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

[Zaha Torte]

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.

A notary's commission can be suspended/revoked, they can be liable for criminal/civil penalties or even be sued if they were to notarize a false statement.

I never claimed that the election officials themselves should be doing any "investigating" - but at what point in this process of certification are ballots scrutinized for fraud?

 

[Hans Blaster]

A notary's commission can be suspended/revoked, they can be liable for criminal/civil penalties or even be sued if they were to notarize a false statement.

I believe it is *knowingy* notarize a false statement.

I never claimed that the election officials themselves should be doing any "investigating" - but at what point in this process of certification are ballots scrutinized for fraud?

Fraud is a crime. It is investigated by criminal investigators. Fraud investigations aren't part of the vote certification.

 

[Whyayeman]

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

All this talk of fraud reminds me of the Trump tactic of 2020. Only a win for him could be accepted.

I am thinking the Trump camp is worried and setting up camp to denigrate the democratic function all over again.

 

[FreeinChrist]

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

I don't think so. Look at 2020 and the 60 lawsuits made and they were before a judge quickly,

 

[FreeinChrist]

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.

You actually agree with the decision in part.

The Georgia Republicans were trying to change the rules. One person did the lawsuit that she should be able to toss the ballots from a district if she suspects a problem. That is negating the vote of the people in that district, This is where shenigans can occur. The judge said no. There is a ruling clearly stating they have to certify the election but if there is a problem, they need to take up with the state person who controls elections who can then take it to court.
The local person in charge of elections is responsible to having clearly marked polling places and people to work them who know the procedure and that the machines are working well and there are people to count the votes - or feed a machine. They cannot arbitrairily decide not to accept all the ballots from one district.

 

[FreeinChrist]

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.

Yep - that explains it better.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I believe it is *knowingy* notarize a false statement.

Not so - even if they don't know - they can open themselves up to these penalties.

Fraud is a crime. It is investigated by criminal investigators. Fraud investigations aren't part of the vote certification.

Then how do Election Boards keep our elections "safe and secure"?

 

[Zaha Torte]

You actually agree with the decision in part.

The Georgia Republicans were trying to change the rules. One person did the lawsuit that she should be able to toss the ballots from a district if she suspects a problem. That is negating the vote of the people in that district, This is where shenigans can occur. The judge said no. There is a ruling clearly stating they have to certify the election but if there is a problem, they need to take up with the state person who controls elections who can then take it to court.
The local person in charge of elections is responsible to having clearly marked polling places and people to work them who know the procedure and that the machines are working well and there are people to count the votes - or feed a machine. They cannot arbitrairily decide not to accept all the ballots from one district.

Could you share more about this person who claimed that she could just throw out ballots? I am having difficulty finding that.

What I am seeing is that this judge is forcing election boards to "certify" election results by a certain time - they cannot delay under any circumstance - even if they have yet to review all information regarding the inspection and conduction of the election and all related documents.

Basically - they have to "certify" by 5 p.m. no matter what - no excuse - even if they don't know what they are "certifying"

This judge claimed that the hand-counting of ballots may be right and "smart policy" - yet claimed that the timing of the implementation was "quite wrong" - because he said (after referencing Jan 6th), “Anything that adds uncertainty and disorder to the electoral process disserves the public.”

An Election Board making sure that the ballots match the electric tally "ass uncertainty and disorder"? How is that? Make that make sense to me.

He also claimed that election officials don't have the authority to determine that fraud has occurred or what should be done about it. That if they suspect fraud or errors in the system - they should merely make a note of it - share it with the authorities - and still certify by 5 p.m.

So - how are Election Boards supposedly to keeping our elections "safe and secure" if they are being forced to "certify" them without actually knowing what they are "certifying", how many ballots they are actually "certifying" and if they are forced to "certify" before any evidence of foul-play are investigated or even considered?

The fact that this judge invoked Jan 6th in his decision at all shows that she is partisan, and he is doing everything to make sure that those things that caused doubt in the 2020 election should happen again.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not so - even if they don't know - they can open themselves up to these penalties.

No. If the procedure was followed properly then no penalties accrue if the notary was unaware the statement was false. The notary attests to the signature and date, not the facts on the paper.

Then how do Election Boards keep our elections "safe and secure"?

By following the best practices of holding elections and ensuring no intimidation or interference takes place at the polls.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.”

This is the age of Trump in which it takes a lawsuit to get officials to obey the law.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not so - even if they don't know - they can open themselves up to these penalties.

Then how do Election Boards keep our elections "safe and secure"?

Is that their job? They supervise the election officials at the local precincts and certify counts. They aren't cops. There job is to ensure procedures are followed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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 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.​

​

Georgia's Fulton County fined $10,000 a day for not appointing Republican election board nominees​

The Democratic majority on the Board of Commissioners in May voted not to approve the appointments of Republican nominees Julie Adams and Jason Frazier, saying their past actions made them unsuitable nominees. [They agreed they had to appoint two Republicans, but not these turkeys.]

[Judge has ruled they can't refuse someone properly nominated by the Republican Party.]

 

[NxNW]

"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 has aged poorly. When can we expect a retraction?

 

[NxNW]

The fact that this judge invoked Jan 6th in his decision at all shows that she is partisan, and he is doing everything to make sure that those things that caused doubt in the 2020 election should happen again.

What things? Trump's cheating with fake electoral votes?

 

[DaisyDay]

What things? Trump's cheating with fake electoral votes?

Sowing doubt about Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic. Pretending that mail-in ballots - which he himself has used the last few elections - in inherently unsafe, even though, by necessity, they are paper ballots because Vlad said so. Calling for Texas to redistrict to get more Maga votes. The list goes on and on.

 

[DaisyDay]

This is the age of Trump in which it takes a lawsuit to get officials to obey the law.

That was optimistic: "a" lawsuit.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Sowing doubt about Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic. Pretending that mail-in ballots - which he himself has used the last few elections - in inherently unsafe, even though, by necessity, they are paper ballots because Vlad said so. Calling for Texas to redistrict to get more Maga votes. The list goes on and on.

He was forced to use mail-in ballots. And both sides redistrict.

 

[DaisyDay]

He was forced to use mail-in ballots.

Lols. Every single time?

And both sides redistrict.

Yes, they do, however I don't remember any president calling for mid-decade redistricting in order to garner himself more support. This president is openly divisive, openly hyper-partisan.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Lols. Every single time?

Yes, they do, however I don't remember any president calling for mid-decade redistricting in order to garner himself more support. This president is openly divisive, openly hyper-partisan.

Yes - mail-in ballots have been around for a long time (absentees) - but it wasn't until COVID that the State pushed for it en masse.

Obama and Biden also advocated for redistricting. They claimed that it was to "prevent gerrymandering" - but that doesn't make it any less redistricting.

Districts should make sense - they shouldn't be weird loops and snakes or whatever just to make more Democrat seats that no one wants and does not reflect reality.

Almost 40% of California's registered voters are Republicans - yet they only have 9 of the 52 seats.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes - mail-in ballots have been around for a long time (absentees) - but it wasn't until COVID that the State pushed for it en masse.

Which has nothing to do with Trump's voting by mail. When you say "the State", which state are you referring to? Colorado has had primarily mail-in since 2014, Oregon since 2000, and Washington State since 2012 with some other states post-covi

Obama and Biden also advocated for redistricting. They claimed that it was to "prevent gerrymandering" - but that doesn't make it any less redistricting.

Redistricting is supposed to be done every ten years after the census figures come it. Trump specifically called for Texas to gerrymander for his own political benefit, not for the nation's.

Districts should make sense - they shouldn't be weird loops and snakes or whatever just to make more Democrat seats that no one wants and does not reflect reality.

Or, presumably, more Republican seats? Trump asked Gov. Abbott to find him more seats.

Almost 40% of California's registered voters are Republicans - yet they only have 9 of the 52 seats.

And, thanks to Trump's provocation and Newsom's tit for tat, they may have even fewer seats.

Perhaps we could address the problem by ranked voting? You can't make registered votes vote only for the candidate of their own party (outside certain states that limit who can vote in a primary).