Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 02, 2020

A federal judge in Texas rejected a GOP-led challenge Monday seeking to invalidate nearly 127,000 drive-thru ballots cast in the Democratic-leaning Houston area.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If at first you don't succeed in disenfranchising your voters then try, try again!

#1 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-11-02 01:45 PM | Reply

What I don't get is why a Federal Judge is involved. State's Rights - amiright? The Texas Supreme Court has thrown these tools to the curb 2 or 3 times now with essentially the same claims.

#2 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-11-02 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hitting the nail on the head:

"Like so many 11th-hour voting-related suits filed by Republicans in recent weeks, this suit has almost nothing to do with voter fraud," Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, wrote in an op-ed published in The Washington Post.

"Rather, it's the latest in a consistent and cynical line of suits " in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, among others " that appear motivated by partisan gain, assuming that the exclusion of any set of ballots from Harris County ... is good for Republicans."

#3 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-11-02 02:56 PM | Reply

"this suit has almost nothing to do with voter fraud"

There have been a pair of suits in recent years in PA. In both cases, the Plantiffs stipulated they couldn't find voter fraud, they wouldn't be offering any proof of voter fraud, and they didn't expect voter ID to have any effect on voter fraud cases in the future. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ahead-of-voter-id-trial-pennsylvania-admits-there-s-no-in- person-voter-fraud No surprise, they lost both.

In Kansas, Kris Kobach (R-Mars) begged the legislature to give him the power to prosecute voter fraud cases, claiming he had "hundreds" of cases to be filed. They did, and after four years and $4 million, Kobach had prosecuted nine cases: almost all in western Kansas (read: heavily Republican), and all but one where someone had either moved and forgot, or was addled and did it by accident. He found ONE case where an illegal had voted. ONE.

Heritage Foundation has a roster of cases over the last 20 years, and the cases can be segregated by state. Oregon, a leader in mail-only voting, didn't even average one per year, and almost all of them were petition fraud/counter fraud. Next came addled voters, and finally, a smattering of folks purposely committing fraud. Even that number was skewed by three idiots from the same family.
www.heritage.org

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-02 03:09 PM | Reply

My apologies for the link
talkingpointsmemo.com

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-11-02 03:10 PM | Reply

The federal judge has just ruled that the plaintiff's 'lacked standing' and denied their case.

OCU

#6 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-11-02 03:40 PM | Reply

Federal Judge Rejects Bid to Toss Texas Drive-Through Votes
www.bloomberg.com

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-11-02 03:40 PM | Reply

@#6

:)

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-11-02 03:41 PM | Reply

The appeal to the Supreme Court should be exciting!

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-11-02 03:42 PM | Reply

@#9

It may go to the federal appeals court first. Reputedly, that appeals court is very conservative.


#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-11-02 03:52 PM | Reply

What I don't get is why a Federal Judge is involved. State's Rights - amiright? The Texas Supreme Court has thrown these tools to the curb 2 or 3 times now with essentially the same claims.

Why? Federalism. The federal case raises constitutional issues that I don't think were raised in the state case. If they were, the Texas Supreme Court did not rule on the merits, it simply refused the request for emergency temporary relief just as this court has done. No matter what a state court does federal courts always have jurisdiction over cases and controversies that arise under the constitution.

The plaintiff's can opt to go to the Fifth Circuit or can go directly to the Supreme Court. Expect the same result in either event.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2020-11-02 04:06 PM | Reply

They gave it their best shot. Some people just don't know how to take no for an answer.

The Pubs lost their case in Nevada, too. They tried to force signature verification by hand instead of machine.

Whoopie ~ So much winning. ~ LOL

#12 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-11-02 04:15 PM | Reply

#4

Totally irrelevant to any thing raised in the three cases about drive-through voting in Harris County.

Plus, you should update your talking points. There have been a half dozen, or more, cases brought in this election cycle raising "voter fraud." Everyone of them has been rejected for lack of evidence.

#13 | Posted by et_al at 2020-11-02 04:19 PM | Reply

American exceptionalism on full display. Exceptional stupidity.

#14 | Posted by chuffy at 2020-11-02 04:20 PM | Reply

What I don't get is why a Federal Judge is involved. State's Rights - amiright? The Texas Supreme Court has thrown these tools to the curb 2 or 3 times now with essentially the same claims.
#2 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE AT 2020-11-02 02:53 PM

One of the primary legal theories Republicans are using to throw out votes in 2020 is that state elections officials' implementation of emergency elections procedures to accommodate the Covid-19 pandemic is unconstitutional on a federal level because a highly literal reading of Article I Section IV only provides the "legislature" the power to determine the time, place and manner of federal elections.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2020-11-02 04:37 PM | Reply

I would also point out that I wouldn't put it beyond the Trump administration to have intentionally allowed Covid to be as bad as possible, working in accord with Republican-run state legislatures who refuse to change their elections laws to accommodate the virus, to bait these state officials into doing this so the election results can be attacked in federal court.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2020-11-02 04:39 PM | Reply

The federal case raises constitutional issues that I don't think were raised in the state case.

#11 | Posted by et_al

And what Constitutional issues were that, that when given the chance to vote while sitting in a car, the average American will inadvertently vote for the Democratic candidate? But if they had been allowed to stand in line for five hours in the hot Texas sun, they would have naturally voted for the Republican, eh?

OCU

#17 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-11-02 04:51 PM | Reply

The Pubs lost their case in Nevada, too. They tried to force signature verification by hand instead of machine.

Whoopie ~ So much winning. ~ LOL

#12 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

HA! HA!

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-11-02 05:03 PM | Reply

The plaintiff's have appealed the denial of the temporary injunction. www.courtlistener.com

Insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

#19 | Posted by et_al at 2020-11-02 07:34 PM | Reply

The court has issued it's written opinion. The intrigue is not over.

The case is now on appeal at the 5th Circuit (No. 20-20574) where I expect the case to similarly fail.

There is one wrinkle that gives me pause. District Court Judge Hanen opined that state law authorization for voting ON election day using drive thru voting is illegal under Texas Law even if pre-election day voting was allowed. He only rejected an injunction as to election day because of the standing problems. He did not appear to order that ballots cast in drive-thru on election day be segregated, as seemed possible from the oral report of the hearing.

It's unlikely drive-thru votes on election day would not be accepted, but it is at least conceivable that the 5th Circuit or another court could order drive-thru ballots segregated for further legal proceedings. For this reason, I would strongly caution against using this method of voting on Election Day.

electionlawblog.org

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2020-11-02 09:56 PM | Reply

"The intrigue is not over."

You mean shenanigans. Of course not. They are going to be relentless in attempting to undermine voting. The law is not the on the side of the cheaters. The courts are onto Trumpy and his schemes to create chaos in our elections.

Mostly because he speaks out loud and tells everyone the part he is supposed to keep secret about his campaigns last ditch effort to undermine the elections. Especially in key states like PA.

Ain't gonna work Trumpy. The AG, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania is ready and waiting for you.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-11-02 11:02 PM | Reply

But it looks like it might work in Texas. They are shutting down the car voting. So that votes won't get caught in trumps web.

They need a Josh Shapiro there in Texas right now.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-11-02 11:42 PM | Reply

#22

Hollins is once again proactively protecting voting rights. Seems a prudent thing to do given the district court's ruling and the the Fifth Circuit's record on elections cases this cycle. The county will still have about 800 voting sites available to anyone anywhere in the county today, up from 122 during early voting. Just 9 less options. If it were me I would not risk using the 1 drive through site nor would I recommend anyone else use that option even though the parking garage at Toyoto Center is undoubtedly a "building."

#23 | Posted by et_al at 2020-11-03 01:16 AM | Reply

The Fifth Circuit has already denied the emergency motion for an injunction filed by Republicans. They have now requested en banc review.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2020-11-03 10:43 AM | Reply

Operation "voter chaos" is not going very well for Republicans. Americans are voting in droves anyway. In spite of Republicans best efforts to stop them.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-11-03 10:52 AM | Reply

www.msn.com

All but one drive-through voting site in Harris County closed amid Texas legal battle

A Houston-area county clerk announced late Monday that he would close almost all drive-thru voting sites on Election Day, hours after a federal judge ruled against Republican plaintiffs who sought to throw out 127,000 ballots cast by drive-thru voting in the Democratic-leaning county.

In a series of tweets announcing the decision, Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins (D) wrote that he "cannot in good faith encourage voters to cast their votes in tents if that puts their votes at risk."

#26 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-11-03 11:53 AM | Reply

Surprise to anyone? Dems have been wanting illegal votes to count for almost 2 decades now. They actually have it as part of their strategy. It's stated very plainly in multiple sources. The question is if they are illegal or not. So far, there is evidence some are. Not nearly the whole 127k but enough that warrants suspicion. Of, if you are a Dem, warrants embracement because you have to cheat at all costs to win.

#27 | Posted by humtake at 2020-11-03 12:11 PM | Reply

Where's the evidence, HUMTAKE?!

#28 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-11-03 12:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort