Highway6 said:

---

Is there a chance the ruling in the OP could be overturned by liberal judge?

---

No because it is the correct interpretation of Article II Section One, Clause 2.

K_1987 said:

---

Not good vs evil. More like a group that is saying they are preventing communism dictatorship(Trump Republican), but are allowing Trump to do dictator things and supporting networks like OAN and newsmax(pretty close to state ran news) versus a group(moderate dems and moderate Republicans) that want to keep democracy going.

---

Weird. 180 degrees out of phase.

aggiehawg said:

---

Dem officials in PA have something else to worry about now. Take a listen.

---

I don't know how many ballots this may affect, but it clearly proves many Democrats do not follow the law, do not care about the law and will do anything to subvert election law.

eric76 said:

---

It does look like they aren't permitted to allow voters to cure the ballots at all.

From https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawsuits-filed-over-curing-ballots-in-pennsylvania-during-2020-election/ar-BB1aHkVv

Quote:

---

The lawsuits says, "the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that, 'mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely manner'" and doing so "creates a high risk of jeopardizing the integrity of the November 3, 2020 general election."

---

It appears that only some counties did that and it doesn't affect all that many ballots. For Montgomery County, it affected 49 ballots:

Quote:

---

Montgomery County Full Statement:

Kathy Barnette, a candidate for Congress, has filed a motion with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging certain procedures used by the Montgomery County Board of Election during the intake of mail-in ballots, and to notify electors of any potential issues that were identified in the intake process. We believe our process is sound and permissible under the Election Code.

All voters with defective ballots will not be contacted because we do not have contact information for all voters. For those that we do, we reached out to make them aware of the issues. Of those who we reached out to, 49 cured their ballots. Those are the ballots being segregated while we wait for the outcome of the complaint.

---

---

How do you not have contact information for all voters? Wouldn't you know their address given the fact you sent them a ballot in the mail?

Quote:

---

I don't know how many ballots this may affect, but it clearly proves many Democrats do not follow the law, do not care about the law and will do anything to subvert election law.

---

They had illegal access to all of the ballots, else they wouldn't have known which ones needed to be "cured."

State election officials failed and refused to properly secure the ballots before the election, that much is clear. How can they then come back and certify that the election laws were followed and the results legitimate?

They can't.

At this point the actual number of ballots doesn't matter that much anymore. That's the argument.

K_1987 said:

---

Not good vs evil. More like a group that is saying they are preventing communism dictatorship(Trump Republican), but are allowing Trump to do dictator things and supporting networks like OAN and newsmax(pretty close to state ran news) versus a group(moderate dems and moderate Republicans) that want to keep democracy going.

---

Please specify what dictatorial actions you speak of.

I would think you would want to know the extent of the criminal activity in this election fraud.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know how many ballots this may affect, but it clearly proves many Democrats do not follow the law, do not care about the law and will do anything to subvert election law.

---

They had illegal access to all of the ballots, else they wouldn't have known which ones needed to be "cured."

State election officials failed and refused to properly secure the ballots before the election, that much is clear. How can they then come back and certify that the election laws were followed and the results legitimate?

They can't.

At this point the actual number of ballots doesn't matter that much anymore. That's the argument.

---

Plus, it brings into focus that any other issue should be thoroughly vetted. 500 ballots, 1000 ballots, 10,000 ballots.

K_1987 said:

---

Not good vs evil. More like a group that is saying they are preventing communism dictatorship(Trump Republican), but are allowing Trump to do dictator things and supporting networks like OAN and newsmax(pretty close to state ran news) versus a group(moderate dems and moderate Republicans) that want to keep democracy going.

---

What "dictator things" has Trump been allowed to do?

DC79er said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

It's against PA law for absentee ballots (remember they don't have a true early voting period but they have same day application for absentee ballots and voting) for any state election official to open or view the ballots before 7 AM of the election day. They are supposed to be secured and sequestered until that time.

A Dem advocacy group just submitted evidence into court containing sword affidavits from voters swearing that they were directly contacted by the PA state Dem Party to come in and "cure" their ballots in days before the election.

That means the Dem state officials and the Dem state party conspired to violate the law, take ballots out of secure sequestered location and opened them before the election so the ballots wouldn't be tossed for being invalid.

Nailed both the officials and the state Dem party in fell swoop. THEY KNOWINGLY BROKE THE LAW AND TAMPERED WITH BALLOTS!

---

Hang'em

---

If we have an honest legal system then they should find these people that violated election law let the first one who provides who ordered this criminal activity gets a lesser sentence. All others arrested and charged to to Max.
Here's hoping we have an honest legal system, either city, county, state or federal.

Quote:

---

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Trey Trainor has dropped the hammer by declaring that the results are "illegitimate."

Trainor has gone on record with a bombshell announcement, following investigations into the election ballot count in Pennsylvania.

The FEC chair says, based on the info gathered from PA and elsewhere in the country, this presidential election is illegitimate.

Trainor, the highest-ranking election official in the United States, confirmed that, in his professional opinion, "there has not been transparency in the election."

The evidence produced so far has led him to determine that "this election is illegitimate," Trainor added.
He dropped the bombshell on the liberal news media at Newsmax when he made the announcement, saying he believes "that there is voter fraud taking place in these places."

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know how many ballots this may affect, but it clearly proves many Democrats do not follow the law, do not care about the law and will do anything to subvert election law.

---

They had illegal access to all of the ballots, else they wouldn't have known which ones needed to be "cured."

State election officials failed and refused to properly secure the ballots before the election, that much is clear. How can they then come back and certify that the election laws were followed and the results legitimate?

They can't.

At this point the actual number of ballots doesn't matter that much anymore. That's the argument.

---

Thank you for the additional information.

rab79 said:

---

Quote:

---

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Trey Trainor has dropped the hammer by declaring that the results are "illegitimate."

Trainor has gone on record with a bombshell announcement, following investigations into the election ballot count in Pennsylvania.

The FEC chair says, based on the info gathered from PA and elsewhere in the country, this presidential election is illegitimate.

Trainor, the highest-ranking election official in the United States, confirmed that, in his professional opinion, "there has not been transparency in the election."

The evidence produced so far has led him to determine that "this election is illegitimate," Trainor added.
He dropped the bombshell on the liberal news media at Newsmax when he made the announcement, saying he believes "that there is voter fraud taking place in these places."

---

---

What next?

HumpitPuryear said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

It's against PA law for absentee ballots (remember they don't have a true early voting period but they have same day application for absentee ballots and voting) for any state election official to open or view the ballots before 7 AM of the election day. They are supposed to be secured and sequestered until that time.

A Dem advocacy group just submitted evidence into court containing sword affidavits from voters swearing that they were directly contacted by the PA state Dem Party to come in and "cure" their ballots in days before the election.

That means the Dem state officials and the Dem state party conspired to violate the law, take ballots out of secure sequestered location and opened them before the election so the ballots wouldn't be tossed for being invalid.

Nailed both the officials and the state Dem party in fell swoop. THEY KNOWINGLY BROKE THE LAW AND TAMPERED WITH BALLOTS!

---

So no one contacted any R voters that they also needed to come in an cure their ballots? I'd be very unhappy if I missed an opportunity to make sure my ballot was counted. So PA will just be a draw and no one gets the EC votes? That blows.

---

I think we can assume it's worse than that. What do you think Dem state officials did with opened ballots for Trump? There's a File 13 somewhere stuffed with Trump early vote ballots.

---

My imagination is pretty wicked, so I could assume alot. And they found the discarded ballots? That IS worse for the Dems.

Cactus Jack said:

---

eric76 said:

---

It does look like they aren't permitted to allow voters to cure the ballots at all.

From https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawsuits-filed-over-curing-ballots-in-pennsylvania-during-2020-election/ar-BB1aHkVv

Quote:

---

The lawsuits says, "the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that, 'mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely manner'" and doing so "creates a high risk of jeopardizing the integrity of the November 3, 2020 general election."

---

It appears that only some counties did that and it doesn't affect all that many ballots. For Montgomery County, it affected 49 ballots:

Quote:

---

Montgomery County Full Statement:

Kathy Barnette, a candidate for Congress, has filed a motion with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging certain procedures used by the Montgomery County Board of Election during the intake of mail-in ballots, and to notify electors of any potential issues that were identified in the intake process. We believe our process is sound and permissible under the Election Code.

All voters with defective ballots will not be contacted because we do not have contact information for all voters. For those that we do, we reached out to make them aware of the issues. Of those who we reached out to, 49 cured their ballots. Those are the ballots being segregated while we wait for the outcome of the complaint.

---

---

How do you not have contact information for all voters? Wouldn't you know their address given the fact you sent them a ballot in the mail?

---

They might have needed something like telephone numbers to reach them quickly. Depending on the time when the issue was discovered, there might easily not have been enough time to mail them a letter.

1. To "cure" ballots, the ballots had to be examined.

2. To examine the ballots, the envelopes had to be opened.

3. This occurred prior to election day, so observers were not present.

4. How many ballots were opened, inspected, and then "lost in the mail" or altered?

Ulrich said:

---

1. To "cure" ballots, the ballots had to be examined.

2. To examine the ballots, the envelopes had to be opened.

3. This occurred prior to election day, so observers were not present.

4. How many ballots were opened, inspected, and then "lost in the mail" or altered?

---

That doesn't appear to be the case unless the term "ballot" includes the envelope it is in.

"Curing the ballot" seems to refer to things like making sure that the form accompanying the security envelope is properly signed.

They could probably check the envelopes and the forms without opening the privacy sleeve containing the ballot.

That said, what was important is that they shouldn't have been doing that even if they never laid eyes on the ballot itself.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know how many ballots this may affect, but it clearly proves many Democrats do not follow the law, do not care about the law and will do anything to subvert election law.

---

They had illegal access to all of the ballots, else they wouldn't have known which ones needed to be "cured."

State election officials failed and refused to properly secure the ballots before the election, that much is clear. How can they then come back and certify that the election laws were followed and the results legitimate?

They can't.

At this point the actual number of ballots doesn't matter that much anymore. That's the argument.

---

I think this is the first time I think there is a REAL chance of SCOTUS ruling PA cannot certify due to a failure to follow their own election laws, and the order issued by Alito pre-election...

PA is a complete Charlie Foxtrot at this point...

Ulrich said:

---

1. To "cure" ballots, the ballots had to be examined.

2. To examine the ballots, the envelopes had to be opened.

3. This occurred prior to election day, so observers were not present.

4. How many ballots were opened, inspected, and then "lost in the mail" or altered?

---

oopsies!

eric76 said:

---

Cactus Jack said:

---

eric76 said:

---

It does look like they aren't permitted to allow voters to cure the ballots at all.

From https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawsuits-filed-over-curing-ballots-in-pennsylvania-during-2020-election/ar-BB1aHkVv

Quote:

---

The lawsuits says, "the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that, 'mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely manner'" and doing so "creates a high risk of jeopardizing the integrity of the November 3, 2020 general election."

---

It appears that only some counties did that and it doesn't affect all that many ballots. For Montgomery County, it affected 49 ballots:

Quote:

---

Montgomery County Full Statement:

Kathy Barnette, a candidate for Congress, has filed a motion with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging certain procedures used by the Montgomery County Board of Election during the intake of mail-in ballots, and to notify electors of any potential issues that were identified in the intake process. We believe our process is sound and permissible under the Election Code.

All voters with defective ballots will not be contacted because we do not have contact information for all voters. For those that we do, we reached out to make them aware of the issues. Of those who we reached out to, 49 cured their ballots. Those are the ballots being segregated while we wait for the outcome of the complaint.

---

---

How do you not have contact information for all voters? Wouldn't you know their address given the fact you sent them a ballot in the mail?

---

They might have needed something like telephone numbers to reach them quickly. Depending on the time when the issue was discovered, there might easily not have been enough time to mail them a letter.

---

I don't know about all of them, but the lady in the video covered the pleadings for a couple of them and one lady was called by phone multiple times by election officials several days prior to the election, and the man was notified by email, again prior to the election - which leaves and electronic record no less.

Not sure, but I'm guessing they likely opened the envelopes. It's clear, these folks outed themselves.

FireAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know how many ballots this may affect, but it clearly proves many Democrats do not follow the law, do not care about the law and will do anything to subvert election law.

---

They had illegal access to all of the ballots, else they wouldn't have known which ones needed to be "cured."

State election officials failed and refused to properly secure the ballots before the election, that much is clear. How can they then come back and certify that the election laws were followed and the results legitimate?

They can't.

At this point the actual number of ballots doesn't matter that much anymore. That's the argument.

---

I think this is the first time I think there is a REAL chance of SCOTUS ruling PA cannot certify due to a failure to follow their own election laws, and the order issued by Alito pre-election...

PA is a complete Charlie Foxtrot at this point...

---

You hate to see it...

eric76 said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

1. To "cure" ballots, the ballots had to be examined.

2. To examine the ballots, the envelopes had to be opened.

3. This occurred prior to election day, so observers were not present.

4. How many ballots were opened, inspected, and then "lost in the mail" or altered?

---

That doesn't appear to be the case unless the term "ballot" includes the envelope it is in.

"Curing the ballot" seems to refer to things like making sure that the form accompanying the security envelope is properly signed.

They could probably check the envelopes and the forms without opening the privacy sleeve containing the ballot.

That said, what was important is that they shouldn't have been doing that even if they never laid eyes on the ballot itself.

---

Does the PA privacy sleeve have a tamper-proof seal?

As you say, the most obvious thing here is that they did violate PA election law and then acted based on information they gathered by opening envelopes without observers present.

Note that the voters in Pennsylvania had something like six or seven days after the election to cure their mail-in ballots.

If they had waited until election day to check the information, the voters could have gone in and cured their ballots and had them counted. I would assume that any voter they notified early could have their ballots counted if they had waited until at least election day to go in to cure the ballots.

eric76 said:

---

Note that the voters in Pennsylvania had something like six or seven days after the election to cure their mail-in ballots.

If they had waited until election day to check the information, the voters could have gone in and cured their ballots and had them counted. I would assume that any voter they notified early could have their ballots counted if they had waited until at least election day to go in to cure the ballots.

---

Eric, what the hell are you arguing about? This is black and white. Election officials weren't allowed to look at the ballots or envelopes before Election Day and they weren't allowed to contact the voter ever to come and fix their mistakes. That was against the law. I don't even know what you are arguing about.

eric76 said:

---

Note that the voters in Pennsylvania had something like six or seven days after the election to cure their mail-in ballots.

If they had waited until election day to check the information, the voters could have gone in and cured their ballots and had them counted. I would assume that any voter they notified early could have their ballots counted if they had waited until at least election day to go in to cure the ballots.

---

this was a decision a judge made.

election laws are made by state legislatures and is not in PA election law.

The decision to allow curing of ballots days after the election was never going to hold up through all the challenges in court which is why they said "**** it, let's count them anyway."

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Note that the voters in Pennsylvania had something like six or seven days after the election to cure their mail-in ballots.

If they had waited until election day to check the information, the voters could have gone in and cured their ballots and had them counted. I would assume that any voter they notified early could have their ballots counted if they had waited until at least election day to go in to cure the ballots.

---

Eric, what the hell are you arguing about? This is black and white. Election officials weren't allowed to look at the ballots or envelopes before Election Day and they weren't allowed to contact the voter ever to come and fix their mistakes. That was against the law. I don't even know what you are arguing about.

---

I actually thought he was admitting that he did indeed see the problem with what they did...

Ulrich said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

1. To "cure" ballots, the ballots had to be examined.

2. To examine the ballots, the envelopes had to be opened.

3. This occurred prior to election day, so observers were not present.

4. How many ballots were opened, inspected, and then "lost in the mail" or altered?

---

That doesn't appear to be the case unless the term "ballot" includes the envelope it is in.

"Curing the ballot" seems to refer to things like making sure that the form accompanying the security envelope is properly signed.

They could probably check the envelopes and the forms without opening the privacy sleeve containing the ballot.

That said, what was important is that they shouldn't have been doing that even if they never laid eyes on the ballot itself.

---

Does the PA privacy sleeve have a tamper-proof seal?

As you say, the most obvious thing here is that they did violate PA election law and then acted based on information they gathered by opening envelopes without observers present.

---

The purpose of the privacy is mainly to keep someone from reading the ballot through the envelope. It does look like they actually used an envelope in Pennsylvania.

eric76 said:

---

Note that the voters in Pennsylvania had something like six or seven days after the election to cure their mail-in ballots.

If they had waited until election day to check the information, the voters could have gone in and cured their ballots and had them counted. I would assume that any voter they notified early could have their ballots counted if they had waited until at least election day to go in to cure the ballots.

---

Lmfao at that post.

FireAg said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Note that the voters in Pennsylvania had something like six or seven days after the election to cure their mail-in ballots.

If they had waited until election day to check the information, the voters could have gone in and cured their ballots and had them counted. I would assume that any voter they notified early could have their ballots counted if they had waited until at least election day to go in to cure the ballots.

---

Eric, what the hell are you arguing about? This is black and white. Election officials weren't allowed to look at the ballots or envelopes before Election Day and they weren't allowed to contact the voter ever to come and fix their mistakes. That was against the law. I don't even know what you are arguing about.

---

I actually thought he was admitting that he did indeed see the problem with what they did...

---

If so, I'm sorry. Accept my apology.

Quote:

---

That said, what was important is that they shouldn't have been doing that even if they never laid eyes on the ballot itself.

---

Glad to see you admit that laws were broken deliberately by both the Dem state election officials and the Dem state party in concert with each other.

I will also add that there was an effort to have the GOP controlled PA legislature to change the law and allow for early processing of the expected deluge in absentee ballots without observers. They wisely refused. Else the cheating early on without any observers present would have been even worse.

This was all part of a plan. Some states they had more success than others but the intent was clear. They intended to steal the election.

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Note that the voters in Pennsylvania had something like six or seven days after the election to cure their mail-in ballots.

If they had waited until election day to check the information, the voters could have gone in and cured their ballots and had them counted. I would assume that any voter they notified early could have their ballots counted if they had waited until at least election day to go in to cure the ballots.

---

Eric, what the hell are you arguing about? This is black and white. Election officials weren't allowed to look at the ballots or envelopes before Election Day and they weren't allowed to contact the voter ever to come and fix their mistakes. That was against the law. I don't even know what you are arguing about.

---

I fully agree that they should not have check the ballots to see if they needed to be cured until election day because that is the law in that state. As you say, that is black and white.

Voters are explicitly allowed by Pennsylvania law to come in and cure the ballot within six days of the election. There was another issue about the Secretary of the Commonwealth giving an extra three days in addition to the six days that they have by law to cure the ballots.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

K_1987 said:

---

Not good vs evil. More like a group that is saying they are preventing communism dictatorship(Trump Republican), but are allowing Trump to do dictator things and supporting networks like OAN and newsmax(pretty close to state ran news) versus a group(moderate dems and moderate Republicans) that want to keep democracy going.

---

Wow. Awful take. Just awful.

---

Awful grammar, too

But, it's even against the law for the officials to tell the voters they need to fix their ballots too. Regardless of when they did it.

eric76 said:

---

Note that the voters in Pennsylvania had something like six or seven days after the election to cure their mail-in ballots.

If they had waited until election day to check the information, the voters could have gone in and cured their ballots and had them counted. I would assume that any voter they notified early could have their ballots counted if they had waited until at least election day to go in to cure the ballots.

---

The PA Supreme court decision states that election boards are not permitted to afford these voters a "notice and opportunity to cure". So, I don't understand your argument.

Also, several of the affidavits state that the issue was that the ballot was not in a secrecy envelope, presumably this would mean that the ballot was visible to whoever reviewed it before contacting the voter.


*Edit to insert image

Two more weeks and Trump will be declared the winner. It's kind of weird none of the major outlets are running with this. Seems it should be the lead story everywhere.

FireAg said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Note that the voters in Pennsylvania had something like six or seven days after the election to cure their mail-in ballots.

If they had waited until election day to check the information, the voters could have gone in and cured their ballots and had them counted. I would assume that any voter they notified early could have their ballots counted if they had waited until at least election day to go in to cure the ballots.

---

Eric, what the hell are you arguing about? This is black and white. Election officials weren't allowed to look at the ballots or envelopes before Election Day and they weren't allowed to contact the voter ever to come and fix their mistakes. That was against the law. I don't even know what you are arguing about.

---

I actually thought he was admitting that he did indeed see the problem with what they did...

---

I do see the problem in them going through the ballots prior to election day.

However, from https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/12/pennsylvania-curing-mail-in-ballots-deadline/

Quote:

---

Late Thursday morning a commonwealth court judge barred Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar from extending the deadline by three days to have more time to "cure" certain mail-in ballots.

It applies to voters who sent in ballots but failed to provide ID. Normally, voters get a chance to "cure" or correct that information after the election.

---

What isn't clear is if this is a local rule or a state rule. However, the deadline was extended to something like nine or ten days for people to come in and cure their ballot and the judge ruled that they cannot extend it by three days from the six days. It would be interesting to see the precise wording for this in Pennsylvania's Election Code.