Back to New Hampshire.

Quote:

---

The din behind the largest discrepancy regarding an election recount is growing And We, the People are being heard. The "Windham Incident" has brought people together from all political ideologies and it is amazing.

Last week, the Senate passed an amendment to Senate Bill SB43 that was championed by Senator Bob Giuda. The amendment replaced the entire text of SB43 with language that would FORCE the state to perform an audit on the Windham State Rep race on November 3, 2020.

It passed 24-0. Let that sink in! 24-0! That is quite a statement that reflects our desire to have accurate elections. The House will pick up the baton this week and I'm hopeful that it flies through.

The Windham Board of Selectmen have been on board requesting an investigation regarding what the heck happened since the beginning of the debacle and tomorrow they have an agenda item to discuss the situation further.

---

And for anyone interested:

Quote:

---

Please make a statement and join the meeting. You don't have to talk, just being there says it all that you care about our Republic, and that you will not sit idly by while our state government officials do nothing. Your presence will speak volumes!

You can attend in person at Windham Town Hall, 3 North Lowell Rd, Windham 03087, or you can attend via Zoom (details below).

---

https://granitegrok.com/mg_windham/2021/02/the-windham-incident-selectmans-meeting-monday-feb-22-at-7p

aggiehawg said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thomas' and Alito's dissent are in the last ten pages of this LINK

---

Typical Roberts move. Delay scheduling their hearing of the lawsuit until after the inauguration...then declare it moot since the results were certified and the electoral college has voted. Anything to avoid angering his democrat handlers.

---

In this setting "mootness" is just as small of a fig leaf as applying the equitable doctrine of laches. Legal coardice if not judicial malpractice. But, no, no, no! Roberts doesn't want the Court to even have the appearance of being "political" yet by this action they have become more politicized than ever. They have encouraged more extralegal and unconstitutional behavior in future elections, further eroding voters' trust in the integrity in our no longer free and fair elections.

Very sad day for our republic or what remains of it anyway.

---

Yeah, I think Cowardice is the right word here. Roberts proves once again that he is either not up to the task of leading the court, or is hopelessly compromised by somebody who is forcing him to avoid getting involved. This was an opportunity for the court to hear a case on the merits and make a decision that could provide immense clarity about what changes to procedures can be made, when, and by whom, in future elections going forward. And they punted...knowing that the lack of clarity and lack of trust in elections would go on and get worse in the absence of a ruling.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. And do nothing despite having a constitutional duty to act. Shirking those duties, even if the cases were not on the best procedural footing, due in large part to the Court's own actions in refusing to expedite them, is taking the exit ramp.

Given the other constraints, standing, no irreparable harm before the election, laches or mootness after the election, there will never be the perfect case procedurally, unless the Court acts.

dubi said:

---

Quote:

---

Very sad day for our republic or what remains of it anyway.

---

Justice Thomas' concluding paragraph:

Quote:

---

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

---

---

Thomas is right. The whole cohort - media ignoring questions and failing to seek answers about voting and election integrity, tech monopolies helping to silence questions, dissent, and opposing views, empowered democrats going along -engaging in belittling and trying to dehumanize anyone who voted for the other side - that angered some people enough to incite a damn "insurrection"... and now the courts choosing to do nothing to interpret and provide guidance for future elections - this is all fascism 101 here.

oh no said:

---

dubi said:

---

Quote:

---

Very sad day for our republic or what remains of it anyway.

---

Justice Thomas' concluding paragraph:

Quote:

---

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

---

---

Thomas is right. The whole cohort - media ignoring questions and failing to seek answers about voting and election integrity, tech monopolies helping to silence questions, dissent, and opposing views, empowered democrats going along -engaging in belittling and trying to dehumanize anyone who voted for the other side - that angered some people enough to incite a damn "insurrection"... and now the courts choosing to do nothing to interpret and provide guidance for future elections - this is all fascism 101 here.

---

It only serves to embolden evil in the most perverse way.

How far away are we from the Dems finding their modern day FDR or something and ramming through a repeal on term limits, and we end up like Russia where everyone knows who is going to win before election day?

redline248 said:

---

How far away are we from the Dems finding their modern day FDR or something and ramming through a repeal on term limits, and we end up like Russia where everyone knows who is going to win before election day?

---

We're pretty much there already now that the Democrats have figured out that they can cheat with impunity. The only thing is Biden's in too bad of shape to continue on for long. The same people will be pulling the strings no matter who the figurehead is though.

txags92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thomas' and Alito's dissent are in the last ten pages of this LINK

---

Typical Roberts move. Delay scheduling their hearing of the lawsuit until after the inauguration...then declare it moot since the results were certified and the electoral college has voted. Anything to avoid angering his democrat handlers.

---

In this setting "mootness" is just as small of a fig leaf as applying the equitable doctrine of laches. Legal coardice if not judicial malpractice. But, no, no, no! Roberts doesn't want the Court to even have the appearance of being "political" yet by this action they have become more politicized than ever. They have encouraged more extralegal and unconstitutional behavior in future elections, further eroding voters' trust in the integrity in our no longer free and fair elections.

Very sad day for our republic or what remains of it anyway.

---

Yeah, I think Cowardice is the right word here. Roberts proves once again that he is either not up to the task of leading the court, or is hopelessly compromised by somebody who is forcing him to avoid getting involved. This was an opportunity for the court to hear a case on the merits and make a decision that could provide immense clarity about what changes to procedures can be made, when, and by whom, in future elections going forward. And they punted...knowing that the lack of clarity and lack of trust in elections would go on and get worse in the absence of a ruling.

---

The wicked thrive in a lack of clarity. The devil is in the details and evil people willingly ignore him.

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire:

Quote:

---

Based on Senator Bob Giuda's Op-Eds "The Windham Incident Election Results vs Recount Totals" and "The Windham Incident Deception", alarms went off throughout the Town of Windham when the AG's office informed Windham of their plans to "take possession" of Windham's voting machines (see appended email). Those are the SAME MACHINES and includes the SAME PEOPLE that are embroiled in the middle of the "Windham Incident" the largest unexplained discrepancy in the history of New Hampshire between election day results and a hand recount. The fox wants to guard the hen house!

Quote:

---

"In anticipation of the passage of SB43 by the Legislature, the Attorney General's and Secretary of State's Offices would like to schedule a time to take possession of Windham's ballot counting devices (BCDs) and associated materials."

---

---

Is that a good thing? Not really.

Quote:

---

Windham's high level of mistrust and consternation is warranted. The AG's office and SOS have been performing a Jedi Mind Trick for months. Now they are being FORCED to perform an audit and they want control of the ballots and machines ahead of time. The optics of that is horrible. I've been told several Windham town officials are against relinquishing control as well and I hope they stand strong.

The audit should be performed in Windham and under Windham's control as suggested here. According to multiple attorney's opinions NH laws already allow a town's Selectmen to perform the test WITHOUT APPROVAL of the AG or SOS:

RSA 33-A Defines the ballots as municipal documents that are owned by the town, and;

RSA 656:40 Authorizes towns to purchase and own voting machines and;

RSA 656:42 VIII. (c) (11) Authorizes the moderator to perform pre-election certification testing of the voting machines, and;

Bal 602.01 (a) The city or town clerk is the custodian of the voting machines, and;

Bal 602.01 (c) Authorizes the selectmen to designate and define the duties of election officials to prepare and test the machines prior to an election

So what's the problem. Why is Windham being prevented by the AG and SOS from running their own test, on their own equipment, with their own ballots? What am I missing?

---

https://granitegrok.com/mg_windham/2021/02/breaking-nh-ag-sos-to-take-possession-of-the-windham-incident-voting-machines

Back to Georgia, my heavens that state is some special kind of mess right now. Regarding Fulton County Elections Supervisor, Rick Barron.

Quote:

---

"Barron has received wide praise from Republicans and Democrats, for putting in place the most extensive expansion of voting- and voter-access in Georgia history during the November Presidential and January U.S. Senate Runoff elections," Abdur-Rahman said in a statement to 11Alive.

Fulton County Code of Ordinances, Part 1, 14-42, provides the Board of Commissioners with the authority to appoint the Elections Supervisor as recommended by the Board of Registration and Elections. The Board of Registration and Elections' 3-2 vote to recommend the termination of the Director of Registration & Elections.

Following Executive Session during their meeting Wednesday, the Board of Commissioners voted on two motions relevant to this matter. One was to approve the recommendation of the Election Board to terminate the Director of Registration & Elections (made by Commissioner Bob Ellis). The second was to reject that recommendation (made by Commissioner Marvin Arrington).

Both of those motions failed by a vote of 3-3.

---

Why the need for two separate motions and votes? Seems one of the Commissioners decided to abstain.

Quote:

---

Vice chair Natalie Hall is the one commissioner who sat out, ultimately causing the vote to be deadlocked.

11Alive reached out to Natalie Hall but has not heard back. Commissioner Ellis mentioned that she said she didn't have enough information to make a decision just yet.

"Give me evidence that Richard Barron should be fired," Abdur-Rahman said. "Nobody could give me evidence. If it was a fraudulent election, then why was it certified?"

After months of observing Fulton County elections, nonpartisan monitor Carter Jones wrote up a report presented to the State Elections Board on Wednesday.

"Firing Rick Barron is not a shortcut to fixing the mismanagement inside Fulton's elections department," Jones said.

11Alive is working to get answers about if the move to dismiss him could be pushed through other ways. We also reached out to Barron for comment, but he declined an interview.

This matter is expected to come before the Board of Commissioners at their next meeting on March 3, but in the meantime, there is no change in the current status of Barron's job.

---

Link

But let's go back to this:

Quote:

---

"Barron has received wide praise from Republicans and Democrats, for putting in place the most extensive expansion of voting- and voter-access in Georgia history during the November Presidential and January U.S. Senate Runoff elections," Abdur-Rahman said in a statement to 11Alive.

---

So, how much money did Zuckerberg "grant" to Fulton County to aid in that effort?

Quote:

---

The Amistad Project of the non-partisan Thomas More Society, an election integrity watchdog group, has filed litigation challenging Fulton County's use of private monies to conduct election operations in both the 2020 general election and the January 5 Senate runoff elections.

The lawsuit takes advantage of a new constitutional amendment that waives sovereign immunity for local government entities in Georgia, which came into effect January 1.

The Amistad Project alleges that Fulton County illegally accepted over $10 million from a leftist organization called the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which is funded by $350 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The lawsuit also contends that the terms of the grants that Fulton County accepted further violated the law by giving votes cast in Fulton County an unfair advantage over votes cast in other parts of the state.

"The sanctity of our electoral process is being violated by the unprecedented infusion of private money," said Phill Kline, director of the Amistad Project. "Instead of being distributed equally, as the law requires, election funding is now being doled out by private interests seeking to influence the process for partisan advantage."

The money Fulton County has accepted from CTCL is nearly equal to the amount the county received from public sources for the 2020 general election, and the Zuckerberg/CTCL money comes with significant strings attached. As has been detailed in other lawsuits filed all over the country, CTCL grants dictate details such as the number of polling places and absentee ballot drop boxes in recipient jurisdictions, and come with "clawback" provisions entitling CTCL to recoup the money if it is not spent in strict accordance with the group's mandates.

---

Link

Went down a rabbit hole about Delaware County, Pennsylvania this morning. Several Republican poll watchers there were quick to act the day after the election obtaining a court order (for all of the good it did) to allow them access to where the ballots were being counted. They kept going back to court to try to get the judge to act further since his order was being ignored. Again to no avail.

Anyway I was reading the pleadings and came across a few allegations that raised my eyebrows. From a pleading filed in the Court of Common Pleas on December 22, 2020: Full pleading HERE

Background

Quote:

---

1 On November 4, 2020, Delaware County Republican Executive Committee ("DCREC") filed an Emergency Petition seeking an Order granting access to canvassing of official absentee and mail in ballots, to grant access to and permit DCREC's watchers and attorneys to be present in all areas of the offices of the Board ofElections ( BOB ) where pre canvassing sorting, opening counting and recording of absentee and mail in ballots is occurring and taking place for the returns of the November 3, 2020 General Election

2 The Honorable Judge .101m Capuzzi granted this Petition

---

Other Republican election watchers and a candidate for state office sought to intervene claiming although not the original plaintiffs they were similarly situated and intended beneficiaries of the Judge's standing order. Keep in mind that the election cases from PA were still pending before SCOTUS at that time.

Quote:

---

21 Rather than heeding these mandates and duties, the BOB arbitrarily and capriciously denied the duly appointed observers meaningful access to observe and monitor the electoral process by not allowing them to visibly see and review all envelopes containing official absentee and mail in ballots either at the time or before they were opened and/or when such ballots were counted and recorded 22 The observers were repeatedly denied access to back rooms where the absentee and mail in ballots were canvassed and resolved The BOB kept the observers in a small cordoned off area too far awayto see, too far away from the areas where the inspection, opening, and counting of absentee and mail in ballots were taking place.

29 Judge Capuzzi s Order states that observers are permitted to be present wherever ballots are resolved at all hours when the ballots are resolved Yet the BOB, in violation of the first paragraph of Judge Capuzzi s Order only allowed observers to enter the back room where mail in and absentee ballots were being resolved for 5 minutes every two hours, and too far from the ballot resolution process to have a meaningful opportunity to investigate/view the resolution process 30 The canvassing and resolution process of the absentee and mail in ballots went on all through the night and the observers were granted very minimal access even after Judge Cappuzi's Order was issued

---

Quote:

---

34 Stenstrom reports that he saw Jim Savage the Delaware County voting machine warehouse supervisor plugging USB drives into vote tallying computers The bag containing those drives was not sealed or secured, and the voting machine cartridges were not present with the drives Mr Savage had no paper tapes or ballots at that time 35 Stenstrom reports I immediately objected and challenged the uploading of votes from the unsecured drives, reporting what he saw to Deputy Sheriff Mike Donahue Donahue retrieved Ms Hagan, who told Stenstrom that he could only observe the process but could not make any comments or ask any questions While Mr Savage was directly in front of them loading USB sticks, and the display monitors above the computers reflected that they were being updated

36 Stenstrom responded that he was observing a person plug USB sticks into the computer without any apparent chain of custody andwithout any oversight. No one stopped the upload and Mr Savage was permitted to continue this process and he was then allowed to walk out without any interference or examination by anyone 37 Stenstrom returned at 8 30 a m on November 5 2020 with Ms Hoopes The sheriff again barred entry in defiance of the court order.

---

And about that order from Judge Alito:

Quote:

---

44 A shocking number of mail in ballots have inexplicably appeared in counties sinoe the November 4 ballot reports For instance in Delaware County the county' 5 Wednesday November 4 report indicated that Delaware County reported it has received about 113 000 mail in ballots and counted approximately 93 000 voted baliots

45 On the next day November 5 the Secretary of the Commonwealth s 4 30 report reflected that Delaware County had received about 114 000 ballots Several hours later, the Delaware County solicitor reported to an observer that the County had received about 126 000 mail in ballots and counted about 122 000

46 As of Sunday November 8 2020 the Department of State 5 website reflects that the County has counted about 127 000 maii in ballots Petitioner has received no explanation for where the additional 14 000 voted ballots came from when they arrived or why they are included in the current count

47 In Detaware County, an observer 1n the county office where mail in ballots were counted was told by the Delaware County Solicitor that ballots received on November 4 2020 were not separated from ballots received on Election Day and the County refused to answer any additional questions

---

So the ballots were comingled with those that arrived after election day and no chain of custody for them either. Just wonderful! /sarc

To add insult to injury, the County is now suing the plainiffs for attorney's fees related to defending their claims.

Quote:

---

Pennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election Results Leah Hoopes and Gregory Stenstrom are being sued for costs claimed to be $19,224.56 relating to their actions against the Delaware County (Pa.) Board of Elections for perceived irregularities stemming from the Nov. 3 election.

Leah and Strenstrom who were Delaware County Board of Elections certified poll watchers and observers at the counting center testified at the Nov. 25 hearing in Gettysburg before state senators that the chain of custody for ballots was shattered in Delaware County, and the USB drives containing records from voting machines disappeared.

Leah says when the Board of Elections ignored their concerns, they took the matter, on Dec. 22, to Delaware County Common Pleas Court.

Judge John Capuzzi did not allow them to present evidence or allow discovery to see ballots and envelopes, she says.

On Jan. 11, he dismissed the case with prejudice.

And now, the Democrat-controlled county, in which can only be considered an act of intimidation, is seeking attorney fees, despite the attorneys defending the board being county employees.

---

LINK

From wiki:

Quote:

---

One key to Biden's success in the state was his improvement on Hillary Clinton's margins in the large Philadelphia-area suburban counties: he won Bucks by 3.60% more than Clinton did, Delaware by 4.38% more, Montgomery by 4.80% more, and Chesterwhich Mitt Romney had narrowly won just eight years priorby 6.60% more.

---

Biden "won" Pennsylvania by roughly 80,000 votes.

Makes me wanna vomit.

ChemEAg08 said:

---

I'm disgusted. One side will do anything it takes to "win" an election and a majority on the other side only care about getting re-elected and not rocking the apple cart. It is disgusting that our own investigative government will look into one president's "collusion" claims but not another and voter fraud.

I have no idea what we honest people can do now other than Texit.

---

In light of the information I posted, it makes the action by SCOTUS in those PA cases even more outrageous. And also shows that the former Sec of State Brockvar lied to the Court. Those ballots were not sequestered, not in Delaware County, a suburb of Philly. And as the wiki entry shows, Biden's margin of victory there was critical to his "win."

https://lidblog.com/georgia-absentee-ballots/

Georgia Senate passes bill requiring ID for absentee ballots. Stacy Abrams hardest hit... Remember that fraud suppression and voter suppression are the same to democrats...

txags92 said:

---

https://lidblog.com/georgia-absentee-ballots/

Georgia Senate passes bill requiring ID for absentee ballots. Stacy Abrams hardest hit... Remember that fraud suppression and voter suppression are the same to democrats...

---

The moment the ink is dry after the Governor signs it, the lawsuits will be filed to tie it up in court. Imagine some forum shopping will occur as well. We are in lawfare election mode from here on out. I'd wager Zuckerberg has already written a sizeable check to fund all of them.

Back to Georgia:

Quote:

---

(ATLANTA)-A new report revealed that former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has been funding and supporting election disinformation through her voting organization, Fair Fight Action. According to the report, Abrams' Fair Fight Action was one of the largest supporters of the Coalition for Good Governance, "a group that aggressively pushes conspiracy theories about voter fraud in Georgia."

"Many people think that President Trump's onslaught on Georgia's election integrity was new, but outside groups, apparently heavily supported by Stacey Abrams, have been pushing these conspiracy theories for years," said Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. "In light of the devastation election disinformation caused on January 6 in Washington, D.C., Abrams needs to finally accept her 2018 election loss and stop funding attacks on Georgia's election integrity."

On February 24, The Daily Wire's Mairead McArdle published a report highlighting the support Stacey Abrams' Fair Fight Action has given to the Coalition for Good Governance (CGG). The report includes a comment from the CGG executive director saying that Fair Fight Action was "the largest single contributor to date" as of January 2019. CGG has also described Fair Fight Action as a "generous donor." The two groups have hosted joint fundraisers as well.

The report notes that "over the last several years, the group has frequently suggested that Georgia's election system is unsecure and even corrupt." CGG has called Georgia's Dominion Voting System "unauditable and unconstitutional." A "litigation summary" on CGG's website "reiterates its claims of systems-based 'anomalies' and 'misprogramming'" and alleges that the Secretary of State's office "has obstructed all efforts to conduct forensic examination of these voting system anomalies." (The voting machines used in Georgia are subject to federal and state certification standards and are tested by independent testing labs to ensure compliance with those standards, acceptance tested prior to delivery, and tested for accuracy prior to each use. An independent testing lab conducted an audit of the voting equipment after the November election).

Referring to Georgia's old election system, the Coalition for Good Governance executive director alleged in 2018 that Democrats "brought in this dangerous system the R's took control and weaponized it. That is the danger of a party trying to take partisan advantage of the system thinking that they can keep the advantage It becomes a game of who can rig the system he best." At one point, according to the report, the executive director seemed to endorse the idea that "politicians may have been bribed to flip votes," arguing that it "is a bi-partisan problem."

The report also notes that in July 2019 both CGG and Fair Fight Action jointly exhorted supporters to "swarm a federal courthouse, to show support for CGG's paper ballots lawsuit" and fundraised off the effort as well.

---

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/breaking_stacey_abrams_funded_group_that_pushed_voting_machine_disinformation_in_georgia

aggiehawg, thank you for all the links and information.

Hopefully the Republican controlled state legislatures can begin the process of making our elections less vulnerable to the out and out fraud perpetrated last November.

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg, thank you for all the links and information.

Hopefully the Republican controlled state legislatures can begin the process of making our elections less vulnerable to the out and out fraud perpetrated last November.

---

Your are welcome but those state legislatures are going to have an uphill battle if Merrick Garland has anything to say about it. DOJ is ramping up voting rights division and they are going on the warpath.

Quote:

---

The Biden administration is eyeing ways to bolster the Justice Department's voting section after a sleepy four years under the Trump administration particularly as state legislatures draw new congressional districts and Republicans seek to pass voting restrictions.

President Biden campaigned on defending and expanding voting rights, but he has inherited a Department of Justice (DOJ) that was largely silent on the issue during the Trump era.

---

Quote:

---

"This is really time sensitive. It needs to not just be a focus shift -- it just needs to be really staffed up and resourced up," said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

"We have been living through a period of repeated assaults on voting rights across the country," she said, calling the DOJ section a principal defender of voting rights.
"It's absence from the field has been really devastating."

---

Quote:

---

At the same time, state legislatures are poised to pass a flurry of bills that could weaken voting rights while lawmakers draw new political boundaries that are likely to test restrictions on gerrymandering.

It's also the first redistricting cycle after the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision that stripped DOJ of its right to review the maps of states with a history of discrimination.

Many of those factors were highlighted on Capitol Hill recently, with multiple senators grilling attorney general nominee Merrick Garland over his plans to secure voting rights during his confirmation hearing this past week.

"I regard my responsibilities with respect to the Civil Rights Division as at the top of my agenda priorities lists. So, you have my commitment to do everything I can in this area," Garland said.

---

Congress may get in on it too just to get around that 2013 SCOTUS decision.

Quote:

---

"Unless Congress passes a law, there is going to be a lot of stuff that is suboptimal or wrong that isn't illegal under law and DOJ won't be able to do anything about that."

What advocates really want is for Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which among other things would restore DOJ's ability to review redistricting maps, creating a new formula for determining which states would be subject to the additional oversight.

"We have to bring the stragglers up to best practices to strengthen voting rights across the country," Weiser said.

---

Link

Read the rest. This is going to be lawfare for the next few years.

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg, thank you for all the links and information.

Hopefully the Republican controlled state legislatures can begin the process of making our elections less vulnerable to the out and out fraud perpetrated last November.

---

Your are welcome but those state legislatures are going to have an uphill battle if Merrick Garland has anything to say about it. DOJ is ramping up voting rights division and they are going on the warpath.

Quote:

---

The Biden administration is eyeing ways to bolster the Justice Department's voting section after a sleepy four years under the Trump administration particularly as state legislatures draw new congressional districts and Republicans seek to pass voting restrictions.

President Biden campaigned on defending and expanding voting rights, but he has inherited a Department of Justice (DOJ) that was largely silent on the issue during the Trump era.

---

Quote:

---

"This is really time sensitive. It needs to not just be a focus shift -- it just needs to be really staffed up and resourced up," said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

"We have been living through a period of repeated assaults on voting rights across the country," she said, calling the DOJ section a principal defender of voting rights.
"It's absence from the field has been really devastating."

---

Quote:

---

At the same time, state legislatures are poised to pass a flurry of bills that could weaken voting rights while lawmakers draw new political boundaries that are likely to test restrictions on gerrymandering.

It's also the first redistricting cycle after the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision that stripped DOJ of its right to review the maps of states with a history of discrimination.

Many of those factors were highlighted on Capitol Hill recently, with multiple senators grilling attorney general nominee Merrick Garland over his plans to secure voting rights during his confirmation hearing this past week.

"I regard my responsibilities with respect to the Civil Rights Division as at the top of my agenda priorities lists. So, you have my commitment to do everything I can in this area," Garland said.

---

Congress may get in on it too just to get around that 2013 SCOTUS decision.

Quote:

---

"Unless Congress passes a law, there is going to be a lot of stuff that is suboptimal or wrong that isn't illegal under law and DOJ won't be able to do anything about that."

What advocates really want is for Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which among other things would restore DOJ's ability to review redistricting maps, creating a new formula for determining which states would be subject to the additional oversight.

"We have to bring the stragglers up to best practices to strengthen voting rights across the country," Weiser said.

---

Link

Read the rest. This is going to be lawfare for the next few years.

---

It may come down to the Supreme Court, but my faith in them has waned.

Quote:

---

"Unless Congress passes a law, there is going to be a lot of stuff that is suboptimal or wrong that isn't illegal under law and DOJ won't be able to do anything about that."

---

The Democratic Party leadership is doing everything possible to distort the Constitution.

I'm sure this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Article doesn't say but assuming the charges are in connection with the 2020 election?

Reason I ask is because there was a ballyhooed story about the Sec of State in Georgia being aggressive in investigating and referring for charges for violation of election law...for 2016 and 2018, none were connected to the 2020 election.

will25u said:

---

---

Hondo, huh. They may need to update their sign to "This is God's country. Please don't vote-steal it to Hell"

Essentially Texas is prepped to be taken over by the godless with the Hart Intercivic voting systems. Makes that Billion dollar bond vote for Austin choo choo train suspect...Must be greasing the palms phase before Democrats use to take over Texas.

"Analysis evidence suggests the use of the Dominion X/ICX BMD (Ballot Marking Device) machine, manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems, and machines from HART InterCivic appear to have abnormally influenced election results,"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/joe-biden-appears-to-outperform-in-counties-using-dominion-or-hart-voting-machines-data-analyst_3625672.html/amp

Maricopa County Board of Elections throws in the towel.

aggiehawg said:

---

Maricopa County Board of Elections throws in the towel.

---

I reckon by now they have had time to go in and make sure all the machine printed ballots have creases to make them appear to have been mailed in and to generate enough new ones to match the votes the machines added...

SCOTUS heard some AZ election rules cases yesterday. If I recall correctly, Dems were making a big push to get votes from the Native American communities using ballot harvesting.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/majority-appears-poised-to-uphold-arizona-voting-rules/

Quote:

---

With the ink barely dry on the 2020 election, the Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral argument in two voting-rights cases from Arizona that could affect elections in that state and others in the future. The cases Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee are a challenge to two different Arizona voting provisions. One is a policy that requires an entire ballot to be thrown away if it was cast at the wrong precinct, while the other is a state law that bars the collection of ballots by third parties, sometimes dubbed "ballot harvesting." After nearly two hours of debate, a majority of justices seemed likely to uphold both provisions. The real question left open after Tuesday's oral argument was whether a majority would coalesce around a standard for determining whether voting laws and practices violate Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting and, if so, what standard that would be.
The provision requiring an entire ballot to be discarded if it was cast at the wrong precinct is known as the "out of precinct" policy. Almost all of Arizona's counties approximately 90% assign voters to a specific precinct based on their home address. When a voter shows up at the polls and does not appear on the voting rolls there, she can cast a provisional ballot. But if election officials later determine that she voted in the wrong precinct, her whole ballot is thrown out, without any of the votes being counted even if she was eligible to cast a vote for statewide or national offices like U.S. president, senator or governor.
Arizona's legislature enacted the ban on ballot harvesting in 2016. The law makes it a felony to collect and deliver another person's completed ballot (with exceptions for family members, caregivers, mail carriers and election officials).

---

Even the Biden DOJ is on the side of Arizona in that case.

That says just how bad the lawsuit against Arizona truly is.