4 ms·
The Trump team did take this to court before the election, but they were denied on the basis of the "injury" only being hypothetical at that time... So they co
by dukeofdoom 6y ago
The Trump team did take this to court before the election, but they were denied on the basis of the "injury" only being hypothetical at that time...
So they couldn't successfully sued before, and now they are told that its too late. Something very dishonest from the courts about that.
Your own personal anecdote confirms that people's signatures change overtime. Hence more should have been rejected.
- sjwright 6y agoRelying on—and rejecting votes using—a poor method of voter identification is voter suppression. A signature shouldn't be used for identification matching but rather as akin to the signing of an affidavit.
- dukeofdoom 6y agoAccepting votes that do not have matching signatures, is diluting the votes that do have matching signatures. Why should a person that voted in person, in a more secure way, have their votes diluted by a mailed in ballot that does not meet a minimum standard of security, and consequently are much more likely to be fraudulent. 1. Signature match is the minimum filter to prevent outright fake ballots. 2. I believe there was a procedure for rectifying a rejected mail-in ballot. The person still could have voted, if they sent in their ballot on time, and rectified any mistakes. 3. Mail-in ballots are really an assault on the right to a "secret ballot". There really is no guarantee that the mail-in ballot was filled out in secret. An abusive husband could for example coarse his wife to vote a certain way. A union boss, could coarse his workers to vote a certain way...and so on. This has happened in the past.