My understanding of the adjudication process is that, when you are not sure whether or not to count the vote, because of absentee form problems, or the machine didn't pick up the mark, or too many marks, then you go to adjudication.

Rejected is when there is a problem with absentee application / envelope.

correct. and its majority in both house and senate

This is the first move that's actually making the Democrats feel a little uncomfortable about this election

Agvet12 said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

A majority of senators including several Republicans said Trump was guilty on the facts on impeachment, just not worthy of removal.

Sidney's wild fantasies are nothing like that.

---

Lol at Romney being used as "bi partisan"

---

He wasn't the only one. 6 Republican senators said the house effectively proved its case.

YES, I'll look that up.

Hell, at the level we've been talking about since November 3rd, I'm not all that erudite either.

I just glossed over 2000 because I decided I didn't have any control, and Baker would handle it, which he did. However, I just chose not to get educated. Now I want to.

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Agvet12 said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

A majority of senators including several Republicans said Trump was guilty on the facts on impeachment, just not worthy of removal.

Sidney's wild fantasies are nothing like that.

---

Lol at Romney being used as "bi partisan"

---

He wasn't the only one. 6 Republican senators said the house effectively proved its case.

---

I submit that this is most likely a mischaracterization or overstatement, but I might be wrong.

You have a source document?

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Agvet12 said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

A majority of senators including several Republicans said Trump was guilty on the facts on impeachment, just not worthy of removal.

Sidney's wild fantasies are nothing like that.

---

Lol at Romney being used as "bi partisan"

---

He wasn't the only one. 6 Republican senators said the house effectively proved its case.

---

The ones who appeased their bases in an election year? And still voted no in the senate? Again lol

Right. Romney's rabid anti-Trump base in checks notes...Utah.

Trump was guilty as hell he practically admitted it. Was it removal worthy was the open question.

Electoral Count Act of 1877. I read all about this over the last month.

Here is a head start:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/6

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Right. Romney's rabid anti-Trump base in checks notes...Utah.

Trump was guilty as hell he practically admitted it. Was it removal worthy was the open question.

---

Guilty of what, exactly?

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Right. Romney's rabid anti-Trump base in checks notes...Utah.

Trump was guilty as hell he practically admitted it. Was it removal worthy was the open question.

---

Guilty of what, precisely? All through impeachment the crime seemed to be a moving target.

Thank you, young man---class of '84 here. "young man" works for nearly everyone these days.

aggiehawg said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Right. Romney's rabid anti-Trump base in checks notes...Utah.

Trump was guilty as hell he practically admitted it. Was it removal worthy was the open question.

---

Guilty of what, precisely? All through impeachment the crime seemed to be a moving target.

---

Guilty of the accusation. I already said whether it's worthy of removal is an open question. Didn't want to derail this thread any more than it has.

I'll just say he did it, denied it, lied about it, and tried to cover it up and so thought most of the jury.

LegalDrugPusher said:

---

This is the first move that's actually making the Democrats feel a little uncomfortable about this election

---

Not even remotely.

It's like Auburn kicking a FG with 0:02 left on the clock. Actually no it's like Auburn filing a complaint with the NCAA today asking them to reverse Saturday's result because CBS said Auburn was supposed to win.

John Maplethorpe said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Right. Romney's rabid anti-Trump base in checks notes...Utah.

Trump was guilty as hell he practically admitted it. Was it removal worthy was the open question.

---

Guilty of what, precisely? All through impeachment the crime seemed to be a moving target.

---

Guilty of the accusation. I already said whether it's worthy of removal is an open question. Didn't want to derail this thread any more than it has.

I'll just say he did it, denied it, lied about it, and tried to cover it up and so thought most of the jury.

---

The accusation which is...?

John Maplethorpe said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Right. Romney's rabid anti-Trump base in checks notes...Utah.

Trump was guilty as hell he practically admitted it. Was it removal worthy was the open question.

---

Guilty of what, precisely? All through impeachment the crime seemed to be a moving target.

---

Guilty of the accusation. I already said whether it's worthy of removal is an open question. Didn't want to derail this thread any more than it has.

I'll just say he did it, denied it, lied about it, and tried to cover it up and so thought most of the jury.

---

Wrong on all points.

BusterAg said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

This would be a great precedent - states go around reversing other states elections based on narrow legal technicalities in how they were operated.

---

Really?

Do you not understand the issue, or are you just being obtuse?

Texas is not asking anyone to reverse any elections. The are asking for clarifications of the power of state and executive branches of state governments granted by the US constitution.

---

USSCT (and all other courts)typically abstain from issuing advisory opinions. The Const already grants state legislators the power to appoint electors in a manner of their choosing.

Joe should appoint Hunter AG to sift through all the Trump family laptops.

Buster may want to go back & edit that.

Sarge 91 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

This would be a great precedent - states go around reversing other states elections based on narrow legal technicalities in how they were operated.

---

Really?

Do you not understand the issue, or are you just being obtuse?

Texas is not asking anyone to reverse any elections. The are asking for clarifications of the power of state and executive branches of state governments granted by the US constitution.

---

USSCT (and all other courts)typically abstain from issuing advisory opinions. The Const already grants state legislators the power to appoint electors in a manner of their choosing.

---

Right.

But

1) They are not asking to reverse any elections from Biden to Trump.
2) They are asking SCOTUS not to allow states to certify because their elections that are illegal.
3) They are asking SCOTUS to clarify article 2, section 1 "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors". Does that mean that the current state legislature is bound by the election laws that it has already passed, or does the legislature have plenary power?

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

More than anything, I hope that SCOTUS clears up that issue here, but I'm not sure that they will.

But I stand by my assertion that there is no request to "reverse the election"

Here is BMX's link for the requests for relief.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3163937/replies/58144256

Quote:

---

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

---

So if Paxton is right, can PA legislature ignore PA law and allow mail in votes for president?

Unfortunately I think you are right. , I don't think we will get an answer to any of this, but they are definitely fascinating questions

GeorgiAg said:

---

the voter gets the printed ballot. If they voted "Trump" and see "Biden" on their printed ballot, they don't have to put it in the ballot box.

If the software had been changing votes by the thousands, this would have been all over the news and in thousands of affidavits.

---

First point...if the printed says Trump, but a barcode says Biden, how are they to know it's been changed when they put it in the ballot box?

Second point...on the news? The Dem-run propaganda MSM news, you mean? And IIR, there are affidavits that are being ignored.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

---

So if Paxton is right, can PA legislature ignore PA law and allow mail in votes for president?

Unfortunately I think you are right. , I don't think we will get an answer to any of this, but they are definitely fascinating questions

---

I'm sure that they can, right, with a new law?

The more interesting question is, can the GA SoS, without approval of the legislature?

MooreTrucker said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

the voter gets the printed ballot. If they voted "Trump" and see "Biden" on their printed ballot, they don't have to put it in the ballot box.

If the software had been changing votes by the thousands, this would have been all over the news and in thousands of affidavits.

---

First point...if the printed says Trump, but a barcode says Biden, how are they to know it's been changed when they put it in the ballot box?

Second point...on the news? The Dem-run propaganda MSM news, you mean? And IIR, there are affidavits that are being ignored.

---

There was a hand recount by people reading the ballot, not a bar code. There is no bar code. The ballot has ovals, similar to standardized tests.

CondensedFoggyAggie said:

---

Well, now I know 5 states that will spend additional taxpayer money on lawyers.

---

As long as it is the taxpayers' money from those 5 states who cares? The more these states have to spend, the greater the impact on their residents.

"Destroy anything that might be useful to the enemy. Any assets that could be used by the enemy should be targeted."

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

---

So if Paxton is right, can PA legislature ignore PA law and allow mail in votes for president?

Unfortunately I think you are right. , I don't think we will get an answer to any of this, but they are definitely fascinating questions

---

Disclaimer: not a lawyer.

Wasn't the constitutionality of the PA voter laws raised by Republicans once the SOS and PA state courts made radical changes? Thus, their intended law was not only unconstitutional by their own state constitution, but also unconstitutional by the US Constitution, since changes were made by non-legislature powers of government?

Perhaps the SCOTUS can separate the intent of laws based on what state legislatures decide, rather than the state constitutionality of the laws. There is a differnece, no?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Number 3 is a huge issue. Kent says the legislatures cannot ignore previous election laws. Paxton says they can.

---

So if Paxton is right, can PA legislature ignore PA law and allow mail in votes for president?

Unfortunately I think you are right. , I don't think we will get an answer to any of this, but they are definitely fascinating questions

---

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not determine the legal method(s) of voting. Instead, it explicitly recognizes the methods of voting found in the law as being legal. Act 77 which was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor added mail-in voting as a legal method of voting. Thus, mail-in voting is recognized by the Pennsylvania Constitution as being legal.

I just still can't believe trump wasn't able to stop mail in voting by crippling the USPS. I wonder which one of his genius advisors came up with that plan?

aggiehawg said:

---

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has a salient observation.

Quote:

---

If the Supreme Court can revamp state legislative districting in the name of fairness, I see nothing to stop if from supervising state procedures for electing presidents.

---

---

Those who worship at the altar of big government have got to be loving all this.

Cassius said:

---

executive branch changing state laws = narrow technicality /Maplethorpe


What a dumbass response.

---

In what state did the executive change the wording of the statutes?

Or do you think that interpretation of the statutes somehow amounts to changing of the law?