When you have a powerful Public Employees Union like we do they will buy all the judges they want.
The issue of rewriting election laws hopefully will be addressed by the Supreme Court ( if there is such a need as in an alleged Biden Victory) but that is why the nomination and approval of Amy Coney Barrett is so important. Without looking into it thoroughly I guess those new election laws violate the Due Process rights of Pub voters in a big way, so we shall see what happens.
Another example: my mother lives in AZ, which is something of a battleground state this year, primarily because of its Senate seat. Part of AZ’s purplish tilt was to elect a Dem Secretary of State in the 2018 cycle. (Probably Soros-funded, but I haven’t checked.)
Mom heard the current AG, who is a Republican, speak at a GOP event recently. He told the group something interesting about what is going on there. OR has had all mail elections for some years, and CA notoriously began them this year. The Dems got a federal judge (presumably not a Trump appointee) to extend the AZ voter registration deadline, as usual using COVID as the excuse. The Dems are bringing people in from CA and OR, who can and presumably already have voted by mail there, to AZ and register there.
To my knowledge, there is no mechanism between the states to catch this type of double voting fraud. If there is, it would take a long time to trace, audit, and invalidate.
The AG is fighting it, but of course it has to wend its way through the courts. Meanwhile, the Dem SoS can help this along.
(Mom could have some of the details wrong….so AZ Ricochetti, please check this out.)
I don’t live in Arizona any more, but I think Arizona does allow same-day registration and voting. It may involve “swearing” that you’ve been a state resident for X months or something, but they’re not really going to check, and lying never seems to bother the dems.
Where is the DOJ? Some prosecutions, no matter how minor would serve as a preventive measure.
If they can find multiple ballots from same voters in two states now, before actual election day, prosecute them!
How can they prove they came from the same person? Especially if the actual ballots don’t have specific identifying information on them. It may not be very obvious, either. I’ve lived NEXT DOOR to someone with the same name as mine (although that was her married name), and I’ve been denied renting a VCR (yes, a LONG time ago) because someone with my same name in Seattle (where I’ve never lived) didn’t return one rented from that chain. (Blockbuster.)
And of course, even if prosecuted etc, there’s really no way to undo their fraudulent votes. So if Biden “wins,” the damage is already done. And I wouldn’t be surprised if many on the left – especially those with nothing better to do, no job etc, so they have plenty of free time to temporarily “immigrate” to Arizona – would consider it worthwhile even if they end up jailed.
Don;t you have to show ID or sign in when you vote in person, and sign when voting by mail?
Some places don’t seem to require ID, or they let you vote “provisional” without it. But even if a mail-in ballot is signed, I don’t think they could prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the same person signed a ballot in AZ and in PRC. Especially if there’s nothing else given, such as SSN or whatever.
Someone who was charged with voting twice, could easily claim that only ONE of those ballots was filled out/signed by them, the other might be fraudulent but SOMEONE ELSE did it. Unless they start having video cameras and recording at voting places, which would also mean no more mail-in voting. But mail-in voting seems to be exactly what the left wants, and it seems to be at least in part because it makes it so much easier for them to cheat.
Maybe someone who is Pro Biden and lives in AZ could weigh in. I am sure there is nothing to this.
Electe Biden and take back the GOP
I did hear that circuit courts were striking down these controversial rulings at the state level. I don’t have the links in front of me, but redstate covered it.
The good ones are enforcing the constitutional requirement that voting laws be enacted by legislatures, not by state commissions or judges.
Of course, the 9th
CircuitCircus is not a good one, so there’s no telling what it might do. But it’s also the most-overturned by the Supremes, last I heard. So there is still some hope even there.The 9th is now majority-Republican appointed.
Outstanding! I hadn’t realized that, @miffedwhitemale. A result, I suspect, from all the appointments that McConnell has pushed through. Well done, Mitch.
And that majority seems to be having a positive effect on decisions coming out of the 9th Circuit. More of those decisions now are legal decisions with legal reasoning. Decisions simply stating the personal policy preferences of a couple of judges are becoming more rare.
I so appreciate learning about this shift! I should have realized that if the 9th wasn’t in the news, that was good news!