3 ms·

It's hard to discern just what side of the issue you're on. In any case, if your beef is with decisions of the courts, the linked article is not about that but

It's hard to discern just what side of the issue you're on. In any case, if your beef is with decisions of the courts, the linked article is not about that but the investigations of the staff of a Republican attorney general. That staff, not the courts: stated "virtually all claims of error and malfeasance were unfounded" "systematically refuted accusations of widespread fraud and made clear that none of the complaining parties — from state lawmakers to self-styled “election integrity” groups — had presented any evidence to support their claims." "did not uncover any criminality or fraud having been committed in [early ballot handling and verification] during the 2020 general election." stated "virtually all allegations [of improper signature verification, misuse of drop boxes and incomplete access to records] had been deemed unfounded" "did not find that the county had mishandled ballots" stated “No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.” emphasized that, “no evidence of election fraud, manipulation of the election process, or any instances of organized/coordinated fraud was provided by any of the complaining parties.” "reported that three high-profile Republican officials — who had publicly made fantastical claims of fraud — did not reiterate those assertions under questioning by agents, when they were subject to a state law prohibiting false reporting to law enforcement."

lettergram 4y ago
You’re kind of making my point, I don’t care what staffers say — all these parties are opposed to one another already in court and politically. My beef is that none of this was litigated in a jury trial and that claims are dismissed via legal methods imposed by judges. For instance, before the election stuff is dismissed as “no injury” after the election it’s “no way to rectify”. Just debate the issue publicly; present the evidence from both sides (not hearsay, which is all this article is). I’m frustrated because a “democracy” only functions when the vast majority of the citizens feel empowered. Currently approximately half of the population feels disempowered. That’s a recipe for disaster and I’d like someone to adjudicate the issues before what happens next.
- blacksqr 4y ago
  > You’re kind of making my point As I said in the first sentence of my post, it's hard to discern your position exactly, so I'm not surprised. > none of this was litigated in a jury trial To get a jury trial, you have to state an actionable claim of damages backed by evidence, which plaintiffs largely failed to do. In general plaintiffs didn't ask for jury trials, but for injunctions, for which one has to make a case to a judge. Juries don't issue injunctions. > claims are dismissed via legal methods imposed by judges In the case brought by Kari Lake, not by judges, but Arizona law, which requires that challenges to existing election procedures be brought before the election. Lake brought hers after the election. Ergo, dismissed. > hearsay, which is all this article is An official document release by the current attorney general of an investigation done by the attorney general's office. The opposite of hearsay: direct reports by the people who did the investigation. > a “democracy” only functions when the vast majority of the citizens feel empowered. What's more empowering than being able to vote? Which the released report as well as Arizona court cases showed citizens were able to do freely and fairly. > I’d like someone to adjudicate the issues "adjudicate" = "have a judge decide". Which has happened dozens of times, all claims disproven and dismissed.
- aw1621107 4y ago
  > For instance, before the election stuff is dismissed as “no injury” after the election it’s “no way to rectify”. Are there cases where the same plaintiff got the same claims dismissed before an election due to lack of injury-in-fact issues and after due to lack of remedy? Off the top of my head, there weren't such cases - pre-election challenges and post-election challenges were generally by different plaintiffs who brought different claims, so dismissals due to standing or laches can make perfect sense. Also, did you mean the doctrine of laches by "no way to rectify"? They're technically two distinct issues - the latter is a prong for standing (along with injury-in-fact), and the former was not an uncommon sight in post-election challenges.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > For instance, before the election stuff is dismissed as “no injury” after the election it’s “no way to rectify”. You have to be more specific here. The way you're describing it, sure, that may sound unfair. But let's look at what was being claimed before the election. Then, lawsuits were about restricting which votes could be counted and when. The Trump campaign and Republicans were very concerned about drop box votes, which they felt could potentially be fraudulent. Mind you, they didn't bring evidence that the votes were fraudulent. There were just theories that they could be, and therefore should be summarily rejected. Cases like these were rightly dismissed, because they didn't state an actual injury, and they didn't even provide evidence of a potential injury. You can't sue for anything with no evidence and expect to win. The net result of accepting the Trump campaign's claims at face value would be to disenfranchise voters without any evidence their votes should be discarded or made harder to cast. Weighing definitive disenfranchisement against potential and unspecified voter fraud leans in favor of the latter. As for "no way to rectify" after the election, that's not quite true. There are processes within each state to challenge their individual elections after they are held. The Trump campaign went through that process and lost. One main reason they lost is they didn't allege any fraud in court. Think about that for a moment. The entire Trump campaign and the GOP apparatus was on TV, all day, every day from November to January claiming fraud. But when standing in front of a judge, they demurred. Why? The obvious answer is because they didn't have proof of their claims. If they did, they would have provided it. But they didn't have proof, so they didn't make the claim in a court of law where it would have legal ramifications, unlike TV. Moreover, when the relief they wanted was untenable. They wanted things like entire elections to be thrown out after they were certified. They wanted to rerun the entire presidential election at the national level. There's just not mechanism to effectuate what they wanted to happen, which is they wanted the courts to install Trump as POTUS over the will of the electorate. Indeed, there's no way to rectify their perceived injury, and telling them as such shouldn't cause a beef in anyone who has followed the state-level recounts and audits. Because the Trump campaign lied, and anyone who still is pushing the idea the 2020 election was stolen from Trump was lied to, or is still lying to this day.

lettergram 4y ago

You’re kind of making my point, I don’t care what staffers say — all these parties are opposed to one another already in court and politically. My beef is that none of this was litigated in a jury trial and that claims are dismissed via legal methods imposed by judges. For instance, before the election stuff is dismissed as “no injury” after the election it’s “no way to rectify”. Just debate the issue publicly; present the evidence from both sides (not hearsay, which is all this article is). I’m frustrated because a “democracy” only functions when the vast majority of the citizens feel empowered. Currently approximately half of the population feels disempowered. That’s a recipe for disaster and I’d like someone to adjudicate the issues before what happens next.

blacksqr 4y ago
> You’re kind of making my point As I said in the first sentence of my post, it's hard to discern your position exactly, so I'm not surprised. > none of this was litigated in a jury trial To get a jury trial, you have to state an actionable claim of damages backed by evidence, which plaintiffs largely failed to do. In general plaintiffs didn't ask for jury trials, but for injunctions, for which one has to make a case to a judge. Juries don't issue injunctions. > claims are dismissed via legal methods imposed by judges In the case brought by Kari Lake, not by judges, but Arizona law, which requires that challenges to existing election procedures be brought before the election. Lake brought hers after the election. Ergo, dismissed. > hearsay, which is all this article is An official document release by the current attorney general of an investigation done by the attorney general's office. The opposite of hearsay: direct reports by the people who did the investigation. > a “democracy” only functions when the vast majority of the citizens feel empowered. What's more empowering than being able to vote? Which the released report as well as Arizona court cases showed citizens were able to do freely and fairly. > I’d like someone to adjudicate the issues "adjudicate" = "have a judge decide". Which has happened dozens of times, all claims disproven and dismissed.
aw1621107 4y ago
> For instance, before the election stuff is dismissed as “no injury” after the election it’s “no way to rectify”. Are there cases where the same plaintiff got the same claims dismissed before an election due to lack of injury-in-fact issues and after due to lack of remedy? Off the top of my head, there weren't such cases - pre-election challenges and post-election challenges were generally by different plaintiffs who brought different claims, so dismissals due to standing or laches can make perfect sense. Also, did you mean the doctrine of laches by "no way to rectify"? They're technically two distinct issues - the latter is a prong for standing (along with injury-in-fact), and the former was not an uncommon sight in post-election challenges.
ModernMech 4y ago
> For instance, before the election stuff is dismissed as “no injury” after the election it’s “no way to rectify”. You have to be more specific here. The way you're describing it, sure, that may sound unfair. But let's look at what was being claimed before the election. Then, lawsuits were about restricting which votes could be counted and when. The Trump campaign and Republicans were very concerned about drop box votes, which they felt could potentially be fraudulent. Mind you, they didn't bring evidence that the votes were fraudulent. There were just theories that they could be, and therefore should be summarily rejected. Cases like these were rightly dismissed, because they didn't state an actual injury, and they didn't even provide evidence of a potential injury. You can't sue for anything with no evidence and expect to win. The net result of accepting the Trump campaign's claims at face value would be to disenfranchise voters without any evidence their votes should be discarded or made harder to cast. Weighing definitive disenfranchisement against potential and unspecified voter fraud leans in favor of the latter. As for "no way to rectify" after the election, that's not quite true. There are processes within each state to challenge their individual elections after they are held. The Trump campaign went through that process and lost. One main reason they lost is they didn't allege any fraud in court. Think about that for a moment. The entire Trump campaign and the GOP apparatus was on TV, all day, every day from November to January claiming fraud. But when standing in front of a judge, they demurred. Why? The obvious answer is because they didn't have proof of their claims. If they did, they would have provided it. But they didn't have proof, so they didn't make the claim in a court of law where it would have legal ramifications, unlike TV. Moreover, when the relief they wanted was untenable. They wanted things like entire elections to be thrown out after they were certified. They wanted to rerun the entire presidential election at the national level. There's just not mechanism to effectuate what they wanted to happen, which is they wanted the courts to install Trump as POTUS over the will of the electorate. Indeed, there's no way to rectify their perceived injury, and telling them as such shouldn't cause a beef in anyone who has followed the state-level recounts and audits. Because the Trump campaign lied, and anyone who still is pushing the idea the 2020 election was stolen from Trump was lied to, or is still lying to this day.