They are just going to stop counting when Trump has the lead on 11/20 and cite Bush v Gore?
3 Likes
Isnāt the ballgame here to intentionally not get the recount done by the certification deadline?
I also imagine Trumpers challenging every single mail in vote a la Florida 2000.
Iām getting shook.
1 Like
7 Likes
Well thatās just bullshit.
By Bush v Gore rules, the original count would stand if the recount is halted.
I know LOL PRECADENTS and all
2 Likes
I think itās even more LOL PRECEDENTS than usual, because unless Iām mistaken, the ruling in Bush v. Gore specifically stated that it shouldnāt be used as a precedent in any future case. I might be misremembering something, though.
2 Likes
Elections probably already rigged.
Biden won despite rigging.
Typical Republican incompetence.
10 Likes
Lol these fucking people. iāM dOnE wItH mEdIcInE tHeY cAnāT cUrE eVeRy DiSeAsE!! If they can isolate the misses to SENIORS then that chops down the range of theories about the error quite a bit.
Lol read the meme again.
Yes Bush v Gore was very LOL. They basically said you canāt do a recount (or not do a recount) in all these different counties with different standards and all that because Equal Protection. Which then begged the question, well what about the major differences in voting rules already in existence across states and counties. So SCOTUS had to say, this Equal Protection claim only applies in this exact situation and shouldnāt be referenced as precedent for other cases.
1 Like
Does the actual first count have special legal status or could Kemp ignore it and only sign the āauditā declaring it to be Georgiaās official count?
Georgia SoS made it clear that the result of the hand recount will be the official results.
It really doesnāt matter at this point, the ārulesā are obviously completely out the window if they try.
So GA does have auditable machines with a paper trail now?
Otherwise what does āhand recountā mean?
I didnāt think so. I wouldnāt be surprised if theyāre just auditing the mail-ins.
The state has jurisdiction over most election matters. Thereās an argument that Equal Protection means that standards should be uniform within a jurisdiction (i.e. between counties within a single state) but not across separate jurisdictions (different states). Whether the states should be the top-level jurisdiction for elections is a separate political question that the courts should not resolve.
Of course, Bush v Gore was about picking a desired result, then coming up with the least contorted reasoning.