3 ms·

That was already the case. This "rule" is not any kind of change in process, it's just a formal acknowledgement that the situation you're describing can happen.

by teraflop 10mo ago

That was already the case. This "rule" is not any kind of change in process, it's just a formal acknowledgement that the situation you're describing can happen. Why do you think that acknowledgement is a problem?

rbanffy 10mo ago
Would a ballot received before the deadline, but postmarked a day later, still be counted? If not, why not, if it was received before the deadline?
- teraflop 10mo ago
  You're muddying the waters by using the word "received". The instant in time at which your letter is technically "received" by the USPS, in the sense of them having physical possession, has never mattered for any legal purposes whatsoever. That's because in many cases, there is absolutely no physical proof of exactly what instant in time that event happened. Electoral rules aren't written based on when the USPS received your ballot, because that's typically unprovable. They're either based on when the ballot was delivered to the election office, or when the ballot was postmarked. The postmarking may happen at some point while the piece of mail is in USPS custody, or it may not happen at all if you don't specifically ask for it. The rules are based on the postmark date because the postmark date is the only available documentary evidence of the date of mailing. Again, this is not a change in policy, it's merely documenting the way the mail system has always worked.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > Electoral rules aren't written based on when the USPS received your ballot, because that's typically unprovable Has anyone challenged their ballot being rejected by producing video showing them putting the ballot in an envelope and putting said envelope in a mailbox?
    - CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
      No, and to do so would be to challenge the law itself since the laws are written with reference to postmark date. Perhaps ironically, video evidence has been used to invalidate ballots. In 2023, a CT judge invalidated the results of the Democratic primary, finding "ballot stuffing" in that 1,253 absentee ballots were submitted at Bridgeport dropboxes despite surveillance video only showing 420 people using the boxes. A new Democratic primary was ordered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Bridgeport,_Connecticut_mayoral_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Bridgeport,_Co...
ofalkaed 10mo ago
Right, this is how it has always been, if you wanted to insure a postmark you HAD to go into the post office and ask, otherwise there is are no promises, even if you mail it a week in advance it might not get a postmark.

rbanffy 10mo ago

Would a ballot received before the deadline, but postmarked a day later, still be counted? If not, why not, if it was received before the deadline?

teraflop 10mo ago
You're muddying the waters by using the word "received". The instant in time at which your letter is technically "received" by the USPS, in the sense of them having physical possession, has never mattered for any legal purposes whatsoever. That's because in many cases, there is absolutely no physical proof of exactly what instant in time that event happened. Electoral rules aren't written based on when the USPS received your ballot, because that's typically unprovable. They're either based on when the ballot was delivered to the election office, or when the ballot was postmarked. The postmarking may happen at some point while the piece of mail is in USPS custody, or it may not happen at all if you don't specifically ask for it. The rules are based on the postmark date because the postmark date is the only available documentary evidence of the date of mailing. Again, this is not a change in policy, it's merely documenting the way the mail system has always worked.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > Electoral rules aren't written based on when the USPS received your ballot, because that's typically unprovable Has anyone challenged their ballot being rejected by producing video showing them putting the ballot in an envelope and putting said envelope in a mailbox?
  - CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
    No, and to do so would be to challenge the law itself since the laws are written with reference to postmark date. Perhaps ironically, video evidence has been used to invalidate ballots. In 2023, a CT judge invalidated the results of the Democratic primary, finding "ballot stuffing" in that 1,253 absentee ballots were submitted at Bridgeport dropboxes despite surveillance video only showing 420 people using the boxes. A new Democratic primary was ordered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Bridgeport,_Connecticut_mayoral_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Bridgeport,_Co...

ofalkaed 10mo ago

Right, this is how it has always been, if you wanted to insure a postmark you HAD to go into the post office and ask, otherwise there is are no promises, even if you mail it a week in advance it might not get a postmark.