Judge Rules Georgia Voters Can’t Be Silenced By Pro-Trump Election Officials

[FreeinChrist]

Judge Rules Georgia Voters Can’t Be Silenced By Pro-Trump Election Officials

With the 2024 election bearing down in the contentious swing state, a judge just made the rules of certification more clear.

www.huffpost.com

A judge in Georgia’s Fulton County ruled Monday that election board officials cannot “play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge” by refusing to certify election results based on their unilateral suspicions of fraud and more. The decision is a major setback for a Donald Trump-fueled effort to empower local officials to challenge or block election results in the state that polls show will be very close in November......​

​

“Regardless of the characterization of the election superintendent’s role in certifying election results, that certification … is mandatory,” the judge wrote. “Consequently, no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.”​

​

Good.

 

[rambot]

Judge Rules Georgia Voters Can’t Be Silenced By Pro-Trump Election Officials

With the 2024 election bearing down in the contentious swing state, a judge just made the rules of certification more clear.

www.huffpost.com

A judge in Georgia’s Fulton County ruled Monday that election board officials cannot “play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge” by refusing to certify election results based on their unilateral suspicions of fraud and more. The decision is a major setback for a Donald Trump-fueled effort to empower local officials to challenge or block election results in the state that polls show will be very close in November......​

​

“Regardless of the characterization of the election superintendent’s role in certifying election results, that certification … is mandatory,” the judge wrote. “Consequently, no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.”​

​

Good.

Disappointing America needs a "sorry....votes have to count people" reminder

 

[AlexB23]

Judge Rules Georgia Voters Can’t Be Silenced By Pro-Trump Election Officials

With the 2024 election bearing down in the contentious swing state, a judge just made the rules of certification more clear.

www.huffpost.com

A judge in Georgia’s Fulton County ruled Monday that election board officials cannot “play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge” by refusing to certify election results based on their unilateral suspicions of fraud and more. The decision is a major setback for a Donald Trump-fueled effort to empower local officials to challenge or block election results in the state that polls show will be very close in November......​

​

“Regardless of the characterization of the election superintendent’s role in certifying election results, that certification … is mandatory,” the judge wrote. “Consequently, no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.”​

​

Good.

Amen to this. The judge in Fulton country made the right judgement here.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Judge Rules Georgia Voters Can’t Be Silenced By Pro-Trump Election Officials

With the 2024 election bearing down in the contentious swing state, a judge just made the rules of certification more clear.

www.huffpost.com

A judge in Georgia’s Fulton County ruled Monday that election board officials cannot “play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge” by refusing to certify election results based on their unilateral suspicions of fraud and more. The decision is a major setback for a Donald Trump-fueled effort to empower local officials to challenge or block election results in the state that polls show will be very close in November......​

​

“Regardless of the characterization of the election superintendent’s role in certifying election results, that certification … is mandatory,” the judge wrote. “Consequently, no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.”​

​

Good.

Even if there is suspicion of fraud?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Even if there is suspicion of fraud?

Read the article:

“Regardless of the characterization of the election superintendent’s role in certifying election results, that certification … is mandatory,” the judge wrote. “Consequently, no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.”

They can pass their concerns up the chain.

 

[Matt5]

So if there are shenanigans, too bad. That gives me confidence in the election.

The elections are just one big gaslighting exercise. It's about to get better.

If Trump Wins, Guess Who Will Be In Charge Of Certifying The Election?

"In January 2025, Vice-President Kamala Harris will be in charge of certifying the election. In other words, if Donald Trump wins the person that he was running against will be in charge of certifying his victory."

We'll see. I doubt she'll lose to Trump because of all the shenanigans. I suspect no Republican will ever be president again.

This story from 15-Nov-2020 is interesting.

"2020-11-15 update: since 2009, Dominion Voting Systems operated from 215 Spadina Ave., Toronto, ON, M5T 2C7,Canada – an office space of the radical Tides Foundation. This building houses (or housed until a few months ago) a Toronto office of Tides Canada and a Tides’ incubation space for leftist groups."

Shocking History of Dominion Voting

Shocking History of Dominion Voting

Democratic party selected Dominion Voting as a pet corporation, and gave it the lion share of the US electronic voting systems market.

defyccc.com

 

[Zaha Torte]

Read the article:

“Regardless of the characterization of the election superintendent’s role in certifying election results, that certification … is mandatory,” the judge wrote. “Consequently, no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.”

They can pass their concerns up the chain.

Then what are they "certifying" exactly?

 

[FreeinChrist]

So if there are shenanigans, too bad. That gives me confidence in the election.

The elections are just one big gaslighting exercise. It's about to get better.

If Trump Wins, Guess Who Will Be In Charge Of Certifying The Election?

"In January 2025, Vice-President Kamala Harris will be in charge of certifying the election. In other words, if Donald Trump wins the person that he was running against will be in charge of certifying his victory."

We'll see. I doubt she'll lose to Trump because of all the shenanigans. I suspect no Republican will ever be president again.

I doubt that. Biden had to certify the election when Trump won. Cheney had to certify when Obama won. Gore had to certify the election of G.W. Bush and that had to sting.

Their role is mainly ministerial. And congress passed a law in Dec. 2022, which was bipartisan, making it harder to overturn elections.
Here is a nice article about it:

Congress approves new election certification rules in response to Jan. 6

Congress on Friday gave final passage to legislation changing the arcane law that governs the certification of a presidential contest, the strongest effort yet to avoid a repeat of Donald Trump's violence-inflaming push to reverse his loss in the 2020 election.

www.pbs.org

This story from 15-Nov-2020 is interesting.

"2020-11-15 update: since 2009, Dominion Voting Systems operated from 215 Spadina Ave., Toronto, ON, M5T 2C7,Canada – an office space of the radical Tides Foundation. This building houses (or housed until a few months ago) a Toronto office of Tides Canada and a Tides’ incubation space for leftist groups."

Shocking History of Dominion Voting

Shocking History of Dominion Voting

Democratic party selected Dominion Voting as a pet corporation, and gave it the lion share of the US electronic voting systems market.

defyccc.com

Not going to let a bad conspiracy die? They did win their lawsuits, you know.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Then what are they "certifying" exactly?

The election in their county.

Perhaps this will explain it for you as it explains how the court case came to be:

Georgia Judge Rules Election Officials Must Count All Votes and Certify Results

The judge ruled that “Georgia voters would be silenced” if county election board members were “free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge” and refuse to certify election results.

www.propublica.org

A Georgia judge ruled this week that county election board members cannot block the certification of votes based on suspicions of fraud or error.​

​

The ruling, if it stands, puts to rest the question of whether local election officials would be allowed to throw out individual precincts from county vote totals if they suspect fraud or error. A new rule adopted by the State Election Board appeared to allow such exclusions.​

​

If county election board members were “free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge and so — because of a unilateral determination of error or fraud — refuse to certify election results, Georgia voters would be silenced,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney wrote in the ruling. “Our Constitution and our Election Code do not allow for that to happen.”​

​

The ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by Julie Adams, a Republican member of Fulton County’s election board who is also part of a right-wing group that has raised doubts about the integrity of U.S. elections. Adams’ lawyer argued in court that the new election rule empowered county board members to refuse to certify votes they suspected of being tainted by fraud or error. This power, the lawyer argued, extended all the way to excluding entire precincts’ votes if they found something they considered suspicious in the returns.​

​

A ProPublica examination found that if Adams’ interpretation of the rule had stood, election officials in just a handful of rural counties could have excluded enough votes to impact the outcome of the presidential race.​

​

If fraud is suspected, it will have to be decided in a court, not at the whim of a county election board.

​

 

[Landon Caeli]

But by the time a court hearing is set, the election will already be long over.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The election in their county.

Perhaps this will explain it for you as it explains how the court case came to be:

Georgia Judge Rules Election Officials Must Count All Votes and Certify Results

The judge ruled that “Georgia voters would be silenced” if county election board members were “free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge” and refuse to certify election results.

www.propublica.org

A Georgia judge ruled this week that county election board members cannot block the certification of votes based on suspicions of fraud or error.​

​

The ruling, if it stands, puts to rest the question of whether local election officials would be allowed to throw out individual precincts from county vote totals if they suspect fraud or error. A new rule adopted by the State Election Board appeared to allow such exclusions.​

​

If county election board members were “free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge and so — because of a unilateral determination of error or fraud — refuse to certify election results, Georgia voters would be silenced,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney wrote in the ruling. “Our Constitution and our Election Code do not allow for that to happen.”​

​

The ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by Julie Adams, a Republican member of Fulton County’s election board who is also part of a right-wing group that has raised doubts about the integrity of U.S. elections. Adams’ lawyer argued in court that the new election rule empowered county board members to refuse to certify votes they suspected of being tainted by fraud or error. This power, the lawyer argued, extended all the way to excluding entire precincts’ votes if they found something they considered suspicious in the returns.​

​

A ProPublica examination found that if Adams’ interpretation of the rule had stood, election officials in just a handful of rural counties could have excluded enough votes to impact the outcome of the presidential race.​

​

If fraud is suspected, it will have to be decided in a court, not at the whim of a county election board.

​

I cannot express how much I disagree with this decision.

Forcing them to "certify" is just giving courts precedent to throw any suspicion of fraud out the window because they can claim, "Well - the results of the election have already been certified".

No single local election board member should have the ability to just throw out a vote - I actually think they never had that authority - but they should be able to judge if a ballot does not meet the requirements or seems suspicious and have any irregularities investigated and approved by the State Board before certifying the results.

Not only this - but didn't this judge also rule against having poll workers hand-count the ballots to make sure that they match the number matches the voting machines?

Why even have an election board if they have no choice in the matter? Why not just rubber stamp all ballots without question or regard to any rules?

This seems to be nothing but politicking in a battleground State. The judge is a partisan hack.

 

[wing2000]

"In January 2025, Vice-President Kamala Harris will be in charge of certifying the election. In other words, if Donald Trump wins the person that he was running against will be in charge of certifying his victory."

...indeed.

And like all the predecessors before her, including one Mike Pence, the President of the Senate will carry out her Constitutional duty.

 

[wing2000]

Forcing them to "certify" is just giving courts precedent to throw any suspicion of fraud out the window because they can claim, "Well - the results of the election have already been certified".

...you may not like it, but the states are charged with certifying the election.

 

[Zaha Torte]

...indeed.

And like all the predecessors before her, including one Mike Pence, the President of the Senate will carry out her Constitutional duty.

Are you saying that she would need to certify it no matter what? Why even be given that job then?

 

[Zaha Torte]

...you may not like it, but the states are charged with certifying the election.

As well as protect the integrity of their elections - which this judge does not want them to do - because he is partisan.

 

[Arcangl86]

Are you saying that she would need to certify it no matter what? Why even be given that job then?

Because the states elect the President of the United States and as President of the Senate she is in charge of the State's House. But the role has always been ceremonial.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you saying that she would need to certify it no matter what? Why even be given that job then?

Because someone official has to sign the final certificate of election in *every* race. Elected officials are often those persons throughout the country. If that official in the state is the "Secretary of State" who do you think signs the certificate of election for "Secretary of State" (if an elected position).

Final certification of an election is a job and some has to do it, but it is just a task, like putting a notary seal on a document. That seal only certifies that the person signing the document was who they claimed to be.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Because the states elect the President of the United States and as President of the Senate she is in charge of the State's House. But the role has always been ceremonial.

What does the certification even mean then?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Because someone official has to sign the final certificate of election in *every* race. Elected officials are often those persons throughout the country. If that official in the state is the "Secretary of State" who do you think signs the certificate of election for "Secretary of State" (if an elected position).

Final certification of an election is a job and some has to do it, but it is just a task, like putting a notary seal on a document. That seal only certifies that the person signing the document was who they claimed to be.

Yet one of the purposes of a notary is to deter fraud....

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet one of the purposes of a notary is to deter fraud....

I can make a false statement and have it notarized. The notary doesn't check that what I put in the document, only that I signed it.

The vote certification is like that. The lowest officials counting in a precinct file a certification with a local canvassing board. They certify the totals from those precinct certificates to the county canvassing board. The county board sums the certified totals they get and make their own certification to the state. The state (Sec. of State or similar office) collects and sums all of the county totals and certify the final result. For presidential electors, the Governor will sign a certificate based on that total and send it to the US National Archive and the Congress for Congress to total things on January 6th. At each stage the officials are to certify that voting procedures (including accurate counts at the lowest level) were followed and the numbers are correct. These officials are just doing a job of conducting elections, counting the results, and certifying the totals. Their jobs are not to investigate voter fraud, etc.