JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: Court Rules against Counting of Ballots Received after Election Day

SPREAD THE WORD

BA WORRIED ABOUT 5G FB BANNER 728X90


Summary

➡ The text discusses the historical and legal aspects of election day, emphasizing that it was traditionally the day voters made their choices known. It mentions that even with changes in voting methods, the essence of election day hasn’t changed. The text also differentiates between the act of voting and the process of counting votes, suggesting that the latter can extend beyond election day without violating the law.

Transcript

The original public meaning of the day of election is at the time of enactment meant the day that voters expressed their choice and made it known to officials. That is receipt. That is what happened in VIVA voice voting. And that’s what happened in ticket voting. Nothing mattered until they dropped it in the box. And then that didn’t change when America adopted the Australian ballot beginning in 1890. And the third reason is the actual text of the statute. Three U.S.C. one says that electors shall be appointed on election day. Under Mississippi’s law, it must wait five business days for voters’ choices and the final selections to roll in before it can appoint people.

Now, as a matter of practice, Mississippi does extend canvassing days after elections. We don’t dispute that. But that’s not required by law. And if the Speaker of the House called up Mississippi on Wednesday after election, they said, who did you appoint or who did you nominate to be your electors? Mississippi could do it. But under the current regime, they would have to tell the Speaker to wait five days before we can give you an answer. That is modifying and inconsistent with the original public meaning of the election day. The act of counting the ballots is different and separate.

And that can happen five days, five weeks. Bush v. Gore can happen, what, in December after the election? So is your position that recounts and ballot counting and, you know, ballot sort of looking at hanging chads and all the rest of that after election day, is that preempted by three U.S.C. section one? No, Your Honor. Because what if the Speaker of the House called the Secretary of State in Florida and said, who are your electors? Bush or Gore? They would say we they wouldn’t be able to give them the answer, but they would still be calculating it.

And we describe this in our reply brief. If you get everyone in a room and they cast a vote and they put it in a box, that decision is made inside that box. You don’t know the results yet, but that decision is in that box. As it stands now, you have to wait five more days for decisions to come into that box and you can’t make that decision. So the complexities and the difficulties in certifying and calculating the election can slow down the process. But that is not the that is not when an election occurs.

An election occurs when a voter voter expresses their choice, they make it known and communicate it to elected election officials by a given time. And the given time is on or before election day. That’s what reconciles the absentee voting and early voting because they can do it before, but they can’t extend it after. Russell Nobel from Judicial Watch again, I’m going to do some drive-bys on a couple of things have been brought up to the court. RNC versus DNC. That is a case about federal primary. It does not apply to USC seven, three USC one or two USC one.

I’m not saying the court needs ignored, but in that context, the Supreme Court was not looking at how the term election or election day was applied in those statutes. It has very little relevance to the actual text of the statute in question here. No more so than a state election would be relevant to the election day statutes. We don’t need a textual conflict. We have a textual conflict. Three USC one requires them to appoint electors by election day. They are fundamentally unable to is inconsistent for that purpose. Uh, but there’s a myriad of other reasons why it’s inconsistent, but that is a clear direct conflict to the extent the court still believes such as necessary.

Uh, we asked the court, uh, rule in our favor, remain this back to, uh, the Southern district of Mississippi. So we can have a meeting of proceedings and decide what issues remain
[tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.

Author

Sign Up Below To Get Daily Patriot Updates & Connect With Patriots From Around The Globe

Let Us Unite As A  Patriots Network!

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you agree to receive emails from My Patriots Network about our updates, community, and sponsors. You can unsubscribe anytime. Read our Privacy Policy.

BA WORRIED ABOUT 5G FB BANNER 728X90

SPREAD THE WORD

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

How To Turn Your Savings Into Gold!

* Clicking the button will open a new tab

FREE Guide Reveals

Get Our

Patriot Updates

Delivered To Your

Inbox Daily

  • Real Patriot News 
  • Getting Off The Grid
  • Natural Remedies & More!

Enter your email below:

By clicking "Subscribe Free Now," you agree to receive emails from My Patriots Network about our updates, community, and sponsors. You can unsubscribe anytime. Read our Privacy Policy.

15585

Want To Get The NEWEST Updates First?

Subscribe now to receive updates and exclusive content—enter your email below... it's free!

By clicking "Subscribe Free Now," you agree to receive emails from My Patriots Network about our updates, community, and sponsors. You can unsubscribe anytime. Read our Privacy Policy.