共和党不要脸,在加州设立了50来个假投票箱。GOP投票作假的tricks以及为什么川普迫切需要任命新高法

BubbleBee
楼主 (北美华人网)
一天到晚贼喊捉贼,共和党一出谁与争锋?
1) 加州共和党为了扰乱竞选,违法购置了50个假投票箱,放置在 Los Angeles County, Orange County and Fresno County 几个地方,被人发现。GOP已经承认。该行为被地方选举办为非法并勒令停止。
2) 共和党指望各地出现投票纷争,官司一路打到联邦高法,然后利用高法的人数绝对优势、判决有纷争的州的票给川普。川普前段时间之所以号召粉丝去投两次票就是这个动机,他才不在乎他的粉丝真这么干之后得去坐牢
3) 今年德克萨斯有可能翻蓝,所以德州共和党也干了类似的事情:打官司。先是共和党州长把传统的early vote提前一周,然后一波共和党就这个early vote是否合法开始打官司。这个官司目前结果是判这种early vote合法,但共和党很可能把这个官司反复一直打,打到联邦高法,指望联邦高法把early vote的票算成是非法。同一个德州州长,通过法案让投票站不能强制戴口罩,并且前段时间,阴撤撤的把休斯顿harris country一个人口500万的整个地区的投票箱由正常的12个减到1个,就为了最大限度阻止大家投票。动机?因为GOP很清楚,无论是红州蓝州,所有城市人口最多的地方投票结果几乎无一例外是民主党胜出。
4) 为什么共和党一定要赶在这个时候任命高法,以及这个高法候选人Amy为什么死不回答是否支持权力和平过渡,并且昨天再次明确表态过如果选举过程需要高法裁决,她非常乐意这么做 ---- 这是现在进行时。为了讨好男权,她不惜破坏三权分立,和各州GOP扰乱投票的行为遥相呼应,就等着官司打到她那里她好把选票统统裁决给川普。GOP为了川普的连任真拼,连裤子都懒得穿了
新闻source我随手搜的,大家也可以自行google
Fake "official" drop boxes set up by California GOP may be in "violation of state law": official https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fake-official-drop-boxes-set-up-by-california-gop-may-be-in-violation-of-state-law-official/ar-BB19WAMP The California Republican Party has admitted responsibility for placing more than 50 deceptively labeled “official” drop boxes for mail-in ballots in Los Angeles, Fresno and Orange Counties
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ca-gop-ballot-drop-boxes/ Did California Republicans Set Up Fake Ballot Drop Boxes? California Republicans in the fall of 2020 reportedly set up their own drop-off boxes for voters to leave mail-in ballots for the upcoming November general election.  Jordan Tygh, a regional field director for the California GOP, posted on Oct. 8, 2020, a picture of himself posing with thumbs up in front of one of the drop-boxes on Twitter, along with a message encouraging other voters to contact him for details on the drop-box locations. The post has since been deleted, but a cached version was still available as of this writing: The online fury over Tygh’s post and the drop-boxes prompted Snopes readers to ask whether it was true that the California Republicans had installed unofficial mail-in ballot drop-boxes. (And as Tygh’s post indicates, some of them were misleadingly labeled “official.”) It is true — the California GOP has acknowledged that it owns the boxes. And the California secretary of state announced such unauthorized ballot drop-boxes are illegal. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, during an Oct. 12 news conference, said multiple fake drop-boxes had been installed in Fresno, Los Angeles, and Orange counties. Padilla’s office and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued cease-and-desist letters to state and county Republican parties. Ballot collection, sometimes referred to as “ballot harvesting,” is the practice of a voter designating a third party to deliver a mail-in ballot to election officials. It’s legal in many states, including California. What is not legal, according to the Secretary of State’s Office, is posing as an election officer and “handling, counting, or canvassing of any ballots” by anyone who isn’t an election officer. That includes setting up unofficial ballot-collection boxes. Violating the law is a felony that could result in two to four years in prison, if a person is convicted. Election officials ordered California Republicans to remove the unauthorized boxes by Oct. 15, with Becerra warning that his office would take further legal action if needed. “Without equivocation,” the fake drop boxes set up by California Republicans “are illegal,” Becerra stated. “If you participate in those activities, you are knowingly engaging in activity that is against the law,” Becerra said during the news conference. “So please understand what you are doing.” California voters can look up the location of official ballot drop-box locations on the secretary of state’s website. The official drop-boxes are bright yellow and are secured, locked, and monitored round the clock.

Donald Trump’s Encouragement to Vote Twice Could Cause Election Day Chaos https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/donald-trump-vote-twice-election-day-chaos.html

President Donald Trump on Thursday repeated his encouragement to his supporters to vote twice, first by mail and then—if election officials allow—in person. Voting twice—as the president requests—is not only illegal, but a recipe for chaos in November. Perhaps that is exactly the point. Trump defended his call as a way to test the system against voter fraud, but it’s like encouraging his supporters to try to rob the 7-Eleven to make sure that the police can respond adequately to robberies. Speaking briefly to WECT television in Wilmington, North Carolina, on Wednesday, Trump said the following when he was asked if he was confident in North Carolina’s system of allowing people to vote absentee:
They’ll go out and they’ll vote and then they’re going to have to go and check their vote by going to the poll and voting that way because if it tabulates then they won’t be able to do that. So let them send it in, and let them go vote. And if their system’s as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote. If it isn’t tabulated, they’ll be able to vote. So that’s the way it is, and that’s what they should do. …
But send in your ballots, send them in strong, whether it’s solicited or unsolicited. The absentees are fine. We have to work to get them. It means something. And you send them in but go to vote and if they haven’t counted it, you can vote. So, that’s the way I view it.

The president tried to clean up the statement in a series of Thursday morning tweets, suggesting that his supporters who vote by mail should also go to the polling place and only vote if election officials report that their mail-in ballots have not been received. To begin with, it is illegal to attempt to vote twice in an election. This is true under North Carolina and federal law. And it doesn’t matter if one is doing it to “test” the system. In Texas in 2016, as reported by the Washington Post:
Phillip Cook was arrested on Election Day after voting twice. He claimed to be an employee of Trump’s campaign who was testing the security of the electoral system. He wasn’t an employee of the campaign—and the polling location’s security worked perfectly well, it seems.
Trump might have even broken North Carolina law by encouraging the conduct. It is illegal in the state
for any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to do so, in the same primary or election, or to vote illegally at any primary or election.
So are Trump’s comments themselves a criminal inducement to his supporters to illegally vote? Or, in the language of the statute, was Trump by his comments “induc[ing]” with “intent to commit a fraud” a person to vote “more than one time” in “the same …. election”? I think a case could be made that he was. He was encouraging people to vote both by mail and in person. The questionable part is about his intent. It sounds like he was suggesting an attempt at double voting as a means of testing the integrity of the system, or assuring that his voters can cast at least one ballot for him. Is that a fraudulent intent? I could see how a jury could find it to be so especially given Trump’s other statements suggesting he believes that such double voting would not be caught by election officials. Trump could also argue that his statements, which offered nothing of value but only encouragement, were not an “inducement” to vote.
Another possible defense is that Trump was “joking” or not being serious about his comments and this was typical Trumpian hyperbole. Perhaps so, and I do not expect Trump to be prosecuted, but I think many people may hear his comments and think he is serious. This is particularly true given that he repeated the comments the very next day and his attorney general, William Barr, refused to acknowledge that double voting is illegal. And this is the much more important point than whether Trump violated North Carolina law with his statement to WECT. Supporters of his, in North Carolina and elsewhere, could follow his advice and try to vote twice. Those people face potential prosecution for a felony, as the North Carolina State Board of Elections made clear in a Thursday statement, and it is awful for the president to be encouraging illegal conduct.
What’s worse, the comments are going to put a strain on an election system stretched to its limits by trying to conduct a presidential election in the midst of a pandemic and with one of the candidates constantly casting doubt on the election’s legitimacy. Again, this is probably Trump’s real intent. North Carolina, like other states, has systems in place to prevent double voting, such as electronic poll books that let poll workers know if someone showing up to vote has already cast an absentee ballot that has been returned. (It is these checks that slow down the processing of absentee ballots and explain why we might not have results on election night in a close election.)
But these systems are designed under the sensible premise that few people are going to risk felonies and vote twice. It’s the same design for police departments, which would look very different if people were trying to rob every 7-Eleven every day.
Lines are already going to be long in some places on Election Day. The pandemic means it is harder to find poll workers and so there will be polling place consolidations and fewer workers, all contributing to a longer queue. Trump’s suggestion for his supporters to go to a polling place to try to vote twice—and via a complex procedure of trying to get a poll worker to confirm that an absentee ballot has been tabulated, which in some cases it will not have been—will add to those long lines. The lines will be even longer if the voter insists on casting a provisional ballot after having voted by mail. (That provisional ballot won’t be counted if the voter has already voted.) Those long lines will do real damage to an Election Day infrastructure that is already looking stretched to the limits—the ensuing chaos will benefit the candidate claiming that the whole process is rigged no matter what the outcome: Donald Trump. Trump has cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, claiming that voter fraud is widespread in the United States when it is rare. These new statements seem calculated to create more confusion and chaos at the polls—and possibly more actual fraud. It will also cause more people potentially with COVID to congregate at the polls, exactly the opposite of what we need for a safe and fair election during November.

Texas Republicans sue to stop Gov. Greg Abbott's extension of early voting period during the pandemic
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/23/texas-republicans-greg-abbott-early-voting/ State party Chair Allen West, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and members of the Texas Legislature were among those who filed the suit against Abbott. BY PATRICK SVITEK SEPT. 23, 202012 PM
Texas 2020 Elections
The last day to register to vote in Texas is Oct. 5. The last day to request a ballot to vote by mail is Oct. 23. Early voting starts on Oct. 13 and ends Oct. 30. Learn more about voting by mailcheck out our guide on voting during the pandemic and bookmark your Texas ballotMORE IN THIS SERIES  Need to stay updated on coronavirus news in Texas? Our evening roundup will help you stay on top of the day's latest updates. Sign up here. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is facing a lawsuit over his extension of early voting for the November election from prominent members of his own party — including state party Chair Allen West, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and members of the Texas Legislature. In July, Abbott added six days to the early voting period, moving the start date up to Oct. 13 from Oct. 19, citing the coronavirus pandemic. In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday with the state Supreme Court, Abbott's intraparty critics say the move defied election law that requires early voting to start on the 17th day before the election. It is the latest legal challenge to Abbott's emergency powers, which he has wielded aggressively in dealing with the pandemic.
"Governor Abbott seems to have forgotten that the Texas Constitution is not a document that he consults at his convenience," Jared Woodfill, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "It is an uninterrupted charter of governmental structure that limits the Governor Abbott’s ability to act as a king." The plaintiffs argue Abbott needs to consult the Legislature before making such decisions and that "if ever a special session was justified, now is the time."
One of the plaintiffs is Steve Hotze, the Houston conservative activist who has launched several lawsuits against Abbott's coronavirus response that have seen minimal success so far. But in the latest lawsuit, he is joined by not only West and Miller, but also three state senators and four state representatives, as well as the chairman of the Harris County party, Keith Nielsen, and the Republican National Committeeman from Texas, Robin Armstrong. However, after the lawsuit became public, one of the senators list on the suit, Donna Campbell, said she had not agreed to join the challenge. In a letter to Woodfill, the New Braunfels Republican said she disagreed with the "basic construct of the matter" and asked him to remove her name from the lawsuit.
West, who took over the state party this summer, has openly expressed disagreement with aspects of Abbott's coronavirus handling, including his statewide mask mandate and the early voting extension. West seemed to telegraph the lawsuit Tuesday, saying in a statement that he would be partnering with Hotze to make election integrity a "top priority." West said in the same statement that he opposes the "extension of early voting through the decree of a single executive instead of through the legislative process." Abbott's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. In announcing the early voting extension in late July, Abbott said he was giving voters more time to cast ballots in a way that does not contribute to the spread of the virus. Using the same rationale, he previously extended early voting for the July primary runoffs.
Democrats have unsuccessfully fought in the courts to expand mail-in voting this November due to the pandemic. The state Democratic Party reiterated its position Wednesday in response to the lawsuit, saying in a statement that the state "should be expanding early voting and vote-by-mail options, not cutting them."
In addition to making the early voting period longer for the November election, Abbott gave voters more time to turn in their mail-in ballots in person if they choose to do so. Usually those voters are permitted to submit their ballots to the early voting clerk's office in person instead of mailing them in — but only while polls are open on Election Day. Abbott expanded that option to the entire early voting period. The lawsuit filed Wednesday additionally seeks to stop the extended period for submitting mail ballots in person, also calling the move inconsistent with the election code. As for the early voting period, the Texas Election Code calls for it to begin on the 17th day before the election, or if that day falls on a weekend, the period should start on the next weekday. Because the 17th day before this year's November election is a Saturday, the early voting period had been slated to commence the following Monday, Oct. 19. The last day of early voting for the Nov. 3 election remains Oct. 30.


In Senate questionnaire, Barrett won’t pledge to recuse herself from 2020 election cases https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/29/amy-coney-barrett-recuse-election-cases-423248
President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court did not commit to recusing herself from cases related to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to her written responses to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire. Amy Coney Barrett’s responses, obtained by POLITICO on Tuesday night, also provide a window into the breakneck pace at which the White House operated in the aftermath of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, with Barrett revealing that Trump settled on her as his pick just three days after Ginsburg’s death.
Barrett’s statements on her standard for recusals are certain to draw fire from Democrats, who have been pressuring Barrett over the issue as Republicans dismiss their arguments as having no basis. More broadly, Democrats have strongly objected to Senate Republicans’ effort to confirm a new Supreme Court justice this close to the election.
Barrett said she would recuse herself from cases involving her husband, Jesse Barrett, and her sister, Amanda Coney Williams, both of whom are attorneys. Barrett also would recuse herself from cases that include Notre Dame University as a party. Barrett has been a law professor at Notre Dame since 2002. The 48-year-old nominee also said she would step aside from matters in which she participated while serving in her current role as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Top Democrats have called for Barrett to commit to recusing herself from issues that involve the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, given the possibility that the result could be decided by the Supreme Court. Democrats have also accused Trump of seeking to place a loyalist on the high court in the event of a contested election. “The underlying fault here is with the timing, which makes it a sham, but certainly she should recuse herself. In a normal world, there would be no question about it,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) countered that such a request was “absurd.” “There is no legal disqualification. She doesn’t have a legal conflict. She doesn’t decide the election. She’s just a vote like everybody else.” Graham told reporters. “That’s a ridiculous idea that she can’t hear election claims because she was nominated in an election year.”
The questionnaire also revealed new details about the White House’s selection process. According to her responses to the committee, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone contacted Barrett just a day after the death of Ginsburg. Barrett then proceeded to meet with Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Meadows and Cipollone on Sept. 21. Trump offered Barrett the nomination the same day, which she accepted, according to Barrett’s recollection. The president formally nominated her on Saturday, eight days after Ginsburg died. The battle to confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court kicked off in earnest on Tuesday, as she began to meet with a slew of Senate Republicans who are eager to confirm her to the high court before Election Day. The White House is also pushing for a swift confirmation, with Trump calling for there to be nine Supreme Court Justices on the bench in the event of a contested election. Barrett met Tuesday with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), Graham, and several Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Pence, Meadows, Cipollone and Pence’s chief of staff Marc Short accompanied Barrett to the Capitol as she met with GOP senators. Several Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have said they will refuse to meet with Barrett altogether, citing what they view as an “illegitimate” nomination. “We urge our Democratic colleagues in the Senate to take the opportunity to meet with Judge Barrett and, as the hearing goes forward, to provide the kind of respectful hearing that the American people expect,” Pence said ahead of McConnell’s meeting with Barrett. McConnell did not answer questions from reporters about whether Barrett should recuse herself from election-related matters if she is confirmed, as some Democrats have been calling for. Barrett similarly did not answer questions as she cycled through meetings with GOP senators on Tuesday. The Senate is moving swiftly on Barrett’s nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings starting October 12, and Graham suggested over the weekend Barrett’s nomination could be voted out of committee as soon as October 22. Senate Republicans are widely expected to confirm Barrett before the November 3 election, eyeing an October 29 confirmation vote. Barrett has long been a favorite of conservatives. She currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, a position to which the Senate confirmed her in 2017.



xqhbh
那为啥民主党还要反对查voter fraud,说 no evidence of voter fraude呢?
Night.Owl
得了吧,看看民主党的做法,大家不相上下罢了。没有哪个党是干净的。
BubbleBee
那为啥民主党还要反对查voter fraud,说 no evidence of voter fraude呢?
xqhbh 发表于 2020-10-14 15:31

真是张口就来啊,如果民主党反对查voter fraud,我贴的这些GOP作假欺瞒选民的事是谁发现的?
梅干茶泡饭
那为啥民主党还要反对查voter fraud,说 no evidence of voter fraude呢?
xqhbh 发表于 2020-10-14 15:31

准确的说这个叫election fraud 不是voter fraud
h
hulumao
Law and order
BubbleBee
得了吧,看看民主党的做法,大家不相上下罢了。没有哪个党是干净的。
Night.Owl 发表于 2020-10-14 15:32

证据?????你这种今年6月才赶着注册的ID说话跟放那啥差不多
VMC
那为啥民主党还要反对查voter fraud,说 no evidence of voter fraude呢?
xqhbh 发表于 2020-10-14 15:31

你可以去问民主党啊。咱旁观者看热闹。
PT8964
回复 1楼BubbleBee的帖子
那为什么民主党不愿意采用可以防止作假的措施呢? 我怀疑两党都有作假的嫌疑,但是民主党更有可能实施,但是不容易被抓获,因为作假主要靠非法移民和底层无业游民,这个民主党有优势。同时投票点要控制在民主党人手里,这样就没有办法查了,像各个城市里,人口多,有都是民主党控制的民主党票仓,太容易作假了
Twenty20002020
太愤怒了。我们能做什么呢?GOP 这种故意制造lawsuit的 行为真是天理难容。不知道Gorsche 和kavanaugh 能不能以国家利益为重。。。
C
Confuse
回复 1楼BubbleBee的帖子
那为什么民主党不愿意采用可以防止作假的措施呢? 我怀疑两党都有作假的嫌疑,但是民主党更有可能实施,但是不容易被抓获,因为作假主要靠非法移民和底层无业游民,这个民主党有优势。同时投票点要控制在民主党人手里,这样就没有办法查了,像各个城市里,人口多,有都是民主党控制的民主党票仓,太容易作假了
PT8964 发表于 2020-10-14 15:37

抓了个现行的你不骂,你骂人家莫须有?
请问你是川粉吗?
hammerg
太愤怒了。我们能做什么呢?GOP 这种故意制造lawsuit的 行为真是天理难容。不知道Gorsche 和kavanaugh 能不能以国家利益为重。。。
Twenty20002020 发表于 2020-10-14 15:38

哈哈,有啥愤怒的,政客都这德行,没一只好鸟,都是以毒攻毒
BubbleBee
回复 1楼BubbleBee的帖子
那为什么民主党不愿意采用可以防止作假的措施呢? 我怀疑两党都有作假的嫌疑,但是民主党更有可能实施,但是不容易被抓获,因为作假主要靠非法移民和底层无业游民,这个民主党有优势。同时投票点要控制在民主党人手里,这样就没有办法查了,像各个城市里,人口多,有都是民主党控制的民主党票仓,太容易作假了
PT8964 发表于 2020-10-14 15:37

有证据就贴证据,别光你怀疑你怀疑,属于自言自语吗?无不无聊
nevergetlost
德州翻蓝? 等待见证历史
兔子过敏
真是贼喊捉贼。
有良心的共和党人都已经不支持Trump了。现在还站在他身后的就是一帮种族主义者+神棍。
Twenty20002020
回复 12楼hammerg的帖子
不是的,不应该是这样的。美国的民主制度曾经是现代民主体制的鼻祖。这里曾经出现像George Washington 那样的人,为了美国的未来选择不连任三届。川普的出现把政治人的标准降的太低太低了。
深深的为美国的未来感到悲哀。。。
幽幽寸草心
这不是纯属扯淡么。 共和党根本就放弃了加州, 那设立假信箱的目的是什么
KAKA12
一天到晚贼喊捉贼,共和党一出谁与争锋?
1) 加州共和党为了扰乱竞选,违法购置了50个假投票箱,放置在 Los Angeles County, Orange County and Fresno County 几个地方,被人发现。GOP已经承认。该行为被地方选举办为非法并勒令停止。
2) 共和党指望各地出现投票纷争,官司一路打到联邦高法,然后利用高法的人数绝对优势、判决有纷争的州的票给川普。川普前段时间之所以号召粉丝去投两次票就是这个动机,他才不在乎他的粉丝真这么干之后得去坐牢
3) 今年德克萨斯有可能翻蓝,所以德州共和党也干了类似的事情:打官司。先是共和党州长把传统的early vote提前一周,然后一波共和党就这个early vote是否合法开始打官司。这个官司目前结果是判这种early vote合法,但共和党很可能把这个官司反复一直打,打到联邦高法,指望联邦高法把early vote的票算成是非法。同一个德州州长,通过法案让投票站不能强制戴口罩,并且前段时间,阴撤撤的把休斯顿harris country一个人口500万的整个地区的投票箱由正常的12个减到1个,就为了最大限度阻止大家投票。动机?因为GOP很清楚,无论是红州蓝州,所有城市人口最多的地方投票结果几乎无一例外是民主党胜出。
4) 为什么共和党一定要赶在这个时候任命高法,以及这个高法候选人Amy为什么死不回答是否支持权力和平过渡,并且昨天再次明确表态过如果选举过程需要高法裁决,她非常乐意这么做 ---- 这是现在进行时。为了讨好男权,她不惜破坏三权分立,和各州GOP扰乱投票的行为遥相呼应,就等着官司打到她那里她好把选票统统裁决给川普。GOP为了川普的连任真拼,连裤子都懒得穿了
新闻source我随手搜的,大家也可以自行google
Fake "official" drop boxes set up by California GOP may be in "violation of state law": official https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fake-official-drop-boxes-set-up-by-california-gop-may-be-in-violation-of-state-law-official/ar-BB19WAMP The California Republican Party has admitted responsibility for placing more than 50 deceptively labeled “official” drop boxes for mail-in ballots in Los Angeles, Fresno and Orange Counties
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ca-gop-ballot-drop-boxes/ Did California Republicans Set Up Fake Ballot Drop Boxes? California Republicans in the fall of 2020 reportedly set up their own drop-off boxes for voters to leave mail-in ballots for the upcoming November general election.  Jordan Tygh, a regional field director for the California GOP, posted on Oct. 8, 2020, a picture of himself posing with thumbs up in front of one of the drop-boxes on Twitter, along with a message encouraging other voters to contact him for details on the drop-box locations. The post has since been deleted, but a cached version was still available as of this writing: The online fury over Tygh’s post and the drop-boxes prompted Snopes readers to ask whether it was true that the California Republicans had installed unofficial mail-in ballot drop-boxes. (And as Tygh’s post indicates, some of them were misleadingly labeled “official.”) It is true — the California GOP has acknowledged that it owns the boxes. And the California secretary of state announced such unauthorized ballot drop-boxes are illegal. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, during an Oct. 12 news conference, said multiple fake drop-boxes had been installed in Fresno, Los Angeles, and Orange counties. Padilla’s office and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued cease-and-desist letters to state and county Republican parties. Ballot collection, sometimes referred to as “ballot harvesting,” is the practice of a voter designating a third party to deliver a mail-in ballot to election officials. It’s legal in many states, including California. What is not legal, according to the Secretary of State’s Office, is posing as an election officer and “handling, counting, or canvassing of any ballots” by anyone who isn’t an election officer. That includes setting up unofficial ballot-collection boxes. Violating the law is a felony that could result in two to four years in prison, if a person is convicted. Election officials ordered California Republicans to remove the unauthorized boxes by Oct. 15, with Becerra warning that his office would take further legal action if needed. “Without equivocation,” the fake drop boxes set up by California Republicans “are illegal,” Becerra stated. “If you participate in those activities, you are knowingly engaging in activity that is against the law,” Becerra said during the news conference. “So please understand what you are doing.” California voters can look up the location of official ballot drop-box locations on the secretary of state’s website. The official drop-boxes are bright yellow and are secured, locked, and monitored round the clock.

Donald Trump’s Encouragement to Vote Twice Could Cause Election Day Chaos https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/donald-trump-vote-twice-election-day-chaos.html

President Donald Trump on Thursday repeated his encouragement to his supporters to vote twice, first by mail and then—if election officials allow—in person. Voting twice—as the president requests—is not only illegal, but a recipe for chaos in November. Perhaps that is exactly the point. Trump defended his call as a way to test the system against voter fraud, but it’s like encouraging his supporters to try to rob the 7-Eleven to make sure that the police can respond adequately to robberies. Speaking briefly to WECT television in Wilmington, North Carolina, on Wednesday, Trump said the following when he was asked if he was confident in North Carolina’s system of allowing people to vote absentee:
They’ll go out and they’ll vote and then they’re going to have to go and check their vote by going to the poll and voting that way because if it tabulates then they won’t be able to do that. So let them send it in, and let them go vote. And if their system’s as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote. If it isn’t tabulated, they’ll be able to vote. So that’s the way it is, and that’s what they should do. …
But send in your ballots, send them in strong, whether it’s solicited or unsolicited. The absentees are fine. We have to work to get them. It means something. And you send them in but go to vote and if they haven’t counted it, you can vote. So, that’s the way I view it.

The president tried to clean up the statement in a series of Thursday morning tweets, suggesting that his supporters who vote by mail should also go to the polling place and only vote if election officials report that their mail-in ballots have not been received. To begin with, it is illegal to attempt to vote twice in an election. This is true under North Carolina and federal law. And it doesn’t matter if one is doing it to “test” the system. In Texas in 2016, as reported by the Washington Post:
Phillip Cook was arrested on Election Day after voting twice. He claimed to be an employee of Trump’s campaign who was testing the security of the electoral system. He wasn’t an employee of the campaign—and the polling location’s security worked perfectly well, it seems.
Trump might have even broken North Carolina law by encouraging the conduct. It is illegal in the state
for any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to do so, in the same primary or election, or to vote illegally at any primary or election.
So are Trump’s comments themselves a criminal inducement to his supporters to illegally vote? Or, in the language of the statute, was Trump by his comments “induc[ing]” with “intent to commit a fraud” a person to vote “more than one time” in “the same …. election”? I think a case could be made that he was. He was encouraging people to vote both by mail and in person. The questionable part is about his intent. It sounds like he was suggesting an attempt at double voting as a means of testing the integrity of the system, or assuring that his voters can cast at least one ballot for him. Is that a fraudulent intent? I could see how a jury could find it to be so especially given Trump’s other statements suggesting he believes that such double voting would not be caught by election officials. Trump could also argue that his statements, which offered nothing of value but only encouragement, were not an “inducement” to vote.
Another possible defense is that Trump was “joking” or not being serious about his comments and this was typical Trumpian hyperbole. Perhaps so, and I do not expect Trump to be prosecuted, but I think many people may hear his comments and think he is serious. This is particularly true given that he repeated the comments the very next day and his attorney general, William Barr, refused to acknowledge that double voting is illegal. And this is the much more important point than whether Trump violated North Carolina law with his statement to WECT. Supporters of his, in North Carolina and elsewhere, could follow his advice and try to vote twice. Those people face potential prosecution for a felony, as the North Carolina State Board of Elections made clear in a Thursday statement, and it is awful for the president to be encouraging illegal conduct.
What’s worse, the comments are going to put a strain on an election system stretched to its limits by trying to conduct a presidential election in the midst of a pandemic and with one of the candidates constantly casting doubt on the election’s legitimacy. Again, this is probably Trump’s real intent. North Carolina, like other states, has systems in place to prevent double voting, such as electronic poll books that let poll workers know if someone showing up to vote has already cast an absentee ballot that has been returned. (It is these checks that slow down the processing of absentee ballots and explain why we might not have results on election night in a close election.)
But these systems are designed under the sensible premise that few people are going to risk felonies and vote twice. It’s the same design for police departments, which would look very different if people were trying to rob every 7-Eleven every day.
Lines are already going to be long in some places on Election Day. The pandemic means it is harder to find poll workers and so there will be polling place consolidations and fewer workers, all contributing to a longer queue. Trump’s suggestion for his supporters to go to a polling place to try to vote twice—and via a complex procedure of trying to get a poll worker to confirm that an absentee ballot has been tabulated, which in some cases it will not have been—will add to those long lines. The lines will be even longer if the voter insists on casting a provisional ballot after having voted by mail. (That provisional ballot won’t be counted if the voter has already voted.) Those long lines will do real damage to an Election Day infrastructure that is already looking stretched to the limits—the ensuing chaos will benefit the candidate claiming that the whole process is rigged no matter what the outcome: Donald Trump. Trump has cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, claiming that voter fraud is widespread in the United States when it is rare. These new statements seem calculated to create more confusion and chaos at the polls—and possibly more actual fraud. It will also cause more people potentially with COVID to congregate at the polls, exactly the opposite of what we need for a safe and fair election during November.

Texas Republicans sue to stop Gov. Greg Abbott's extension of early voting period during the pandemic
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/23/texas-republicans-greg-abbott-early-voting/ State party Chair Allen West, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and members of the Texas Legislature were among those who filed the suit against Abbott. BY PATRICK SVITEK SEPT. 23, 202012 PM
Texas 2020 Elections
The last day to register to vote in Texas is Oct. 5. The last day to request a ballot to vote by mail is Oct. 23. Early voting starts on Oct. 13 and ends Oct. 30. Learn more about voting by mailcheck out our guide on voting during the pandemic and bookmark your Texas ballotMORE IN THIS SERIES  Need to stay updated on coronavirus news in Texas? Our evening roundup will help you stay on top of the day's latest updates. Sign up here. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is facing a lawsuit over his extension of early voting for the November election from prominent members of his own party — including state party Chair Allen West, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and members of the Texas Legislature. In July, Abbott added six days to the early voting period, moving the start date up to Oct. 13 from Oct. 19, citing the coronavirus pandemic. In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday with the state Supreme Court, Abbott's intraparty critics say the move defied election law that requires early voting to start on the 17th day before the election. It is the latest legal challenge to Abbott's emergency powers, which he has wielded aggressively in dealing with the pandemic.
"Governor Abbott seems to have forgotten that the Texas Constitution is not a document that he consults at his convenience," Jared Woodfill, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "It is an uninterrupted charter of governmental structure that limits the Governor Abbott’s ability to act as a king." The plaintiffs argue Abbott needs to consult the Legislature before making such decisions and that "if ever a special session was justified, now is the time."
One of the plaintiffs is Steve Hotze, the Houston conservative activist who has launched several lawsuits against Abbott's coronavirus response that have seen minimal success so far. But in the latest lawsuit, he is joined by not only West and Miller, but also three state senators and four state representatives, as well as the chairman of the Harris County party, Keith Nielsen, and the Republican National Committeeman from Texas, Robin Armstrong. However, after the lawsuit became public, one of the senators list on the suit, Donna Campbell, said she had not agreed to join the challenge. In a letter to Woodfill, the New Braunfels Republican said she disagreed with the "basic construct of the matter" and asked him to remove her name from the lawsuit.
West, who took over the state party this summer, has openly expressed disagreement with aspects of Abbott's coronavirus handling, including his statewide mask mandate and the early voting extension. West seemed to telegraph the lawsuit Tuesday, saying in a statement that he would be partnering with Hotze to make election integrity a "top priority." West said in the same statement that he opposes the "extension of early voting through the decree of a single executive instead of through the legislative process." Abbott's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. In announcing the early voting extension in late July, Abbott said he was giving voters more time to cast ballots in a way that does not contribute to the spread of the virus. Using the same rationale, he previously extended early voting for the July primary runoffs.
Democrats have unsuccessfully fought in the courts to expand mail-in voting this November due to the pandemic. The state Democratic Party reiterated its position Wednesday in response to the lawsuit, saying in a statement that the state "should be expanding early voting and vote-by-mail options, not cutting them."
In addition to making the early voting period longer for the November election, Abbott gave voters more time to turn in their mail-in ballots in person if they choose to do so. Usually those voters are permitted to submit their ballots to the early voting clerk's office in person instead of mailing them in — but only while polls are open on Election Day. Abbott expanded that option to the entire early voting period. The lawsuit filed Wednesday additionally seeks to stop the extended period for submitting mail ballots in person, also calling the move inconsistent with the election code. As for the early voting period, the Texas Election Code calls for it to begin on the 17th day before the election, or if that day falls on a weekend, the period should start on the next weekday. Because the 17th day before this year's November election is a Saturday, the early voting period had been slated to commence the following Monday, Oct. 19. The last day of early voting for the Nov. 3 election remains Oct. 30.


In Senate questionnaire, Barrett won’t pledge to recuse herself from 2020 election cases https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/29/amy-coney-barrett-recuse-election-cases-423248
President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court did not commit to recusing herself from cases related to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to her written responses to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire. Amy Coney Barrett’s responses, obtained by POLITICO on Tuesday night, also provide a window into the breakneck pace at which the White House operated in the aftermath of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, with Barrett revealing that Trump settled on her as his pick just three days after Ginsburg’s death.
Barrett’s statements on her standard for recusals are certain to draw fire from Democrats, who have been pressuring Barrett over the issue as Republicans dismiss their arguments as having no basis. More broadly, Democrats have strongly objected to Senate Republicans’ effort to confirm a new Supreme Court justice this close to the election.
Barrett said she would recuse herself from cases involving her husband, Jesse Barrett, and her sister, Amanda Coney Williams, both of whom are attorneys. Barrett also would recuse herself from cases that include Notre Dame University as a party. Barrett has been a law professor at Notre Dame since 2002. The 48-year-old nominee also said she would step aside from matters in which she participated while serving in her current role as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Top Democrats have called for Barrett to commit to recusing herself from issues that involve the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, given the possibility that the result could be decided by the Supreme Court. Democrats have also accused Trump of seeking to place a loyalist on the high court in the event of a contested election. “The underlying fault here is with the timing, which makes it a sham, but certainly she should recuse herself. In a normal world, there would be no question about it,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) countered that such a request was “absurd.” “There is no legal disqualification. She doesn’t have a legal conflict. She doesn’t decide the election. She’s just a vote like everybody else.” Graham told reporters. “That’s a ridiculous idea that she can’t hear election claims because she was nominated in an election year.”
The questionnaire also revealed new details about the White House’s selection process. According to her responses to the committee, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone contacted Barrett just a day after the death of Ginsburg. Barrett then proceeded to meet with Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Meadows and Cipollone on Sept. 21. Trump offered Barrett the nomination the same day, which she accepted, according to Barrett’s recollection. The president formally nominated her on Saturday, eight days after Ginsburg died. The battle to confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court kicked off in earnest on Tuesday, as she began to meet with a slew of Senate Republicans who are eager to confirm her to the high court before Election Day. The White House is also pushing for a swift confirmation, with Trump calling for there to be nine Supreme Court Justices on the bench in the event of a contested election. Barrett met Tuesday with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), Graham, and several Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Pence, Meadows, Cipollone and Pence’s chief of staff Marc Short accompanied Barrett to the Capitol as she met with GOP senators. Several Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have said they will refuse to meet with Barrett altogether, citing what they view as an “illegitimate” nomination. “We urge our Democratic colleagues in the Senate to take the opportunity to meet with Judge Barrett and, as the hearing goes forward, to provide the kind of respectful hearing that the American people expect,” Pence said ahead of McConnell’s meeting with Barrett. McConnell did not answer questions from reporters about whether Barrett should recuse herself from election-related matters if she is confirmed, as some Democrats have been calling for. Barrett similarly did not answer questions as she cycled through meetings with GOP senators on Tuesday. The Senate is moving swiftly on Barrett’s nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings starting October 12, and Graham suggested over the weekend Barrett’s nomination could be voted out of committee as soon as October 22. Senate Republicans are widely expected to confirm Barrett before the November 3 election, eyeing an October 29 confirmation vote. Barrett has long been a favorite of conservatives. She currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, a position to which the Senate confirmed her in 2017.




BubbleBee 发表于 2020-10-14 15:29

笑死,隔壁有个骂猪党不要脸的。
美国人民真难,选来选去总之都是不要脸的