Signature Audit

3,908 Views | 52 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by CoppellAg93
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Debt said:

eric76 said:

Ramdiesel said:

If they find thousands that should not have been counted (no matter who they voted for) then they have to throw the election results out by state law. They have to let the State Legislature (Republican majority) pick the electors to send..


Can you cite the specific Georgia laws for this? I've looked and didn't find it.

TIA

The "election" is a signal to the state legislature which Electors they pick for the EC. If the election is tainted, the Georgia house is compelled to ignored it.
The only thing that I could find in the Georgia statutes is for runoffs. Obviously, a runoff for a President would take too long to consider. I could not find anything in their statutes about having the Legislature choose the electors instead.

That's why I'm looking for the specific language of the Georgia statutes on the matter. We've been lots of rhetoric and so much of it is highly suspect that we shouldn't take it at face value.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
pacecar02 said:

Here is a link for grounds to contest

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-21/chapter-2/article-13/section-21-2-522/
I'd seen that already.

Just not their rules on contesting a Presidential election.

By the way, that is a more usable place to check out the code in Georgia than what I was looking at.
pacecar02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah i dunno, maybe its not spelled out

Its spelled out for state level

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-21/chapter-2/article-13/section-21-2-527/
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
pacecar02 said:

Yeah i dunno, maybe its not spelled out

Its spelled out for state level

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-21/chapter-2/article-13/section-21-2-527/
Yeah. I'd seen that, too. It allows for

Quote:

d) Whenever the court trying a contest shall determine that the primary, election, or runoff is so defective as to the nomination, office, or eligibility in contest as to place in doubt the result of the entire primary, election, or runoff for such nomination, office, or eligibility, such court shall declare the primary, election, or runoff to be invalid with regard to such nomination, office, or eligibility and shall call for a second primary, election, or runoff to be conducted among all of the same candidates who participated in the primary, election, or runoff to fill such nomination or office which was declared invalid and shall set the date for such second primary, election, or runoff.

There's nothing that I can find about sending it to the Legislature to choose the electors.

There was also something somewhere about allowing a minimum of 29 days for a runoff. So if a judge orders a runoff, then that would put the runoff sometime in January if the court ruled that there should be a runoff now.

Since the results have already been certified on November 20, their slate of electors has presumably been certified. It would, at the least, seem to require that those electors be decertified (if possible) within the next ten days or else the could likely continue with their vote regardless of the order of the court.
pacecar02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I hadn't read that legislature thing until this thread
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hmmmm.

What if the Democrats in Georgia requested a jury trial to determine whether or not the vote was accurate?

Quote:

2019 Georgia Code
Title 21 - Elections
Chapter 2 - Elections and Primaries Generally
Article 13 - Contested Elections and Primaries
21-2-526. Trial by jury
Universal Citation: GA Code 21-2-526 (2019)

(a) All issues of a contest shall be fully tried and determined by the court without the aid and intervention of a jury, unless a litigant to the contest shall demand a trial by jury at any time prior to the call of the case; and the court shall determine that it is an issue which under other laws of this state the litigant is entitled to have tried by a jury. Upon such determination, a jury shall be impaneled and the cause shall proceed according to the practice and procedure of the court in jury cases.

(b) In a case contesting the result of a primary or election held in two or more counties, each issue to be tried by a jury shall be tried by a jury impaneled in the county where such issue or a part thereof arose. Such jury shall be impaneled by the superior court of the county in which the jury trial is to be conducted; such trial shall be presided over by the judge as described in Code Section 21-2-523; and such trial shall proceed, insofar as practicable, as though it were being conducted in the county of the superior court having jurisdiction of the contest.

(c) In a case contesting the result of a primary or election held within a single county, the court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In a case contesting the result of a primary or election held in two or more counties, the court shall require each jury impaneled to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In a case where a special verdict is to be rendered, the court shall submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If, in so doing, the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives his or her right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires he or she demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand, the court may make a finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict.


What are the odds of getting members of a jury on this who would consider the issues on the facts and not let their political biases affect their decision?

I find it difficult to imagine a jury trial that would come to a unanimous decision on this.
pacecar02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
eric76 said:

Hmmmm.

What if the Democrats in Georgia requested a jury trial to determine whether or not the vote was accurate?

Quote:

2019 Georgia Code
Title 21 - Elections
Chapter 2 - Elections and Primaries Generally
Article 13 - Contested Elections and Primaries
21-2-526. Trial by jury
Universal Citation: GA Code 21-2-526 (2019)

(a) All issues of a contest shall be fully tried and determined by the court without the aid and intervention of a jury, unless a litigant to the contest shall demand a trial by jury at any time prior to the call of the case; and the court shall determine that it is an issue which under other laws of this state the litigant is entitled to have tried by a jury. Upon such determination, a jury shall be impaneled and the cause shall proceed according to the practice and procedure of the court in jury cases.

(b) In a case contesting the result of a primary or election held in two or more counties, each issue to be tried by a jury shall be tried by a jury impaneled in the county where such issue or a part thereof arose. Such jury shall be impaneled by the superior court of the county in which the jury trial is to be conducted; such trial shall be presided over by the judge as described in Code Section 21-2-523; and such trial shall proceed, insofar as practicable, as though it were being conducted in the county of the superior court having jurisdiction of the contest.

(c) In a case contesting the result of a primary or election held within a single county, the court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In a case contesting the result of a primary or election held in two or more counties, the court shall require each jury impaneled to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In a case where a special verdict is to be rendered, the court shall submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If, in so doing, the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives his or her right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires he or she demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand, the court may make a finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict.


What are the odds of getting members of a jury on this who would consider the issues on the facts and not let their political biases affect their decision?

I find it difficult to imagine a jury trial that would come to a unanimous decision on this.
even if they did, appeal for sure
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
pacecar02 said:

eric76 said:

Hmmmm.

What if the Democrats in Georgia requested a jury trial to determine whether or not the vote was accurate?

Quote:

2019 Georgia Code
Title 21 - Elections
Chapter 2 - Elections and Primaries Generally
Article 13 - Contested Elections and Primaries
21-2-526. Trial by jury
Universal Citation: GA Code 21-2-526 (2019)

(a) All issues of a contest shall be fully tried and determined by the court without the aid and intervention of a jury, unless a litigant to the contest shall demand a trial by jury at any time prior to the call of the case; and the court shall determine that it is an issue which under other laws of this state the litigant is entitled to have tried by a jury. Upon such determination, a jury shall be impaneled and the cause shall proceed according to the practice and procedure of the court in jury cases.

(b) In a case contesting the result of a primary or election held in two or more counties, each issue to be tried by a jury shall be tried by a jury impaneled in the county where such issue or a part thereof arose. Such jury shall be impaneled by the superior court of the county in which the jury trial is to be conducted; such trial shall be presided over by the judge as described in Code Section 21-2-523; and such trial shall proceed, insofar as practicable, as though it were being conducted in the county of the superior court having jurisdiction of the contest.

(c) In a case contesting the result of a primary or election held within a single county, the court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In a case contesting the result of a primary or election held in two or more counties, the court shall require each jury impaneled to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In a case where a special verdict is to be rendered, the court shall submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If, in so doing, the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives his or her right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires he or she demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand, the court may make a finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict.


What are the odds of getting members of a jury on this who would consider the issues on the facts and not let their political biases affect their decision?

I find it difficult to imagine a jury trial that would come to a unanimous decision on this.
even if they did, appeal for sure
I may misunderstand it, but to appeal the decision of the court, doesn't there have to be a decision to appeal? If the jury is split, then wouldn't the choice be whether or not to try again in front of another jury?

In addition, what appeals can they make of the jury's findings? Aren't the juries findings in a trial court considered to be rather off the table? I think that appeals are for errors in law, not in findings of fact by the jury.

Note: I think that it is possible to appeal a judge's rulings that arise during the course of a trial, but don't those generally involve pausing the trial to await for a ruling? It would seem like that would generally add at least a day to the trial (more likely two or three) per ruling.

Edited to add: I think that if the results of the trial were to move it to the Legislature, that would definitely result in a strong appeal since the Georgia law does not seem to make this an option. That would certainly become a question of whether the judge made an error in the law to move it to the Legislature.

Also, I seem to remember rare cases in which a judge either set aside a jury's verdict in civil cases or directed the jury a certain verdict. Could that happen here? Whichever way that would go, it would certainly be likely to result in an appeal in this case.
Ramdiesel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ramdiesel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
eric76 said:

The Debt said:

eric76 said:

Ramdiesel said:

If they find thousands that should not have been counted (no matter who they voted for) then they have to throw the election results out by state law. They have to let the State Legislature (Republican majority) pick the electors to send..


Can you cite the specific Georgia laws for this? I've looked and didn't find it.

TIA

The "election" is a signal to the state legislature which Electors they pick for the EC. If the election is tainted, the Georgia house is compelled to ignored it.
The only thing that I could find in the Georgia statutes is for runoffs. Obviously, a runoff for a President would take too long to consider. I could not find anything in their statutes about having the Legislature choose the electors instead.

That's why I'm looking for the specific language of the Georgia statutes on the matter. We've been lots of rhetoric and so much of it is highly suspect that we shouldn't take it at face value.

It's not in the Georgia state laws, it is in the US Constitution. If the State Legislature decertifies the vote (meaning the state cannot send any electors by a certain date because they cant determine who won the election), then it would have to go to the Supreme Court, and then the SCOTUS would most likely kick it to the House to decide who won the state if it was proven there was enough fraud/ irregularities in the vote. Georgia has a Repuclican Majority State Legislature, so their vote would go to Trump and he would win Georgia.. Even if all the states had to vote on it he would still win Georgia because each state only gets 1 vote in this scenario and there are more states with Republican majority state legislatures than DEM majority.

amfta
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old Army Ghost said:

Yalls signature is the exact same everything?
You mean everytime ? If so then the answer is yep, pretty much !

Heck, I would venture to say that the lions share of us don't even have to lick the pencil tip after each letter we scrawl, unlike you Jethro !
“Death is preferable to dishonor"
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ramdiesel said:

eric76 said:

The Debt said:

eric76 said:

Ramdiesel said:

If they find thousands that should not have been counted (no matter who they voted for) then they have to throw the election results out by state law. They have to let the State Legislature (Republican majority) pick the electors to send..


Can you cite the specific Georgia laws for this? I've looked and didn't find it.

TIA

The "election" is a signal to the state legislature which Electors they pick for the EC. If the election is tainted, the Georgia house is compelled to ignored it.
The only thing that I could find in the Georgia statutes is for runoffs. Obviously, a runoff for a President would take too long to consider. I could not find anything in their statutes about having the Legislature choose the electors instead.

That's why I'm looking for the specific language of the Georgia statutes on the matter. We've been lots of rhetoric and so much of it is highly suspect that we shouldn't take it at face value.

It's not in the Georgia state laws it is in the US Constitution. If the State Legislature decertifies the vote (meaning the state cannot send any electors by a certain date because they cant determine who won the election), then it would have to go to the Supreme Court, and then the SCOTUS would most likely kick it to the House to decide who won the state if it was proven there was enough fraud/ irregularities in the vote. Georgia has a Repuclican Majority State Legislature, so their vote would go to Trump and he would win Georgia.. Even if all the states had to vote on it he would still win Georgia because each state only gets 1 vote in this scenario and there are more states with Republican majority state legislatures than DEM majority.
I don't know where you are getting your notions, but they are not accurate.

From the US Constitution:
Quote:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

The Legislature of Georgia has selected holding an election to choose the electors. There is nothing in Georgia Law that allows them to throw away the election and choose the electors themselves.

Georgia Law does detail the steps for a contested election.

Here are the grounds for which an election may be contested from Georgia Code Title 21. Elections 21-2-522:
Quote:

A result of a primary or election may be contested on one or more of the following grounds:

(1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

(2) When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in dispute;

(3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

(4) For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the primary or election, if such error would change the result; or

(5) For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.

Any litigant in the court hearings may demand a trial by jury. See Georgia Code Title 21. Elections 21-2-526:
Quote:

(a) All issues of a contest shall be fully tried and determined by the court without the aid and intervention of a jury, unless a litigant to the contest shall demand a trial by jury at any time prior to the call of the case; and the court shall determine that it is an issue which under other laws of this state the litigant is entitled to have tried by a jury. Upon such determination, a jury shall be impaneled and the cause shall proceed according to the practice and procedure of the court in jury cases.

The results of the hearing from Georgia Code Title 21. Elections 21-2-527:
Quote:

(a) After hearing the allegations and evidence in the contest, the court shall declare as nominated, elected, or as eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election that qualified candidate who received the requisite number of votes and shall pronounce judgment accordingly; and the clerk of the superior court shall certify such determination to the proper authority. In the case of a contest involving a question submitted to electors at an election, the court shall pronounce judgment as to whether the same was approved or disapproved; and the clerk of the superior court shall certify such determination to the defendant.

(b) When a defendant who has received the requisite number of votes for nomination, election, or to compete in a run-off primary or election is determined to be ineligible for the nomination or office sought, the court shall pronounce judgment declaring the primary or election invalid with regard to such nomination or office and shall call a second primary or election to fill such nomination or office and shall set the date for such second primary or election.

(c) If misconduct is complained of on the part of the poll officers of any precinct, it shall not be held sufficient to set aside the contested result unless the rejection of the vote of such precinct would change such result.

(d) Whenever the court trying a contest shall determine that the primary, election, or runoff is so defective as to the nomination, office, or eligibility in contest as to place in doubt the result of the entire primary, election, or runoff for such nomination, office, or eligibility, such court shall declare the primary, election, or runoff to be invalid with regard to such nomination, office, or eligibility and shall call for a second primary, election, or runoff to be conducted among all of the same candidates who participated in the primary, election, or runoff to fill such nomination or office which was declared invalid and shall set the date for such second primary, election, or runoff.
NCNJ1217
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


You love to see it

HalifaxAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old Army Ghost said:

HalifaxAg said:

Old Army Ghost said:

Yalls signature is the exact same everything?
Your's isn't? What are you three?

The point is not to find an exact match but to at least look at it and determine if it's not just a random mark of some sort. Actually trying to forge a signature would require the forger to spend lots of time and you couldn't possibly do it thousands of time to affect an election.
I almost couldn't take the GRE because my signature on my ID and the signature on my form didn't match. Took 3 tries before they would accept it.
So a college admissions test has a higher standard of acceptance than an election to choose the leader of the free world and launcher of nuclear weapons...

Let that sink in.
TyHolden
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jayelbee said:

What the hell does that mean? Nobody signs their signature the same way every time. Especially if you're comparing signatures at different points in time.

I have to sign a stack of 100 checks every month and my signature doesn't match on every one, and there's a huge difference between #1 and #75. And none of those check signatures match what I would sign a business letter with. None of my signatures today match what is on my drivers license signed several years ago.

What does your signature look like when you sign the electronic pad at the grocery store?

you sign 200 different names in one setting? Try it. I bet an expert could pick them out easily. When l forge a check for my wife, it always looks similar.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dorm 15 said:

President Trump keeps calling for a signature audit in Georgia. I am sure he realizes that signatures cannot be tied to a specific vote so how is that going to prove he got more votes?


If the number of illegal votes is larger than the margin of victory, GA law says you have to throw the election out.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:

pacecar02 said:

Yeah i dunno, maybe its not spelled out

Its spelled out for state level

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-21/chapter-2/article-13/section-21-2-527/
Yeah. I'd seen that, too. It allows for

Quote:

d) Whenever the court trying a contest shall determine that the primary, election, or runoff is so defective as to the nomination, office, or eligibility in contest as to place in doubt the result of the entire primary, election, or runoff for such nomination, office, or eligibility, such court shall declare the primary, election, or runoff to be invalid with regard to such nomination, office, or eligibility and shall call for a second primary, election, or runoff to be conducted among all of the same candidates who participated in the primary, election, or runoff to fill such nomination or office which was declared invalid and shall set the date for such second primary, election, or runoff.

There's nothing that I can find about sending it to the Legislature to choose the electors.

There was also something somewhere about allowing a minimum of 29 days for a runoff. So if a judge orders a runoff, then that would put the runoff sometime in January if the court ruled that there should be a runoff now.

Since the results have already been certified on November 20, their slate of electors has presumably been certified. It would, at the least, seem to require that those electors be decertified (if possible) within the next ten days or else the could likely continue with their vote regardless of the order of the court.


The constitution is pretty clear that the legislatures can choose the electors. If the GA legislators proclaimed that there was so much fraud that the election is invalid, SCOTUS is not going to throw our the electors that the legislatures choose.

Not that it will happen, but it could.

We worked through all of this in the 1880s
CoppellAg93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CoppellAg93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maury Ballstein said:

Dorm 15 said:

President Trump keeps calling for a signature audit in Georgia. I am sure he realizes that signatures cannot be tied to a specific vote so how is that going to prove he got more votes?


He's asking for something that can't be done. When it's not done it'll be proof of "fraud". Then they'll raise another $200 million for "election defense" and funnel it to empty hotels at rack rate 4x market rate and laugh at the rubes spending their social security money on this fraud.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.