Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Stacey Abrams’ Federal Judge Sister Blocks Voter Purge in Two Georgia Counties

Stacey Abrams’ Federal Judge Sister Blocks Voter Purge in Two Georgia Counties

The two counties sought to remove the voters “because their registrations appeared to match U.S. Postal Service change-of-address records.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZGliJTOKiQ

U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, Stacey Abrams’ sister, ruled against a voter purge in two Georgia counties before the January 5th runoff.

Background

Here is some background in order to fully understand the ruling.

Muscogee County wanted to remove 4,000 voters. Ben Hill County wanted to purge 150 voters.

The two counties sought to remove the voters “because their registrations appeared to match U.S. Postal Service change-of-address records.” From Politico:

The evidence to challenge the 4,000 registrations in Muscogee County was particularly sparse. The challenge was lodged Dec. 14 by a local voter named Ralph Russell who alleged that he had compared evidence from publicly accessible voter registration databases to prove that these voters had moved out of Georgia.

“I believe that each of the individuals named … as a result of registering their name and change of address to a location outside of Muscogee County, removed to another state with the intention of making the new state their residence,” Russell told the county board. “Thus, each individual has lost their residence in Muscogee County, and consequently, each individual is ineligible to vote in Muscogee County.”

The Muscogee board met Dec. 16 and backed Russell’s motion 3-1, even though he didn’t attend the meeting and provided no additional evidence to support his challenge. Voters on Russell’s list, per the board, would be required to vote by provisional ballot and present additional evidence of residency to vote.

City Council member Tommy Roberts in Fitzgerald, GA, challenged the 150 voters in Ben Hill County. He “relied on change-of-address data.” The board in that county voted 2-1 in favor of Roberts.

Politico reported that “the board backed him despite evidence that the data could not be verified and would be inadmissible in court.”

The group Majority Forward sued because “postal data is not a reliable or conclusive indicator that a voter has given up their local residence.”

National Democratic Party attorney Marc Elias represents Majority Forward.

The Ruling

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 [NVRA] does not allow removing voters “unless the voter confirms in writing that he or she has moved outside of the county or does not respond to a notice and has not voted in two federal election cycles.”

A state can only remove voters 90 days before a federal election unless officials meet specific requirements such as the voter confirming “in writing that he or she has moved outside of the county or does not respond to a notice and has not voted in two federal election cycles.”

Gardner wrote (emphasis mine):

Here, it does not appear that the Boards received written confirmation from the Targeted Voters that they had changed their addresses. The Russell Notice does not indicate that any of the Targeted Voters provided written confirmation of their address changes. Moreover, the declarations filed by Targeted Voters Turner, Burson, Essix, Pfeiffer Stinetorf, Colon, and Williams show that that [sic] these voters did not provide Defendants written confirmation that they had changed their addresses. Thus, as Section 8(d)(1 (A) of the NVRA clearly states, in relevant part, that a “State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant . . . confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar’s jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered” and as there is evidence before the Court that the Targeted Voters did not provide such confirmation, there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated Section 8(d) of the NVRA.

Likewise, there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding Plaintiffs’ Section 8(c) claim. As noted by the Eleventh Circuit, the 90 Day Provision of the NVRA limits “its reach to programs that ‘systemically’ remove voters from the voter rolls [but] permits removals based on individualized information at any time.” Arcia v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 772 F.3d 1335, 1346 (11th Cir. 2014)). “Individualized removals do not present the same risks as systematic removals because they are based on individual correspondence or rigorous individualized inquiry, leading to a smaller chance for mistakes.” N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. The N.C. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:16-CV-1274, at *11 (M.D. N.C. Nov. 4, 2016) (quoting Arcia, 772 F.3d at 1346 (11th Cir. 2014)). The Circuit noted that, “the 90 Day Provision strikes a careful balance: It permits systemic removal programs at any time except for the 90 days before an election because that is when the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters is the greatest.” Arcia, at 1346.

The Runoff

Georgia voters decide on their two U.S. senators on January 5th: Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler vs. Democratic challenger Raphael Warnock and Republican Sen. David Perdue vs. Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff.

The Republicans received more votes than the Democrats in the special election on November 3rd in Ben Hill County while it is unclear in Muscogee County:

In the Nov. 3 general election, Ben Hill voters gave Republican Sen. David Perdue 4,077 votes to Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff’s 2,283.

In the Nov. 3 special Senate election for the other Senate seat, Ben Hill voters gave Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler 1,780 votes to Democratic challenger Raphael Warnock’s 1,308. Republican Rep. Doug Collins, who fell short of qualifying statewide for the runoff, lead in Ben Hill with 1,880, according to the county’s figures.

The Senate vote in Muscogee was unclear, but President-elect Joseph R. Biden easily defeated President Donald Trump in the country by almost 20,000 votes.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Several times I worked temporarily in a location remote from my permanent home and, of course, I changed my address for the duration. It happens all the time.

If the challengers didn’t take everything into consideration before filing their suits, this is just sloppy work and hurts the cause instead of helping it. We must do better.
.

The real issue here is hesitation on the part of r officials. They thought that GA had enough r votes to keep it red.
Therefore they chose to avoid the ‘controversy’ of removing ineligible voters prior to the general election. They didn’t call the state legislature into session following the general election to at a minimum ensure that only those who voted in the general election could vote in the run off elections, which are merely extensions of the general election.

I don’t think cowardice is an appropriate label yet. However if r officials in GA and other States in their next legislative sessions refuse to:

1. Implement voter ID measures
2. Clean up voter registration lists via cross check of Social security data, other States registration lists, postal data, ECT.
3. Tighten up absentee ballot requirements
4. Emphasize in person voting, look at TX for the example
5. Investigate the 2020 general election and prosecute illegal activity, remove election officials who deviated from State law

These things, among others, are crucial to restoring trust and confidence in our election systems. The r officials were overconfident and arrogant and it cost them and us. Failure to pursue these objectives in the next legislative session is, IMO, cowardly.

Yes you will be called names. Yes the MSM will vilify you as suppressing votes. Politics is a contact sport. Either do what is required or resign.

    This is not about avoiding controversy, but about the Republican establishment protecting themselves. They helped the Democrats steal the presidential election to get rid of Trump, and now they can’t immediately condemn the system they put in place and the way they managed it without exposing much of the election fraud they participated in.

    Perdue and Loeffler can be expected to lose regardless of how many votes they get. Even if they win, it won’t be by anything near the margin by which Trump won. If the Democrats stole a big win, there will be no difficulty in stealing a small one. And, Republican officials will proclaim it the most honest election in history — to contest it would open up things to scrutiny that could bring down the whole party leadership establishment.

      CommoChief in reply to Bisley. | December 30, 2020 at 6:30 pm

      Bisley,

      Ok, I disagree with the ‘helping steal’ to ‘get’ Trump part. Why? The establishment r are not, collectively, very smart.

      The consent decree signed by the SoS of GA is, IMO, bs. Unless the GA constitution ceded the SoS the authority to do so from the Legislature; the people, then he has no more authority to sign a binding decree than I do.

      That said, I don’t live in GA and am not going to waste time looking up the relevant statutes, precedent ECT.

      The Gov should have pushed the r legislature to act prior to the general to make common sense adjustments to their election laws. Neither the r Gov nor the r leaders of a r controlled legislature chose to act. The result was the failure in three statewide races of the r to achieve 50%+1. Yes Collins was running and split the vote with Loeffler, still that is more of the McConnell mischief in pushing his preferences in primary races and for appointments.

      His interference is how D Jones got elected in Alabama to replace Sessions. Bottom line is there isn’t a plot but rather ineptitude.

        Wrong. A political party is in the business of selling government to the interests who finance them for the money that gives power to those who control the organization. They want only their flunkies in office, who will enact the agenda of the leadership and its contributors into law, and give them no argument. Politicians who go along with the program will be backed by the party’s money and organization, and make a lifetime career of government. Trump wants to do many things that would overturn both the policy of the party establishment and policies they’ve already sold to their donors. The party hierarchy both fears and despises Trump as a threat to their policy and their business — they want him out.

        The result of the Alabama senate election was driven by the same policy. Mo Brooks and Judge Moore were both popular in Alabama and either could have won easily, but the party wanted their servant in the seat. They pressured and threatened Brooks until he withdrew, and when Moore wouldn’t surrender to them, they joined the Democrats in the campaign of lies to destroy his reputation. The would rather have Democrats in office than Republicans that they don’t control — it’s better for their business.

          CommoChief in reply to Bisley. | December 31, 2020 at 10:25 am

          Bisley,

          Your lengthy description of the Alabama special election is what I referred to as ‘McConnell mischief’. So on that point we mostly agree. However, Roy Moore is as ‘crazy as a run over dog’ as we say down South. Brooks was the much better candidate.

          The national r establishment, officials, think tanks, etc will sell us out, no question there. If expedient to their own re-election they will do so.

          I am referring to the ability of state level political office holders; Legislature, Governors, LT Governors, ECT to act. In GA the did not in the case of the misguided SoS signing a consent decree. The result is three failures in statewide elections to secure a 50% +1 tally.

          There are nominal r voters and r leaning independent voters who simply don’t like Trump and split their vote. That isn’t to say their wasn’t voter fraud, obviously there was.

          It falls on us in our own States to push our officials to enact common sense voting laws as I laid out in my original post. That’s where we can make a difference. Complaining about Congressional r officials doesn’t do jack squat to move the needle.

From initial reports I was ready to condemn this ruling, but it appears that the statute explicitly backs it up, and no judge could possibly have made a different ruling.

That would be true even if listing in the change of address database were in fact proof of a change in residence. But the fact is that it isn’t. Just because you want your mail redirected somewhere doesn’t mean you’ve moved your permanent place of residence. And until they do move their permanent place of residence they’re entitled to vote from their old address.

    alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 11:13 am

    The options for address change include stipulation for how long the address change is for. It is also a signed legal document. This opens the option for double voting that occurred in California, Nevada and Arizona. As shown in this election, the laws favor voter fraud so as not to disenfranchise (Democrat) voters both alive, dead or phantom.

      Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | December 30, 2020 at 11:19 am

      The change of address form is for the limited purpose of having your mail redirected. It does not in any way constitute a statement that your residence has changed.

        Joe-dallas in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 1:11 pm

        Nor does a change of address form constitute a legal document

        randian in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 6:15 pm

        If the change of address is marked “temporary” I’d agree. If it’s marked “permanent” I’d say that’s a pretty good indication your permanent residence has changed.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to randian. | December 30, 2020 at 7:37 pm

          Why not check if the party’s drivers license has changed and if they voted in the new location. either would be cause to drop them.

          Milhouse in reply to randian. | December 31, 2020 at 12:08 am

          You can do that, but you have to do it for each individual. There is no database you can just run it through, which is what they did here. And there’s no time to do it for all those people before the election.

          Change of address forms don’t have a “permanent” option. The longest you can redirect mail is one year. I guess when the year is up you can submit another one.

          randian in reply to randian. | December 31, 2020 at 12:26 am

          Change of address forms don’t have a “permanent” option. The longest you can redirect mail is one year.

          They did the last time I tried it, and the USPS online option clearly has “permanent” as an option: https://moversguide.usps.com. It’s only the “temporary” option that’s limited to one year.

          Milhouse in reply to randian. | December 31, 2020 at 2:36 pm

          You’re right, they do have such an option, but it only works for a year. They stop forwarding after a year.

          Milhouse in reply to randian. | December 31, 2020 at 2:38 pm

          And since it only lasts a year, the voter could say that the GA address is still my residence, but I plan on being away for more than a year, so I made my COA “permanent”, because a “temporary” one can actually only be for six months, which can then be extended for another six, and I didn’t want to bother with that.

    harleycowboy in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 11:40 am

    Just go to the old address and see who lives there.

    felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 12:40 pm

    The question is why this action was not thrown out for lack of standing.
    Obviously, these were not the voters purged, and the courts must not be used to enforce the constitution or law on the whim of any voter. The fact that this judge was quick to do the bidding of the democrat affiliated plaintiffs says it all.

      Did you actually read the article? Its a legally sound judgement. The analysis provided by others seems to back that up.

        felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | December 30, 2020 at 4:03 pm

        Yes, I read the article. Did you read my comment?
        The issue is how on earth random people are granted standing when they are not even voters, when voters themselves apparently have no standing in election matters. Maybe there is a law that says that random democrat party associated groups always have standing for their lawfare suits, but that is not cited in the article.

        Maybe you can explain how they gained standing, and how the single actual voter in the case brought has standing regarding the thousands of entries that are not his?

          Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | December 30, 2020 at 4:34 pm

          “Significantly, in the absence of an injunction, it is not only would-be [individual] voters like Plaintiff [Turner] who will suffer irreparable harm, but also organizations such as the . . . Plaintiff-entit[y][,] [Majority Forward][,] in this case.” Ga. State Conference NAACP, 2017 WL 9435558 at *5. Courts have “recognized that conduct that limits an organization’s ability to conduct voter registration activities constitutes an irreparable injury.” Id.

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | December 31, 2020 at 10:53 am

          Milhouse, your quote is appreciated.

          However, the fact that the deeply biased Obama appointee managed to copy and paste a block of text does not make a convincing argument. Notably, the fact that an activist judge writes “irreparable harm” does not make any potential “harm” “irreparable” if there is not a single convincing argument to that effect. It simply conflates “harm” and “irreparable harm.”

          How a provisional ballot would be “irreparable harm” when it is obviously something that is by design set up to be “reparable” is a mystery. The case cited (I could be wrong) wasn’t decided by the courts at all but became moot and was about alleged gerrymandering. Quite different from cleaning up or at least trying to clean up dirty voter lists.

          However, even if an unbiased judge potentially could come to a similar decision in this case no such judge made the decision. If this Obama appointee was not biased clearly she appears to be biased, and just this appearance alone would compel any honest judge to recuse themselves.

      Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | December 30, 2020 at 3:38 pm

      The civil rights laws explicitly give the challengers standing.

        felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 4:14 pm

        A “person aggrieved” may sue, so the individual can (I think I mentioned that in a comment), however, the law does not say anything about a organization with the purpose of suing in elections-related cases.

        Of course, I’m certain, you understood what the main thrust of the comment was. There seems to be a surprising disparity in the use of “standing” here. Does anyone believe for a moment that this connected Obama-appointee would have issued this decision if the petitioners were more (R) than (D)?

          Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | December 30, 2020 at 4:44 pm

          Yes, it would. No question.

          What you’re having trouble with is a basic imbalance: A person is struck from the rolls has his right to vote substantially burdened, so he has standing. Even if it’s only a little more inconvenient to cast a provisional vote, that counts and gives him standing. But a person wanting someone else struck from the rolls has no standing, because his interest in the matter is no greater than that of any other member of the general public. And that’s the definition of standing; it has to affect you more than it does the general public.

Ol' Jim hisself | December 30, 2020 at 11:09 am

Even if the ruling were valid, which I am not arguing, because of her relationship with Her Fatness, the judge should have recused herself.

    Not true. The Governor-In-Exile was not a party to this suit, so her sister had no duty to recuse herself.

      Joe-dallas in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 12:05 pm

      I agree that there is no basis for reclusal

      Though – a more important question, Given the obvious intellectual shortcomings of Stacy Abrams, How likely is it that her sister would have sufficient mental capacity to be a judge.

        Milhouse in reply to Joe-dallas. | December 30, 2020 at 12:20 pm

        That’s not really an indication. Sometimes all the intelligence in a family is concentrated in one sibling.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 8:02 pm

          genes are not created equal, and when a family produces one stupid, there is a high probability they will produce more of the same.

          This applies to families, regions, countries, and different ethnic groups. Anyone can look up the statistical probably of people from different groups producing both slower and brighter members. What is really fascinating is at the extreme of someone like Einstein and Hawking, where slower members of humanity would only produce someone of that caliber once every 1000 or more centuries.

Funny how so many people are willing to leave the field open to the bad guys while making legal arguments that really address nothing and will leave conservatives effectively (if not legally) disenfranchised Keep it up.

    Milhouse in reply to Virginia42. | December 30, 2020 at 11:36 am

    What’s the alternative? How would you have ruled if you were the judge? Would you have betrayed your office and corrupted the law, by handed down a false ruling, merely to achieve a political goal, however important?! I sure hope not. Justice must follow the law regardless of the consequences.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 12:51 pm

      She should have thrown out the action of the democratic front organization and only dealt with the single voter’s action.

      The balance of interests would be in favor of election integrity, the voter in question – if he will vote at all – will only minimally be inconvenienced while the integrity of the entire election is jeopardized if dirty voter rolls open the door to widespread election fraud.

      How non-electors suddenly gain standing before federal judges in elections that are subject to state law is a mystery.

        Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | December 30, 2020 at 3:40 pm

        They have standing under the civil rights laws.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 4:23 pm

          That is a very specific quote. If you refer to the National Voter Registration Act there is a provision that allows a person “aggrieved” to sue under certain circumstances. That does not magically confer standing to a group of democrat lawfare operatives who are not even electors in the state. The one elector is only aggrieved (if at all) regarding his entry, not the thousands of other entries.
          So there needs to be a bit more reasoning.
          It is very clear that there was little reluctance of this Obama appointee to interfere with an election at the behest of a lawfare group with political leanings no doubt fully endorsed by the totally unbiased judge.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 4:47 pm

          See my reply at 4:34 pm

“Georgia law (O.C.G.A § 21-2-417) requires Georgia residents to show photo identification when voting in person.”

Old addresses abound, voters who don’t update their info, and returned mail are a constant nuisance for election boards.

I’ve been an election judge in Missouri for eleven years, and when a voter presents a valid ID, and attests that their info is true and correct in order to vote in that precinct, we as election judges have little to no authority to challenge.

So much of our system relies on the honesty of individuals. Unforunately, there seems to be a professional class of fraudsters hell bent on corrupting the system.

    Yes, the laws need changing.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 12:39 pm

      In some States the laws do need to be changed. In others they need to be enforced.

      IMO following every election the voter info should be investigated for accuracy. Did John Smith vote in Florida even though he now legally resides in another State?

      Equally important did John Smith fail to vote? Send out a voter registration card update. If not returned then remove John Smith from the voter registration lists.

      The voter registration lists are the crucial piece. Red states need to establish an interstate compact on cooperative sharing of data to work towards cleaning up their voter registration lists. Not every state sends death records to Social security. There is plenty of low hanging fruit dealing with collection and sharing of data records within and among States and Federal agencies.

    I think the problem arises when so little fraud is actually detected. Its a question of which is the worst outcome voter fraud or voter suppression? At the present time the effects of voter suppression through some of these voter id type laws have been shown ( not commenting on the strength of the evidence) to have a negative impact. As such my opinion is that there needs to be a sensible bipartisan report looking at both issues and coming to a balanced view. At present it would appear based on the evidence that voter fraud is not an issue whereas voter suppression is.

      Mac45 in reply to mark311. | December 30, 2020 at 2:26 pm

      No vote fraud??? Really??? What alternate space-time continuum do you live in???

      We have documented election law violations in several locales. These same locales also directly resulted in a swing in substantial swing in the lead from Trump to Biden. We have ballot irregularities which the states and courts refuse to investigate or address. We have widening evidence that the voting machines, predominately used in the last election, are erratic in operation and do not produce the same results from use to use. We have burgeoning statistical evidence that more votes were cast than ballots received. We have growing evidence that voter signatures were not adequately verified. We have increasing evidence that election records were falsified to allow late arriving ballots to be counted. We have increasing that vote totals were actually electronically changed during the tabulation process and switched from one candidate to another. The problem here is not that there is NO evidence of fraud, which very likely changed the result of the election, but that no responsible entity will even listen to the evidence existing.

      Now, let’s speak of ACTUAL voter suppression. When a legally cast vote is changed from one candidate to another or illegal votes are counted which nullify the legally cast vote(s) THAT is actual voter suppression.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | December 30, 2020 at 3:50 pm

        We have widening evidence that the voting machines, predominately used in the last election, are erratic in operation and do not produce the same results from use to use.

        No, we don’t. That’s a stupid rumor that nobody has ever confirmed.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 5:24 pm

          Google is your friend, Buddy. We have election officials in both MI and GA who have stated that they have been unable to reproduce the election results in subsequent attempts to recount their ballots, using Dominion machines. So, there is mounting evidence that the machines are unreliable, at best.

          The problem is we do not know why these incidents produced non-reproducible results. In a science experiment, failure to reproduce results results in discarding the theory involved. In this case, this would be that the machines are reliable. So, the results of the count is also unreliable.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 5:57 pm

          Citations, please. The claim that went around that “Using sequestered Dominion Equipment, Ware County ran a equal number of Trump votes and Biden votes through the Tabulator and the Tabulator reported a 26% lead for Biden” was pure BS. Are you now referring to something else?

      alaskabob in reply to mark311. | December 30, 2020 at 2:57 pm

      Dead people voted, people attesting to ages between 100 and 120 voted, people voted twice…. the only suppression is in telling the truth about voter fraud. How many activities less important than voting require ID? Heck ..buying booze requires and ID but voting??? Soft bigotry or blindness to say suppression.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | December 30, 2020 at 3:49 pm

      Um, no. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who pays attention that there is a massive amount of fraud. It’s not detected precisely because the Democratic Party has made it so difficult to detect. Take this example. It’s almost certain that the vast majority of the voters who were to be purged are in fact not entitled to vote. Surely you must agree with that. But the law insists on specific evidence in each individual case, and there is neither the time nor the resources to conduct thousands of such investigations, and have each of them examined by the court, to prevent them from voting now.

      I would hope that after the election each of them who voted is investigated, and if it turns out they voted fraudulently they are prosecuted, but based on past performance I’m not holding my breath. Prosecutors usually refuse to bring such cases. And when caught, they just say they didn’t know, they didn’t understand, and they almost always get off.

      Tens of thousands of aliens are registered to vote, but how do you catch them? The federal government refuses to allow states access to its database of citizens, which could be cross-matched with the voter rolls. As far as I know this didn’t change under Trump, I don’t know why. But Biden will certainly continue it. And without that database it’s almost impossible for any of them to get caught, so they just go on voting.

      And that’s just two relatively insignificant components of the fraud machine. There’s lots more where they came from. It’s like trawling the sea with a 6-inch net. You’re not going to catch any fish under 6 inches, but if you conclude that there aren’t any you’re wrong.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 9:39 am

        Some interesting points, but it feels like a circular argument. I’d agree that their needs to be proper investigation into the election, the processes and the manner it was carried out. Lessons needs learning from all sides. From my point of view the left is arrogant but the right has a lot of conspiracy theories which undermines the discourse. Addressing your points in particular though I need sources, I’m always willing to take a look at reasonable coherent sources.

      nordic_prince in reply to mark311. | December 30, 2020 at 4:16 pm

      Do you always believe it when somebody tells you it’s raining while he’s pissing on your back?

      No wonder you can’t see any election fraud. You don’t want to see any.

If this shoe had been on the other party’s foot, you can pretty much bet that the Abrams party and every main-stream media outlet would be screaming bloody murder! after the election, if the non-Abrams candidates had won the runoff, the election would be declared fraudulent for six years.

    mark311 in reply to Philip. | December 30, 2020 at 1:19 pm

    Who cares, deal with the argument not speculation about the behaviour of others. Its meaningless and I from some of the comments on BOTH sides a lot of it is hot air, exaggeration and a lot of BS

People are missing a major point in these cases. Neither board of elections purged these voters from the rolls. Neither did they bar them from voting. What they did was to take a COMMON SENSE approach and mandate that these voters would have to cast provisional ballots, until their status could be verified. Wow, pretty tame stuff there. Not exactly voter suppression.

The problem here is time. Early voting has already started in GA. Once these votes are tabulated, they are essentially irretrievable, unless sequestered as provisional ballots. And, provisional ballots can be required for a variety of reasons, including suspicion of ineligibility. Bad ruling.

    mark311 in reply to Mac45. | December 30, 2020 at 1:17 pm

    Well the remedy was to remove said individuals from the the voting register so absent proof that they had moved as per the law that means it would in effect be voter suppression. The law as it currently stands assumes that the person is in residence and therefore the onus is on a party with standing to prove that they have moved. Assumption and speculation doesn’t cut it.

      Mac45 in reply to mark311. | December 30, 2020 at 1:35 pm

      Not voter suppression. The local boards did not bar these people from presenting a ballot. The only thing that they did was to require that they vote by provisional ballot, until their voter status could be verified. Once again the boards were faced with a time problem. It takes time to verify that a person is not currently residing at a registered address. So, what to do? Being common sense oriented, the boars took a common sense approach to the problem. They limited the potentially affected voters to provisional ballots. The voters still get to vote and those votes are counted, unless it is proven that the voter no longer is eligible to voted in that jurisdiction. Now, as there was no harm done to the voters involved, until after their votes were discarded, there was no standing to sue for redress. So, the suit should have been dismissed for lack of standing. If the boards had denied the affected voters the right to vote entirely, then it would have been a different story.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | December 30, 2020 at 4:46 pm

        As the court said, provisional ballots may not be counted. And to get themselves back on the rolls they would have to travel back to Georgia, which they may not be able to afford.

        Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | December 30, 2020 at 5:34 pm

        I’m sorry, but why can;t provisional ballots not be counted? That is exactly their purpose. They allow a person to register a vote, but that vote is not tabulated until the matter of eligibility is resolved, at which point the vote is added to the total vote count.

        Also, all they have to do is to provide proof that they still reside in GA. Not really that hard to do. Do they maintain a residence in GA? If so, they will have electricity and water records or a rental agreement. How hard are those to produce? If they are students, then they provide proof of residential enrollment in an out of state school. In the military? Again, no problem. How much does this cost? A couple of dollars for copies and postage, less than dinner at Micky D’s.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | December 30, 2020 at 6:00 pm

          1. Provisional ballots are only counted if they matter. Most of the time they are discarded without being counted.

          2. To be a resident of Georgia one does not have to be physically present there, or have a home or utility bills or anything like that. One simply has to still regard it as ones permanent home, to which one intends to return. Meanwhile one may stay out of the state for an extended time. The court specifically noted that Georgia residents who are currently elsewhere, and having their mail forwarded there, might not be able to afford to return and prove their residential status.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | December 30, 2020 at 8:13 pm

          Well, if not counting provisional ballot does not matter to the outcome, then there is NO damage. After all, a ballot is not a lottery ticket.

          While some courts have ruled that a possible desire to return to live within a state at some unspecified time may constitute residence, this flies in the face of a century where a multitude of courts have ruled that residence is established only if a person actually maintains some residential condition, such as a domicile or proven ties to a community. Every state in the Union has statutes which specify that actual residence has to be proven in order for a person to claim residency in a state. A person who lives and works in most states must obtain a driver’s license issued by the state, unless he can prove residence in another state, or he is in a specialized situation such as student, military or certain contract employees. In other words, residency is only assumed, in the real word, in the state in which a person is presently located.

          As I have stated that, IMHO, the court’s reasoning was fatally flawed, I really don’t give a hoot what the court ruled in this case. A bad ruling is a bad ruling, regardless of who makes it.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 30, 2020 at 1:04 pm

Picture of two Communist Chinese operatives.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/fatchance.jpg

Anyone notice that the judge in this case reversed herself late Wednesday, 12/30, and ruled that the actions of the boards were legal. She did require that the steps for verification be carried out in a timely manner, however.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend