3 ms·
Fact check article is BS. In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN,
by dukeofdoom 6y ago
Fact check article is BS.
In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF
STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Page 5 aND 6.
"Georgia argues that the “[r]ejection rates for
signatures on absentee ballots remained largely
unchanged” as between the 2018 and 2020 elections,
referring the Court to Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-
cv-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513, at *10 (N.D. Ga.
Nov. 20, 2020) (“Wood”). Georgia Br. 4. Georgia’s
reliance on Wood is misplaced because the analysis
therein related to rejection rates for absentee
ballots—as opposed to the mail-in ballots analyzed by
Dr. Cicchetti"
"Indeed, in 2018, the rejection rate for
mail-in ballots was actually 3.32% or more than
twenty times higher than the rejection rate for the
absentee ballots that Georgia incorrectly compares to
dispute"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/2020...
- codys 6y agoNo, it isn't. It states the issue at hand and gives the facts available to us. The item you've linked (the filing by the Texas AG against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin) is weird. It seems to think there's some serious difference between mail-in and absentee voting in GA. In GA, the term absentee voting encompasses both early voting and mail in voting. The only absentee voting that has signature verification is the mail-in component (IDs are checked instead for early voting). And it appears to make the same "error" you've continued to make: it conflates rejection for signature mismatch and rejection for all reasons, when the signature mismatch rejections are a subset of all reasons.