SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›843 »

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

skeleton warrior posted:

You responded to my link with a link that literally repeats what I said and contradicts your point.

I would encourage you to read more about the issue. There is absolutely no question that if the recount had continued, Gore would have won. This has been proven exhaustively - regardless of the standards used or which types of votes were ultimately considered, Gore would have won. The Florida Supreme Court was already moving forward on the issue and the full recount was actively occuring. The only way Republicans could win at that point was to cancel the recount, which is what they did.

quote:

Based on the NORC review, the media group concluded that if the disputes over the validity of all the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 60 to 171 votes (with, for each punch ballot, at least two of the three ballot reviewers' codes being in agreement). The standards that were chosen for the NORC study ranged from a "most restrictive" standard (accepts only so-called perfect ballots that machines somehow missed and did not count, or ballots with unambiguous expressions of voter intent) to a "most inclusive" standard (applies a uniform standard of "dimple or better" on punch marks and "all affirmative marks" on optical scan ballots).[4]

An analysis of the NORC data by University of Pennsylvania researcher Steven F. Freeman and journalist Joel Bleifuss concluded that, no matter what standard is used, after a recount of all uncounted votes, Gore would have been the victor.[35] Such a statewide review including all uncounted votes was a tangible possibility, as Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, whom the Florida Supreme Court had assigned to oversee the statewide recount, had scheduled a hearing for December 13 (mooted by the U.S. Supreme Court's final ruling on the 12th) to consider the question of including overvotes. Subsequent statements by Lewis and internal court documents support the likelihood that overvotes would have been included in the recount.[75] Florida State University professor of public policy Lance deHaven-Smith observed that, even considering only undervotes, "under any of the five most reasonable interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court ruling, Gore does, in fact, more than make up the deficit".[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts

# ? Jul 7, 2022 21:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 12:16

moose47: Oct 11, 2006

As bad a decision as Bush v. Gore was, the decision to grant the stay three days earlier was even worse. At least with the main opinion, if you squint hard enough you can kind of see the equal protection violation alleged (as even two of the liberals did). But granting a stay solely because the ongoing counting of legal votes might flip the count to Gore and cause irreparable harm to Bush�s legitimacy was asinine.

# ? Jul 7, 2022 21:40

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Kaal posted:

Bribery, public corruption, fraud, racketeering, election interference, and official misconduct are all standard crimes, whether folks want to recognize that or not.

Rather than repeatedly making this point you could actually try to lay out specifically, not just gesturing vaguely to decisions you don�t like, but specifically how you find these crimes were committed. You know, like the Department of Justice would have to, let alone jurors trying to convince each other.

# ? Jul 7, 2022 21:58

Grip it and rip it: Apr 28, 2020

yronic heroism posted:

Rather than repeatedly making this point you could actually try to lay out specifically, not just gesturing vaguely to decisions you don�t like, but specifically how you find these crimes were committed. You know, like the Department of Justice would have to, let alone jurors trying to convince each other.

That wouldn't be wielding power

# ? Jul 7, 2022 22:04

skeleton warrior: Nov 12, 2016

Kaal posted:

I would encourage you to read more about the issue. There is absolutely no question that if the recount had continued, Gore would have won. This has been proven exhaustively - regardless of the standards used or which types of votes were ultimately considered, Gore would have won. The Florida Supreme Court was already moving forward on the issue and the full recount was actively occuring. The only way Republicans could win at that point was to cancel the recount, which is what they did.

Again, only under a standard that the courts would have to rule for a statewide recount with a uniform standard, which your own quote describes as only "a tangible possibility", because no one in the Gore campaign or the state government was asking for it.

So, to wit: the Florida state government would have, in response to the Gore campaign request for a limited recount, responded by demanding a full, state-wide recount; and then that recount would have had to have been conducted in a timely enough manner to report results by the deadline.

None of that would have happened except in fantasies, fantasies akin to "and then Clinton would have sent in the FBI and the Republican SC judges would all get thrown in jail for life and everyone would think that was fair and correct and not the end of the republic".

# ? Jul 7, 2022 22:11

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

yronic heroism posted:

Rather than repeatedly making this point you could actually try to lay out specifically, not just gesturing vaguely to decisions you don’t like, but specifically how you find these crimes were committed. You know, like the Department of Justice would have to, let alone jurors trying to convince each other.

Sounds like something Gores JD could have spent a long time working on if he wasn't couped.

Explaining it away repeatedly doesn't make any of it less actually corrupt.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 7, 2022 22:18

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

skeleton warrior posted:

Again, only under a standard that the courts would have to rule for a statewide recount with a uniform standard, which your own quote describes as only "a tangible possibility", because no one in the Gore campaign or the state government was asking for it.

So, to wit: the Florida state government would have, in response to the Gore campaign request for a limited recount, responded by demanding a full, state-wide recount; and then that recount would have had to have been conducted in a timely enough manner to report results by the deadline.

None of that would have happened except in fantasies, fantasies akin to "and then Clinton would have sent in the FBI and the Republican SC judges would all get thrown in jail for life and everyone would think that was fair and correct and not the end of the republic".

No offense but this is just looking at the thin veneer of legitimacy that they used to excuse this and then going "Well, looks legit to me". Yes it is true there was no path to a full statewide recount because the system is rigged in many ways. But it's also true a full state wide recount if it had been allowed would have declared a Gore victory.

The disagreement here isn't really if a statewide recount was possible because it was. It was physically possible and that's all that matters to decide if it was possible. The disagreement is if the laws binding a recount from being possible should have been considered legitimate or not. You have landed on the answer of yes, the supreme court was right then to uphold those laws and not force a state wide recount even though in hindsight we know Gore would have won that. Along with that then is that right wing tactics to stop votes were not enough to create exceptional circumstances that would justify changing the recounts or deadlines.

# ? Jul 7, 2022 22:27

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

skeleton warrior posted:

Again, only under a standard that the courts would have to rule for a statewide recount with a uniform standard, which your own quote describes as only "a tangible possibility", because no one in the Gore campaign or the state government was asking for it. So, to wit: the Florida state government would have, in response to the Gore campaign request for a limited recount, responded by demanding a full, state-wide recount; and then that recount would have had to have been conducted in a timely enough manner to report results by the deadline. None of that would have happened except in fantasies, fantasies akin to "and then Clinton would have sent in the FBI and the Republican SC judges would all get thrown in jail for life and everyone would think that was fair and correct and not the end of the republic".

You seem to have a poor grasp of how the Florida election system worked in 2000, because you keep conflating different things that were going on at different times. The election campaigns were expected to ask for specific recounts for different counties, and did so until the Florida courts started escalating the scale of the recounts as it became clear the election issues were systemic. You seem confused about the basic fact that the court already ordered a statewide recount that was underway and was deliberating over the specifics of how it would be interpreted. Fundamentally it seems like you just can't handle the reality that Gore won the election so the Republicans overturned it, and you're throwing ideas around in the hopes that something will justify that. You've been getting more and more erratic to interact with, and I'm not sure how useful it is to continue. It's a little wild to interact with a rabid Bush fan in 2022, but there you go.

quote:

On December 8, the Florida justices, by a 4�3 vote, rejected the selective use of manual recounts in just four counties and ordered immediate manual recounts of all ballots in the state where no vote for president had been machine-recorded, also known as undervotes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Recount

And also in case anyone still thinks that this was just some sort of sour grapes argument, there has been extensive research into why exactly polling support for Gore seemed to evaporate on election day. Basically Republicans systematically disenfranchised Black people in Florida, while Democrats did their typical ineffectual bullshit and let it happen. The vote was rigged by the Republican Secretary of State as much as possible, and then they shut down the election as soon as they could. There was nothing free or fair about it, and everyone agrees that it stole a presidency, and yet we still have folks complaining that even investigating those responsible would amount to a fascist coup that would be the "end of the Republic". When progressive Democrats complain about centrists simply not being their allies, this is exactly what they're talking about. And while this stuff might seem like old news, it should be seen as a preview of what Republicans are planning for 2024, because it's going to be this sort of thing all over the country.

quote:

During the recount, controversy ensued with the discovery of various irregularities that had occurred in the voting process in several counties. Among these was the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot", which resulted in an unusually high number of votes for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan. Conservatives claimed that the same ballot had been successfully used in the 1996 election;[16] in fact, it had never been used in a Palm Beach County election among rival candidates for office.[17]: 215�216 Also, before the election, the Secretary of State's office had expunged tens of thousands of citizens identified as felons from the Florida voting rolls, with African-Americans identified on some counties' lists at up to five times their share of the population. Democrats claimed that many of these were not felons and should have been eligible to vote under Florida law.[18] It was expected that had they been able to vote, most would have chosen the Democratic candidate.[19] Additionally, this Florida election produced many more "overvotes" than usual, especially in predominantly African-American precincts in Duval County (Jacksonville), where some 21,000 ballots had multiple markings, such as two or more choices for president. Unlike the much-discussed Palm Beach County butterfly ballot, the Duval County ballot spread choices for president over two non-facing pages.[20] At the same time that the Bush campaign was contesting hand recounts in Democratic counties, it accepted hand recounts in Republican counties that gained them 185 votes, including where Republican Party workers had been permitted to correct errors on thousands of applications for absentee ballots for Republicans.[21]

Political commentator and author Jeff Greenfield observed that the Republican operatives in Florida talked and acted like combat platoon sergeants in what one called "switchblade time", the biggest political fight of the century. On the other hand, he said, Democrats talked like referees with a fear of pushing too hard, not wanting to be seen as sore losers.[17]: 221�234
While Democrats did make their way down to Florida, there was nothing like the certainty or the passion that ignited Republicans. The only exception: African-Americans. For all the furor over Palm Beach, it was black precincts where voters had been turned away, denied a ballot because some had been mislabeled as felons, blocked from voting because of bureaucratic bungles, or because the huge increase in black turnout had overwhelmed local officials. For those with memories going back four decades, all this was no accident. It was instead a painful reminder of the days when the battle for the ballot was, literally, a life-and-death matter. At an NAACP-sponsored hearing in Miami four days after the election, prospective voters told of police cars blocking the way to the polls, of voters harassed by election workers. It was anecdotal evidence at best, and local authorities argued persuasively that the police presence near a polling place was pure coincidence. Such explanations did little to lessen the sense of anger among black Democrats.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Recount

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jul 7, 2022

# ? Jul 7, 2022 22:50

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

If Clinton ordered the US Marshals to detain the Supreme Court and annull their ruling, the future of the US presidency would no longer be dependent on the intricacies of the Florida recount process. It would only be dependant on whether the US military backed the Commander in Chief or the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, and most state governors.

What's bizarre is the understanding of American politics which is practical/realpolitik enough to understand that the Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush in 2000, but idealistic enough to think that Clinton could take the whole thing down with only the tools and procedures necessary to take down a low-level judge who takes bribes from private prisons.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jul 7, 2022

# ? Jul 7, 2022 23:23

Nuevo: May 23, 2006; Fun Shoe

Civilized Fishbot posted:

If Clinton ordered the US Marshals to detain the Supreme Court and annull their ruling, the future of the US presidency would no longer be dependent on the intricacies of the Florida recount process. It would only be dependant on whether the US military backed the Commander in Chief or the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, and most state governors.

Most likely Gore would up dead.

Annulling the ruling doesn't make Gore president, it just lets the recount continue, at which point the actual will of the people makes Gore president.

# ? Jul 7, 2022 23:54

ilkhan: Oct 7, 2004; I LOVE Musk and his pro-first-amendment ways. X is the future.

Nuevo posted:

Annulling the ruling doesn't make Gore president, it just lets the recount continue, at which point the ~~actual will of the people makes Gore~~ recount in progress makes Bush president.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 00:03

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Nuevo posted:

Annulling the ruling doesn't make Gore president, it just lets the recount continue, at which point the actual will of the people makes Gore president.

The problem is the enormous constitutional crisis that would result from Clinton ordering US Marshals to detain the Supreme Court. Which would be condemned by both houses of congress and most state governors as an outrageous act of tyranny against their rightful constitutional president, George W. Bush. They'd be joined by the half of the country that really did vote for Bush. And the vast majority of business interests would side against Clinton because his decision would cause an unprecedented market crash.

So the question is, when the military has to enforce domestic order, are they doing it for Clinton and Gore or for Bush and everyone else who's powerful in America?

If Clinton had tried to arrest the entire Supreme Court because they were going to rule against his party, he would end up dead or in prison forever. At that point the game was lost

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jul 8, 2022

# ? Jul 8, 2022 00:05

shirunei: Sep 7, 2018; I tried to run away. To take the easy way out. I'll live through the suffering. When I die, I want to feel like I did my best.

Kaal posted:

And also in case anyone still thinks that this was just some sort of sour grapes argument, there has been extensive research into why exactly polling support for Gore seemed to evaporate on election day.......

Weirdly a bunch of words to say Eli�n Gonz�lez and the subsequent election day loss of 100k+ Cuban Americans.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 00:07

is pepsi ok: Oct 23, 2002

Civilized Fishbot posted:

The problem is the enormous constitutional crisis that would result from Clinton ordering US Marshals to detain the Supreme Court. Which would be condemned by both houses of congress and most state governors as an outrageous act of tyranny against their rightful constitutional president, George W. Bush. They'd be joined by the half of the country that really did vote for Bush. And the vast majority of business interests would side against Clinton because his decision would cause an unprecedented market crash.

So the question is, when the military has to enforce domestic order, are they doing it for Clinton and Gore or for Bush and everyone else who's powerful in America?

If Clinton had tried to arrest the entire Supreme Court because they were going to rule against his party, he would end up dead or in prison forever. At that point the game was lost

Lmao why do you keep posting your made up fantasies like anyone cares? Whole lot of posts ITT are obviously starting from a point of "the status quo is always correct and normalcy is a goal unto itself" and then working backwards from there.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 8, 2022 01:35

Nuevo: May 23, 2006; Fun Shoe

shirunei posted:

Weirdly a bunch of words to say Eli�n Gonz�lez and the subsequent election day loss of 100k+ Cuban Americans.

...Cuban Americans lean Republican though.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 01:49

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Nuevo posted:

...Cuban Americans lean Republican though.

Just because they lean Republican doesn�t mean that upsetting them can�t affect you.

�Bendixen estimates that President Clinton got 35 percent of the Cuban-American vote in Florida in 1996. In 2000, Gore drew less than 20 percent.�

(Source)

# ? Jul 8, 2022 02:04

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

quote="Nuevo" post="524690794"]
...Cuban Americans lean Republican though.
[/quote]

They aren't voting for a Cuban American elector who wins by a plurality and had things effectively locked, but throwing their votes into the same Florida piles as every else

# ? Jul 8, 2022 02:11

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

is pepsi ok posted:

Lmao why do you keep posting your made up fantasies like anyone cares? Whole lot of posts ITT are obviously starting from a point of "the status quo is always correct and normalcy is a goal unto itself" and then working backwards from there.

Because it frustrated me to see someone say "Clinton should have had US Marshals shut down the supreme court" as if it would be just like arresting a random corrupt judge. The wild idealism about what that would accomplish is beyond Sorkinesque

# ? Jul 8, 2022 05:14

Senor Tron: May 26, 2006

I wonder what the ages are of people saying it, because it can be hard to appreciate just how different things felt 22 years ago.

Heck, 20 years ago leading up to the invasion of Iraq most of the the discussion was framed around UN Resolutions and the like, with it considered outrageous that the US was looking to invade without UN approval. Decorum was still much more of a politically relevant thing at the turn of the century.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 05:37

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; I'm helping!

I remember Michael Moore writing that Gore and Bush agreed with each other more often than not. Politics felt like lower stakes during the End of History, when America was destined to cruise into the prosperous future.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 05:48

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

Chamale posted:

I remember Michael Moore writing that Gore and Bush agreed with each other more often than not. Politics felt like lower stakes during the End of History, when America was destined to cruise into the prosperous future.

We should have seen OKC and Colombine as tastes of what was to come. We were very dumb.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 06:28

Barrel Cactaur: Oct 6, 2021

Main Paineframe posted:

Talking about what McConnell or Trump would do as a hypothetical doesn't make much sense, considering that they spent time in power where we saw exactly what they would do. The GOP won a federal trifecta in 2016, yet we didn't see either Trump or McConnell carrying out corruption investigations into liberal Supreme Court justices, and we didn't see Trump rolling in the US Marshals to jail them on some shoddy pretext. Trump eagerly appealed to the courts to intervene in the 2020 election, and none of them played along. The fact that even Donald Trump failed to overturn the election, despite his total lack of respect for decorum and his openly expressed intention to overturn the election, suggests that the ability of the executive branch to intervene in the result of a presidential election after the fact is actually extremely limited after all.

Throwing out precedent is what the Supreme Court does. Sure, theoretically they're supposed to respect precedent. But realistically, the reason everyone cares so much more about the Supreme Court than the lower courts is because it has the ability to overturn precedent and effectively legislate from the bench, changing decades or even centuries of constitutional law with the stroke of a pen. This is the power the Supreme Court is famous for - and it's one that's widely seen as legitimate. That's how they were able to issue rulings like Roe and Obergefell. So the idea that overturning precedent and existing law makes the Supreme Court illegitimate doesn't really land well with me.

People didn't care that much about the difference between the Dem president and the GOP president back then. This was before 9/11, before Trump, before the Tea Party. It was only a few years into the Republican Revolution, and the the triangulating New Democrats still dominated the Dems. Despite the Clinton impeachment, the era of bipartisanship and Senators crossing the aisle was still not that far in the past. George W. Bush was not widely regarded as the vanguard of an openly fascist movement, and expecting people to have reacted as though he was is extremely anachronistic.

These overturns have tended toward granting rights or upholding protections. The pushback now is using the court to withdraw rights and break protections. Roe was weak but using a government job to promote religion directly breaks an explicit protection. It's literally allowing people to use state power to establish religious practice.

Timeless Appeal posted:

Miscarriages according to these people should be a national health crisis. You could wave it away by parodying them with some "God's will poo poo," but that's not how we treat real people when they get sick or at risk.

Some of these people literally do do that when their kids get sick. Reject all care but faith healing for the kid. Occasionally basic nursing slips through. It's basically child abuse but lots of states let it happen.

Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jul 8, 2022

# ? Jul 8, 2022 07:25

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

Gore got more votes than Bush in the state of Florida.

These people are the biggest loving babies.

https://twitter.com/dlippman/status/1545357451234615298?s=20&t=1BRqjDvKMjMtSwuSnPqqeA

# ? Jul 8, 2022 13:21

BonoMan: Feb 20, 2002; Jade Ear Joe

Does the right to congregate and eat dinner explicitly exist in the constitution? I must have missed that amendment.

And what is with the attempt to dismiss everything as "politics?"

Yes. It's politics. That's literally your job. You are a politician. Rules are created by politicians. Politics directly affects peoples lives. Your politics have consequences. Those consequences themselves are politics.

If you don't like politics then get the gently caress out of politics!!

# ? Jul 8, 2022 13:37

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

BonoMan posted:

Does the right to congregate and eat dinner explicitly exist in the constitution? I must have missed that amendment.

And what is with the attempt to dismiss everything as "politics?"

Yes. It's politics. That's literally your job. You are a politician. Rules are created by politicians. Politics directly affects peoples lives. Your politics have consequences. Those consequences themselves are politics.

If you don't like politics then get the gently caress out of politics!!

It's the restaurant that's dismissing things as politics and invoking the right to eat dinner, not Kavanaugh. So far, Kavanaugh doesn't seem to have commented on the events at all, and there's no indication that he even personally saw the protesters (at least one other patron there at the time apparently didn't).

https://twitter.com/AndyBCampbell/status/1545379685760204801

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:08

BonoMan: Feb 20, 2002; Jade Ear Joe

Main Paineframe posted:

It's the restaurant that's dismissing things as politics and invoking the right to eat dinner, not Kavanaugh. So far, Kavanaugh doesn't seem to have commented on the events at all, and there's no indication that he even personally saw the protesters (at least one other patron there at the time apparently didn't).

https://twitter.com/AndyBCampbell/status/1545379685760204801

No, I know. But I'd be willing to bet that anyone spouting that line is absolutely a "laws are for thee and not for me" conservative.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:12

gregday: May 23, 2003

https://twitter.com/MollyBeck/status/1545395474437373954

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:36

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

gregday posted:

https://twitter.com/MollyBeck/status/1545395474437373954

well, shoot.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:41

Crows Turn Off: Jan 7, 2008

gregday posted:

https://twitter.com/MollyBeck/status/1545395474437373954

Why?

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:50

Devor: Nov 30, 2004; Lurking more.

Crows Turn Off posted:

Why?

Because they help Democrats. I can't speak to the pretense, though

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:52

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Crows Turn Off posted:

Why?

Because they�re used disproportionately by Democrats

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:52

Nuevo: May 23, 2006; Fun Shoe

Crows Turn Off posted:

Why?

Because it gives their side an advantage?

I'm sure they made up some facade of legal reasoning around it but it doesn't matter.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:53

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

Crows Turn Off posted:

Why?

Probably a robot decision, like many conservative decisions that trample over common sense and basic principles of rights and fairness.

Something like "beep boop beep, the election law does not clearly and specifically say this is allowed, so it is not, I don't care if you have a good reason for it, beep boop beep"

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:54

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Crows Turn Off posted:

Why?

I don�t see a link to the ruling, but it sounds like a technical ruling on the wording of a statute.

quote:

Writing for the majority, Justice Rebecca Bradley said state law does not permit drop boxes and only state lawmakers may make that policy � not the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which issued guidance to clerks allowing them.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...gal/7829047001/

Basically I think it�s:

https://twitter.com/colonative2nd/status/1545399703591862273?s=21&t=G2ibM9sQATVDURqKPUahcw

https://twitter.com/charlie_mas/status/1545405356863635456?s=21&t=G2ibM9sQATVDURqKPUahcw

Edit: actual ruling https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=542617

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jul 8, 2022

# ? Jul 8, 2022 14:57

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

And the important part:

quote:

�3 The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Wisconsin voters.3 The court declared the documents were administrative rules, which had not been properly promulgated, and, among other things, "the use of [ballot] drop boxes, as described in the [documents], is not permitted under Wisconsin law unless the drop box is staffed by the [municipal] clerk and located at the office of the clerk or a properly designated alternate site under Wis. Stat. � 6.855." The circuit court also issued a permanent injunction, requiring WEC to rescind the documents and enjoining WEC from issuing further interpretations of law in conflict with the court's order. An appeal followed, and we granted the Wisconsin voters' petition to bypass the court of appeals.4
�4 We hold the documents are invalid because ballot drop boxes are illegal under Wisconsin statutes. An absentee ballot must be returned by mail or the voter must personally deliver it to the municipal clerk at the clerk's office or a designated alternate site. We do not address whether the documents constitute unpromulgated administrative rules because the documents are invalid regardless.
�5 The circuit court declared: (1) "an elector must personally mail . . . his or her own absentee ballot"; and (2) only two lawful methods for casting an absentee ballot pursuant to Wis. Stat. � 6.87(4)(b)1. exist, one of which is "for the elector to place the envelope containing the ballot in the mail[.]" The documents do not address whether voters who mail an absentee ballot must personally place the ballot into a mailbox or if a voter's agent may do so. We therefore do not decide at this time whether the law permits a voter's agent to place an absentee ballot in the mail on the voter's behalf.

Dissent says:

quote:

216 I turn next to the substance of the majority/lead
opinion's statutory interpretation.8 Even assuming Teigen has standing to bring this claim, the majority/lead opinion falters in its examination of the relevant statutes.

217Wisconsin Stat. �6.87 addresses absentee voting
procedure. Subd. (4)(b)1., specifically at issue here, provides in relevant part: "The envelope shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots."
�218 In the majority/lead opinion's view, "[n]othing in the statutory language detailing the procedures by which absentee ballots may be cast mentions drop boxes or anything like them." Majority/lead op., �54. Further, it interprets the phrase "to the municipal clerk" to mean "mailing or delivering the absentee ballot to the municipal clerk at her office" or an alternate site under Wis. Stat. � 6.855. Id., �62.
�219 The majority/lead opinion's interpretation of Wis. Stat. � 6.87(4)(b)1. ignores an important distinction. Section 6.87(4)(b)1. uses the phrase "municipal clerk." It does not say "municipal clerk's office."
�220 This is important because elsewhere the Wisconsin Statutes are replete with references to the "office of the municipal clerk," the "office of the clerk," or the "clerk's office." Not only is such an "office" referenced, but it is specified as a place where a delivery or an action takes place. See, e.g., Wis. Stat. �� 5.81(3) (discussing ballots and envelopes "voted in person in the office of the municipal clerk"); 6.18 (requiring that a form "shall be returned to the municipal clerk's office"); 6.32(2) (setting forth that an elector "appear at the clerk's office"); 6.855(2) (addressing the display of a notice "in the office of the clerk"); 12.035(3)(d) (discussing a "building containing the office of the municipal clerk").9
�221 From these statutes we can take the principle that the office of the municipal clerk is a location. Indeed, a person "appear[s]" at a location. See Wis. Stat. � 6.32(2). That the "office of the municipal clerk" refers to a location is confirmed by the fact that the statutes refer to it as "contain[ed]" within a "building." See Wis. Stat. � 12.035(3)(d).
�222 We also know that a "municipal clerk" under the statutes is distinct from the "office of the municipal clerk," because "municipal clerk" is specifically defined as "the city clerk, town clerk, village clerk and the executive director of the city election commission and their authorized representatives." Wis. Stat. � 5.02(10). In other words, the "municipal clerk" is a person, and the "office of the municipal clerk" is a location.
�223 "If a word or words are used in one subsection but are not used in another subsection, we must conclude that the legislature specifically intended a different meaning." Responsible Use of Rural and Agr. Land v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2000 WI 129, �39, 239 Wis. 2d 660, 619 N.W.2d 888. If the legislature wanted to require return of a ballot to the clerk's office, it certainly could have done so, as it did in the litany of provisions using such language. See, e.g., Southport Commons, LLC v. DOT, 2021 WI 52, �31, 397 Wis. 2d 362, 960 N.W.2d 17 (indicating that when the legislature wants to accomplish an object in a manner used in other areas of the statutes, "it knows how to do so").
�224 But the legislature did not do that. Instead, it indicated that the ballot be delivered "to the municipal clerk," not to the clerk's office. Conflating "municipal clerk" with "office of the municipal clerk" is not��as the majority/lead opinion claims��the "fairest interpretation" of the statute. See majority/lead op., �62. Instead, it is a rank distortion of the statutory text.
�225 Can delivery to a drop box constitute delivery "to the municipal clerk?" Absolutely. A drop box is set up by the municipal clerk, maintained by the municipal clerk, and emptied by the municipal clerk. This is true even if the drop box is located somewhere other than within the municipal clerk's office. As stated, the "municipal clerk" in the statutes is a person, and the "office of the municipal clerk" is a location.

Just skimming it�s 168 pages. Regardless, the Wisconsin state legislature is supermajority Republican so their voting statutes are going to be terrible.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 15:07

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

hobbesmaster posted:

https://twitter.com/charlie_mas/status/1545405356863635456?s=21&t=G2ibM9sQATVDURqKPUahcw

Can blue heavily populated counties just spend a bunch of money for a few weeks on temps to open dropoff locations everywhere?

# ? Jul 8, 2022 15:13

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Has to be at a staffed location? Put the boxes at various 24/7 stores and announce that some employees are volunteer staff.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 15:20

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

Rigel posted:

Can blue heavily populated counties just spend a bunch of money for a few weeks on temps to open dropoff locations everywhere?

Does the statute say the staff have to be human?

# ? Jul 8, 2022 15:22

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Crows Turn Off posted:

Why?

Because state law specifies in some detail how absentee ballots can be returned, and ballot drop boxes do not clearly fit any of the cases described in state law. The disagreement between the majority and the dissent mostly turns on pedantic definition stuff like "what exactly qualifies as 'in person'?" and "does this particular mention of 'municipal clerk' refer to the clerk's office or to the clerk themselves?".

Devor posted:

Because they help Democrats. I can't speak to the pretense, though

haveblue posted:

Because they�re used disproportionately by Democrats

Nuevo posted:

Because it gives their side an advantage?

I'm sure they made up some facade of legal reasoning around it but it doesn't matter.

Rigel posted:

Probably a robot decision, like many conservative decisions that trample over common sense and basic principles of rights and fairness.

Something like "beep boop beep, the election law does not clearly and specifically say this is allowed, so it is not, I don't care if you have a good reason for it, beep boop beep"

If you don't know and haven't read the decision, then this is nothing more than your preconceptions. It's not really much of an answer to what was presumably a serious question.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 15:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 12:16

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

hobbesmaster posted:

Just skimming it�s 168 pages. Regardless, the Wisconsin state legislature is supermajority Republican so their voting statutes are going to be terrible.

Remember how Kennedy kept insisting that he'd totally look at Gerrymandering if people could give evidence of it, and when he received it with the Wisconsin gerrymander we got the totally shocking result of the SCOTUS deciding it was ok and there was nothing they could do about it since it's outside the judiciary's control and if the people don't like it they can just vote out the politicians who have given themselves something like an 11 point advantage in the state?

Can't wait for round 2 with the ISL lawsuit where we're going to get a ruling that state legislatures have sole control over elections and we can just stop pretending the US has any sort of open and fair elections and get on with this country burning in nuclear hellfire.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 15:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›843 »