Still not late. Did they meet the state’s requirement for a valid ballot? Yes.
Not late.
9 Likes
8 Likes
12 Likes
I wonder how hard it would be, hypothetically of course, to start a #BoycottTheVote movement among the right-wingers. 
3 Likes
Electoral College updates page counting certifications rather than projections
4 Likes
10 Likes
The letter she sent is a real trip, especially the implied “by the way, just in case you do actually lose, you’re on the hook for all this money, so keep your receipts” at the end.
ETA: and here comes the “I SHIT MYSELF ON PURPOSE” to counter Emily’s claims of total operational independence…
11 Likes
Yes. In addition to the “receipts” thing you mentioned, there’s that little dig of, “contrary to reports, I have not been showing favoritism, however, I have received threats if I did not act prematurely…”
8 Likes
Could you unpack that for me? My understanding is that the claim in this case was specifically about ballots arriving after the date specified by the Election Code.
I don’t see any reason not to refer to those as l’ate arriving’.
Everyone agrees they did arrive after that date, the question is whether the courts had the power to allow them to be counted nonetheless.
Have I missed something there?
1 Like
the reference i believe @DukeTrout was making had to do with trumpist shills who called all ballots arriving after election day despite pre-election postmarks as being “late-arriving”. as long as they were postmarked by election day, they were not late or even late-arriving since every election ballots, especially military ballots, routinely arrive after the election day and have always been counted and never considered exceptional.
the only reason any of this became an issue this year was because trump could never get his head around the idea that democrats would ask people to vote by mail, even though historically mail-in voting favored republican candidates, as a safety measure due to the pandemic. he decided it was some sort of trick and the rest is history.
7 Likes
Well, that was precisely the question, wasn’t it?
The state’s Election Code says mail-in ballots have to be returned to Boards by 8pm on Election Day.
That’s pretty specific.
The courts decided that they had powers to extend that deadline in emergency situations that had this pandemic qualified.
The appeal was (amongst other things) about whether they were entitled to make that decision.
Either way the ballots arrived after the date specified in the legislation.
I agree that there is plenty of reason to dislike the term in relation to other states with other rules but in this case, it seems apt.
1 Like
This varies by state. Many have a “post marked by, arriving by” kind of dual standard. Therefore, if the the ballot is postmarked by election day and arrives by the stated date it is not “late arriving.” There are a few that are properly postmarked but have been delayed and arrived after the assigned date. These are the “late arriving” ballots that the courts involved themselves in. They are also a very small number, far too small to affect the outcome, so not at all certain why there is such a huge issue, other than to sow FUD.
5 Likes
I get that. But again, this state does not have that rule.
I’d say mostly that. If I had to ascribe some rational motive to it, I’d say it’s either to get the SC to rule that they can and will intervene in state decision on how they run their elections or conversely to get them to say they won’t.
If they can get either then the hope would be that in case A, they can get the SC to rule their way in future cases. Or in case B, Republican-“governed” states can make voting as difficult as they like without court intervention.
I think case B is the point with the PA “late” ballots. The state had made rules. The legislature couldn’t/wouldn’t agree on extending that deadline so the Secretary went to the courts to get an order extending the deadline.
If you can get a ruling that that is not possible, then you’ve massively increased the possibility for future legislative fuckery/ gridlock.
1 Like
The Supreme Court did rule.
6 Likes
When your strategy is “We can’t win if the voters vote”, you have a Bad Strategy!
11 Likes
bad positions, policies, candidates, grounding in reality, etc, etc, etc.
9 Likes
Well yes. Except what they decided was not to grant a stay of the PA Supreme Court ruling. They didn’t rule on the merits.
They didn’t say the PA courts could and they didn’t say they couldn’t.
1 Like
That’s if they are dropped off, not mailed. Ballots submitted by mail must be postmarked by 8 PM on Nov 3, and received by the elections board by Nov 6. That’s what was set up by the state prior to the election. Check votespa.com
So what the Trump team has been contesting are not late votes, not by the rules of the state that everyone (who matters) agreed to before the election. No backsies.
ETA: Again, the Nov 6 deadline for receipt of mail in ballots by the election board as long as they were postmarked by 8PM on Nov 3 was the law and the standard prior to the election. The Election Day deadline was only for “mail-in” ballots returned directly to the election board, not ones that were mailed.
6 Likes
Their decision was to let the lower court ruling stand. That’s a decision that carries the force of law.
If you want to argue that the Supreme Court needs to revise its precedent and procedures to suit you before a decision is seen by you as valid - you’re welcome too try and persuade them.
That was a decision initiated from a decision by the PA Supreme Court. Who are the final word on state law if the feds decide that they won’t grant review.
6 Likes
And really- it’s a moot point as the number of ballots in question wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
Edit
PA just certified the results!
7 Likes
