Pennsylvania votes

[Bob78164]

At the behest of the Republican Party, thousands of votes already cast by legitimate Pennsylvania voters are being ignored. Why? Because those voters neglected to write a date on the envelope containing their vote.

Let's be clear about this. There's no question these voters are eligible to vote. There's no question these votes were cast on time because it's before Election Day and the votes are already in the possession of election officials. This is nothing more than an effort to use technicalities to disenfranchise voters who have every right to be heard. (I understand a federal lawsuit is in the offing, on the ground that the attempt to disqualify the votes is contrary to federal law.)

Would someone care to explain to me how disenfranchising thousands of eligible Pennsylvania voters is good for democracy? --Bob

[BackInTex]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

[tlynn78]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

Rules are for fools, right?

[Bob78164]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

So you think that votes cast by eligible voters during the voting period should be disenfranchised for failure to pass a latter-day literacy test. Got it.

I could understand enforcing this rule if the ballot didn't arrive until after Election Day. You know that the votes are legitimate because ballots aren't available before the voting period begins. Miranda warnings are required because of a long history of police extracting confessions from defendants who didn't know their rights, so a bright-line prophylactic rule was necessary. There is a history of suppressing votes, but despite lots of effort to find it, there is no history of people voting illegally in any significant numbers. --Bob

[tlynn78]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

So you think that votes cast by eligible voters during the voting period should be disenfranchised for failure to pass a latter-day literacy test. Got it.

I could understand enforcing this rule if the ballot didn't arrive until after Election Day. You know that the votes are legitimate because ballots aren't available before the voting period begins. Miranda warnings are required because of a long history of police extracting confessions from defendants who didn't know their rights, so a bright-line prophylactic rule was necessary. There is a history of suppressing votes, but despite lots of effort to find it, there is no history of people voting illegally in any significant numbers. --Bob

This was already an issue in earlier elections. Why do predominantly dems have such a hard time following instructions, especially when it is a known issue?

[Spock]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

So you think that votes cast by eligible voters during the voting period should be disenfranchised for failure to pass a latter-day literacy test. Got it.

I could understand enforcing this rule if the ballot didn't arrive until after Election Day. You know that the votes are legitimate because ballots aren't available before the voting period begins. Miranda warnings are required because of a long history of police extracting confessions from defendants who didn't know their rights, so a bright-line prophylactic rule was necessary. There is a history of suppressing votes, but despite lots of effort to find it, there is no history of people voting illegally in any significant numbers. --Bob

This was already an issue in earlier elections. Why do predominantly dems have such a hard time following instructions, especially when it is a known issue?

Good question-TGirl-especially considering that in the next breath Bob will be telling us how stupid Republican voters are-etc etc.

[Bob78164]

Note that no one is addressing my actual question -- how is it good for democracy to use this literacy test to disregard votes timely cast by eligible voters? --Bob

[jarnon]

Election reform was enacted in 2019 by the Republican assembly and signed by Democratic governor Wolf, in a rare display of bipartisan common sense. Then came coronavirus and Trump's attacks on absentee voting, and the GOP repudiated their own bill. There are plenty of defects in the law, most of them more serious than the stupid dating rule. I accept it with its flaws, considering what a disaster the 2020 election would have been without it.

[Spock]

Actually, it kind of looks like Bob is trying to set the stage so he can be an Election Denier (apparently, the worst of all possible political sins) if things don't go his way tomorrow.

[Bob78164]

Actually, it kind of looks like Bob is trying to set the stage so he can be an Election Denier (apparently, the worst of all possible political sins) if things don't go his way tomorrow.

I just want all votes timely cast by eligible voters to be counted without forcing them to pass a literacy test. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

So you think that votes cast by eligible voters during the voting period should be disenfranchised for failure to pass a latter-day literacy test. Got it.

I could understand enforcing this rule if the ballot didn't arrive until after Election Day. You know that the votes are legitimate because ballots aren't available before the voting period begins. Miranda warnings are required because of a long history of police extracting confessions from defendants who didn't know their rights, so a bright-line prophylactic rule was necessary. There is a history of suppressing votes, but despite lots of effort to find it, there is no history of people voting illegally in any significant numbers. --Bob

The situation isn't quite as simple as it's been set forth in this thread. There was a 2021 election for several judgeships in Lehigh County and ballots were disqualified for the same reason. Several plaintiffs filed suit in Federal Court saying that the so-called Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act prohibits any “person acting under color of law [from] deny[ing] the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission . . . if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such voter is qualified . . . to vote in such election. The Third Circuit reversed the District Court and determined that omitting the date was not material and also that aggrieved voters had a right to bring the suit in Federal Court. Subsequently, a Pennsylvania state court came to the same conclusion. The U.S. Supreme Court then vacated the Third Circuit opinion as moot due to the state court decision. The recent decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would overrule that state trial court decision but would not be binding on a federal court. Perhaps sensing that there's going to be a case filed in federal court very soon, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered that any disqualified ballots be preserved pending the outcome of the federal litigation.

[Bob Juch]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

Have you ever heard of a postmark?

[BackInTex]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

Have you ever heard of a postmark?

Yes. That shows the date an envelope was process by the post office. It doesn’t mean anything other than the contents were prepared sometime before that nor does it indicate by whom.

[Bob Juch]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

Have you ever heard of a postmark?

Yes. That shows the date an envelope was process by the post office. It doesn’t mean anything other than the contents were prepared sometime before that nor does it indicate by whom.

The signature on the inner envelope indicates who voted.

[silverscreenselect]

There have already been two lawsuits filed in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that enforcing the date rule would violate the Civil Rights Act as I described earlier. The Fetterman campaign has joined one of those lawsuits. Some of the local election offices are contacting voters whose ballots have been flagged to give them an opportunity to correct the problems in person today.

In Georgia, Cobb County officials determined that approximately 1,000 voters who requested absentee ballots never received them. The state court issued an order requiring Cobb to overnight those ballots to the remaining voters and to accept all of those ballots that were postmarked today and received by November 14 (normally, ballots must be received by the end of business today to be counted). Cobb County officials had determined that only 276 ballots remained. The other voters had voted early.

There is also a potential nightmare scenario developing in Georgia if the vote counts are delayed for any reason. A runoff election will be held on December 6 for any election in which a candidate doesn't receive 50% of the vote. A runoff is very possible in the Senate race and also possible in the other statewide races, including governor, thanks to Libertarian candidates. Early voting for the runoff is supposed to begin next Monday, and absentee ballots are supposed to go out "as soon as possible." Needless to say, if any of these elections is extremely tight for the 50% threshold, they won't be able to print and send out ballots until those matters are resolved.

[Weyoun]

Do you have a list of rules that are OK to ignore? Are any of them your line in the sand?

Obviously there is a reason for the dates, probably to make sure the votes are not only cast before the deadline but not before the voting period begins. How would you know if an undated envelope wasn’t cast in September?

Rules are there for a reason. Same with letting a criminal off because he wasn’t read his rights before giving a confession. Even if he’d been arrested 100 times and read his rights 99 of those times.

So you think that votes cast by eligible voters during the voting period should be disenfranchised for failure to pass a latter-day literacy test. Got it.

I could understand enforcing this rule if the ballot didn't arrive until after Election Day. You know that the votes are legitimate because ballots aren't available before the voting period begins. Miranda warnings are required because of a long history of police extracting confessions from defendants who didn't know their rights, so a bright-line prophylactic rule was necessary. There is a history of suppressing votes, but despite lots of effort to find it, there is no history of people voting illegally in any significant numbers. --Bob

This was already an issue in earlier elections. Why do predominantly dems have such a hard time following instructions, especially when it is a known issue?

I am interpreting this as saying, “Tlynn thinks black people can’t read, so black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”

If a vote is FRAUDULENT, then it shouldn’t count. If a vote is a double vote, it shouldn’t count.

Seems like these votes were intended to be legitimate and can be easily interpreted, so they should count, assuming we believe in the Constitution and all.

Before the usuals pile on, I’ll note that I voted in person today. In the governor’s race, I voted for the Democrat Shapiro, whose previous experience suggests he’ll govern in a balanced manner and not favor corporate interests, over the Christian fascist and election denier Doug Mastriano.

In the Senate race, I voted for the charlatan who ultimately stands for nothing, Mehmet Oz, over Fetterman, who historically has been too soft on crime for me, but more importantly I have severe reservations about his health and fitness to serve based on the stroke.

So that’s where we are at as a country. A pox on everyone.

[silverscreenselect]

In another twist in Pennsylvania, in response to a Republican lawsuit, the Philadelphia elections board voted to change its vote-counting procedures. Mail-in votes will not be counted until officials determine that the voter had not also voted in person. This will delay the counting of any Philadelphia mail-in ballots substantially, and those are likely to skew heavily Democratic, making the early totals considerably more favorable for Republicans.

[tlynn78]

So you think that votes cast by eligible voters during the voting period should be disenfranchised for failure to pass a latter-day literacy test. Got it.

I could understand enforcing this rule if the ballot didn't arrive until after Election Day. You know that the votes are legitimate because ballots aren't available before the voting period begins. Miranda warnings are required because of a long history of police extracting confessions from defendants who didn't know their rights, so a bright-line prophylactic rule was necessary. There is a history of suppressing votes, but despite lots of effort to find it, there is no history of people voting illegally in any significant numbers. --Bob

This was already an issue in earlier elections. Why do predominantly dems have such a hard time following instructions, especially when it is a known issue?

I am interpreting this as saying, “Tlynn thinks black people can’t read, so black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”

If a vote is FRAUDULENT, then it shouldn’t count. If a vote is a double vote, it shouldn’t count.

Seems like these votes were intended to be legitimate and can be easily interpreted, so they should count, assuming we believe in the Constitution and all.

Before the usuals pile on, I’ll note that I voted in person today. In the governor’s race, I voted for the Democrat Shapiro, whose previous experience suggests he’ll govern in a balanced manner and not favor corporate interests, over the Christian fascist and election denier Doug Mastriano.

In the Senate race, I voted for the charlatan who ultimately stands for nothing, Mehmet Oz, over Fetterman, who historically has been too soft on crime for me, but more importantly I have severe reservations about his health and fitness to serve based on the stroke.

So that’s where we are at as a country. A pox on everyone.

Tuck in that racism, boo, it's flapping around like your misogyny.

[Weyoun]

This was already an issue in earlier elections. Why do predominantly dems have such a hard time following instructions, especially when it is a known issue?

I am interpreting this as saying, “Tlynn thinks black people can’t read, so black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”

If a vote is FRAUDULENT, then it shouldn’t count. If a vote is a double vote, it shouldn’t count.

Seems like these votes were intended to be legitimate and can be easily interpreted, so they should count, assuming we believe in the Constitution and all.

Before the usuals pile on, I’ll note that I voted in person today. In the governor’s race, I voted for the Democrat Shapiro, whose previous experience suggests he’ll govern in a balanced manner and not favor corporate interests, over the Christian fascist and election denier Doug Mastriano.

In the Senate race, I voted for the charlatan who ultimately stands for nothing, Mehmet Oz, over Fetterman, who historically has been too soft on crime for me, but more importantly I have severe reservations about his health and fitness to serve based on the stroke.

So that’s where we are at as a country. A pox on everyone.

Tuck in that racism, boo, it's flapping around like your misogyny.

The misogyny comment is inapt. I’ll admit that, when grouping the board’s somewhat bigoted soft fascists, I view you as a sort of Spock the Lesser. But that’s more an intellectual thing - he’s plainly more well read than you - and not a gender consideration.

[jarnon]

Why do predominantly dems have such a hard time following instructions, especially when it is a known issue?

I am interpreting this as saying, “Tlynn thinks black people can’t read, so black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”

I had the same reaction to Bob#’s repetition of “literacy test.”

The voter signs and dates the outer envelope to affirm that this is a legitimate vote. It’s not an undue burden and nothing like the old racist literacy tests.

The courts have to decide what voting rules are arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair.

In the Senate race, I voted for the charlatan who ultimately stands for nothing, Mehmet Oz, over Fetterman, who historically has been too soft on crime for me, but more importantly I have severe reservations about his health and fitness to serve based on the stroke.

Fetterman made multiple speeches this week and sounds fine. And he pointed out: “In January I’ll be much better, and Oz will still be a fraud.”

[Weyoun]

Why do predominantly dems have such a hard time following instructions, especially when it is a known issue?

I am interpreting this as saying, “Tlynn thinks black people can’t read, so black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”

I had the same reaction to Bob#’s repetition of “literacy test.”

The voter signs and dates the outer envelope to affirm that this is a legitimate vote. It’s not an undue burden and nothing like the old racist literacy tests.

The courts have to decide what voting rules are arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair.

In the Senate race, I voted for the charlatan who ultimately stands for nothing, Mehmet Oz, over Fetterman, who historically has been too soft on crime for me, but more importantly I have severe reservations about his health and fitness to serve based on the stroke.

Fetterman made multiple speeches this week and sounds fine. And he pointed out: “In January I’ll be much better, and Oz will still be a fraud.”

A 90 year old guy was knocking on the doors of our street this week to let folks know they needed to sign the outer envelope too. He was fuming mad about it all. While I understand the importance of regulations, the Big Regulation - the whole reason we are bothering - is that it’s good for people to vote. It it can be shown that a vote does all the things a vote is supposed to, then I don’t see why, after some sorting and inconvenience, these votes should be disallowed.

Oz will still be a fraud. The Democrats should have pulled a McCaskill and vowed to let someone else take Fetterman’s seat (maybe not his oddball wife). As it is, his debate performance was awful, and I am not convinced at this point he’ll be anything more than a vessel for his staffers to push their agendas… which is also the big knock on empty suit Dr. Oz.

[silverscreenselect]

The voter signs and dates the outer envelope to affirm that this is a legitimate vote. It’s not an undue burden and nothing like the old racist literacy tests.

The courts have to decide what voting rules are arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair.

Except that's not what the Civil Rights Act says. The test isn't whether rules are arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair. It's whether they are material in determining whether such voter is qualified . . . to vote. The presence or absence of a date, or an incorrect date is not material in determining whether a voter is qualified or whether the vote is timely cast. The Third Circuit already ruled on this and the federal courts where the lawsuits are pending will in all probability adopt the Third Circuit's reasoning again.

[Beebs52]

In the Senate race, I voted for the charlatan who ultimately stands for nothing, Mehmet Oz, over Fetterman, who historically has been too soft on crime for me, but more importantly I have severe reservations about his health and fitness to serve based on the stroke.


Weyoun, I applaud your honesty. Of course, it undermines any high ground you feel you had against former Trump voters. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme.

[Weyoun]

In the Senate race, I voted for the charlatan who ultimately stands for nothing, Mehmet Oz, over Fetterman, who historically has been too soft on crime for me, but more importantly I have severe reservations about his health and fitness to serve based on the stroke.


Weyoun, I applaud your honesty. Of course, it undermines any high ground you feel you had against former Trump voters. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme.

I’m gathering you’re suggesting that it’s hypocritical of me to say that, after voting for Biden?

But Trump is also old and not in great mental health, with all sorts of examples of that, so that whole issue was always going to be a wash.

[Beebs52]

In the Senate race, I voted for the charlatan who ultimately stands for nothing, Mehmet Oz, over Fetterman, who historically has been too soft on crime for me, but more importantly I have severe reservations about his health and fitness to serve based on the stroke.


Weyoun, I applaud your honesty. Of course, it undermines any high ground you feel you had against former Trump voters. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme.

I’m gathering you’re suggesting that it’s hypocritical of me to say that, after voting for Biden?

But Trump is also old and not in great mental health, with all sorts of examples of that, so that whole issue was always going to be a wash.

My point was we all make choices at a particular point in time that aren't necessarily happymaking for the long run. But are better than the alternative.