Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 25

[phiwum]

Except that, as has been pointed out several times, they are ignoring the rules related to proper ballot harvesting. These rules are not overly complicated, but they still haven't managed to follow them.

This is like someone getting a ticket for not having working brake lights on their car arguing that "Hey, driving is legal!" It's a trivially true statement that completely ignores the actual issue at hand.

Not that we actually expect anything better from the Trump Party.

Right. Any deviation from the rules ought to be investigated and appropriate response taken.

There are some who presume or suggest something a lot more nefarious. I first heard a reference to this issue on a local NPR talk show by a host I regard as not particularly reliable. She bungles some issues and the show is unabashedly liberal in its presentation (which is fine, of course, but something to keep in mind). What she described sounded awful to me but when I went to the Times article and heard what facts were known, I realized that I had only heard a snippet which suggested but didn't give clear evidence of voter suppression.

So, I'm not saying that we should ignore wrongdoing in this ballot harvesting project, but we also should be careful to stick to the facts we know. Else, we will be like the gullible Trumpers who point to nine ballots wrongly discarded as evidence of a rigged election.

 

[phiwum]

I was under the impression that in CA it's legal only if the voter puts the name of the person they have authorized to submit their ballot for them. Can't really do that when you don't know who is going to be collecting the ballots from those boxes.

If it violates the law in that respect, then the harvesters should be prosecuted.
I don't know the details of CA law, of course.

 

[phiwum]

If it's "assuming the worst" to claim that a party is just going to do what they are openly admitting they are attempting to do, I give up.

Again the Republicans aren't exactly hiding the fact that they are going to screw with this election. Even their apologetics and double-speak about it is sort of lifeless at this point.

There's "being fair" and "keeping an open mind" and then there's "Well the Democrats are saying the Republicans are going to screw with the election, but on the other hand the Republicans are saying the Republicans are going to screw with the election, so I don't know what to believe."

I suppose my point is that whether or not this harvesting project is evidence of screwing with the election is unclear to me. What precisely was the plan? If we don't have a pretty good idea, then we don't know that their action in this instance was nefarious.

If your claim is that the GOP is not following CA law when harvesting ballots, I have no problem. If you're saying that this is evidence of screwing with the election, it's not at all clear to me. None of this is to suggest we ignore the fact that Republicans have made many comments to the effect that voter suppression is in their interest and that they intend to pursue it.

It's a matter of relevance. Is this particular case evidence of the lengths to which the GOP will go to suppress the vote? Or is it (merely) evidence of their disregard for vote harvesting laws? The former is worse than the latter, but also harder to see in this case.

 

[JoeMorgue]

California Assembly Bill 1921, passed in 2018.

Assembly Bill No. 1921
CHAPTER 820

An act to amend Section 3017 of the Elections Code, relating to elections.

[ Approved by Governor September 29, 2016. Filed with Secretary of State September 29, 2016. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST​

AB 1921, Gonzalez. Elections: vote by mail ballots.

Existing law requires that the vote by mail ballot be available to any registered voter. Under existing law, a voter who is unable to return his or her vote by mail ballot may designate his or her spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, or person residing in the same household as the vote by mail voter to return the vote by mail ballot. Except in the case of a candidate or the spouse of a candidate, existing law prohibits the return of a voter’s vote by mail ballot by one of those designees who is also a paid or volunteer worker of a general purpose committee, controlled committee, or any other group or organization at whose behest the individual designated to return the ballot is performing a service.

This bill would remove those restrictions and instead authorize the designation of any person to return a vote by mail ballot. The bill would prohibit a person designated to return a vote by mail ballot from receiving any form of compensation, as defined, based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and would prohibit an individual, group, or organization from providing compensation on this basis. The bill would state that any person in charge of a vote by mail ballot who knowingly and willingly engages in criminal acts related to that ballot is subject to the appropriate punishment pursuant to existing law.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3017 of the Elections Code proposed by SB 450 that would become operative only if SB 450 and this bill are both chaptered and this bill is chaptered last.

SECTION 1. Section 3017 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
3017. (a) All vote by mail ballots cast under this division shall be voted on or before the day of the election. After marking the ballot, the vote by mail voter shall do any of the following: (1) return the ballot by mail or in person to the elections official from whom it came, (2) return the ballot in person to a member of a precinct board at a polling place within the jurisdiction, or (3) return the ballot to the elections official from whom it came at a vote by mail ballot drop-off location, if provided pursuant to Section 3025. However, a vote by mail voter who is unable to return the ballot may designate any person to return the ballot to the elections official from whom it came or to the precinct board at a polling place within the jurisdiction. The ballot must, however, be received by either the elections official from whom it came or the precinct board before the close of the polls on election day.
(b) The elections official shall establish procedures to ensure the secrecy of a ballot returned to a precinct polling place and the security, confidentiality, and integrity of any personal information collected, stored, or otherwise used pursuant to this section.
(c) On or before March 1, 2008, the elections official shall establish procedures to track and confirm the receipt of voted vote by mail ballots and to make this information available by means of online access using the county’s elections division Internet Web site. If the county does not have an elections division Internet Web site, the elections official shall establish a toll-free telephone number that may be used to confirm the date a voted vote by mail ballot was received.
(d) The provisions of this section are mandatory, not directory, and a ballot shall not be counted if it is not delivered in compliance with this section.
(e) (1) A person designated to return a vote by mail ballot shall not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization shall provide compensation on this basis.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph, “compensation” means any form of monetary payment, goods, services, benefits, promises or offers of employment, or any other form of consideration offered to another person in exchange for returning another voter’s vote by mail ballot.
(3) Any person in charge of a vote by mail ballot and who knowingly and willingly engages in criminal acts related to that ballot as described in Division 18 (commencing with Section 18000), including, but not limited to, fraud, bribery, intimidation, and tampering with or failing to deliver the ballot in a timely fashion, is subject to the appropriate punishment specified in that division.

SEC. 1.5. Section 3017 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
3017. (a) All vote by mail ballots cast under this division shall be voted on or before the day of the election. After marking the ballot, the vote by mail voter shall do any of the following: (1) return the ballot by mail or in person to the elections official who issued the ballot, (2) return the ballot in person to a member of a precinct board at a polling place or vote center within the state, or (3) return the ballot to a vote by mail ballot dropoff location within the state that is provided pursuant to Section 3025 or 4005. However, a vote by mail voter who is unable to return the ballot may designate any person to return the ballot to the elections official who issued the ballot, to the precinct board at a polling place or vote center within the state, or to a vote by mail ballot dropoff location within the state that is provided pursuant to Section 3025 or 4005. The ballot must, however, be received by the elections official who issued the ballot, the precinct board, or the vote by mail ballot dropoff location before the close of the polls on election day. If a vote by mail ballot is returned to a precinct board at a polling place or vote center, or to a vote by mail ballot dropoff location, that is located in a county that is not the county of the elections official who issued the ballot, the elections official for the county in which the vote by mail ballot is returned shall forward the ballot to the elections official who issued the ballot no later than eight days after receipt.
(b) The elections official shall establish procedures to ensure the secrecy of a ballot returned to a precinct polling place and the security, confidentiality, and integrity of any personal information collected, stored, or otherwise used pursuant to this section.
(c) On or before March 1, 2008, the elections official shall establish procedures to track and confirm the receipt of voted vote by mail ballots and to make this information available by means of online access using the county’s elections division Internet Web site. If the county does not have an elections division Internet Web site, the elections official shall establish a toll-free telephone number that may be used to confirm the date a voted vote by mail ballot was received.
(d) The provisions of this section are mandatory, not directory, and a ballot shall not be counted if it is not delivered in compliance with this section.
(e) (1) A person designated to return a vote by mail ballot shall not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization shall provide compensation on this basis.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph, “compensation” means any form of monetary payment, goods, services, benefits, promises or offers of employment, or any other form of consideration offered to another person in exchange for returning another voter’s vote by mail ballot.
(3) Any person in charge of a vote by mail ballot and who knowingly and willingly engages in criminal acts related to that ballot as described in Division 18 (commencing with Section 18000), including, but not limited to, fraud, bribery, intimidation, and tampering with or failing to deliver the ballot in a timely fashion, is subject to the appropriate punishment specified in that division.

SEC. 2. Section 1.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 3017 of the Elections Code proposed by both this bill and Senate Bill 450. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, (2) each bill amends Section 3017 of the Elections Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Senate Bill 450, in which case Section 1 of this bill shall not become operative.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1921

 

[JoeMorgue]

I suppose my point is that whether or not this harvesting project is evidence of screwing with the election is unclear to me. What precisely was the plan? If we don't have a pretty good idea, then we don't know that their action in this instance was nefarious.

If you've already openly declared your intent to be nefarious, it removes the onus on 3rd parties to over-explain the pure mechanics of your nefariousness to everyone's (or indeed anyone's) satisfaction become making the assumption of nefariousness.

I mentioned this before. There's a broad legal concept called "estoppel." And one precedent of it is that you can't after the fact demand a distinction be clarified after you've already declared yourself on one side of.

If I open "Joe's House of Smutty Smut, That's Right I said Smutty Smut" and get hit with an obscenity violation, I can't then go after the fact and argue that the line between smut and erotica wasn't clearly defined in the stature because I've already said which side I knew I was on even if the distinction actually wasn't clearly defined in the original stature.

The Republicans have already openly declared their intent to screw with this election. Some wishywashy "What? How is this tampering with the election?" pettyfogging has to happen before you admit planning to mess with the election is exactly what you are doing, not after.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic Ginger, thing is that no one here (beside rethuglican astroturfers, of course) trust anything done by GOP.

That's fine. But then say so, don't just assert the worst (tossing out ballots) without looking at what the evidence supports.


If we are ever going to get back to normal in this country, then we on the left need to take care not to make false or unsupported assertions. It makes us vulnerable to false claims of equivalence.

Facts matter, the real ones, not the alternative ones.

 

[phiwum]

If you've already openly declared your intent to be nefarious, it removes the onus on 3rd parties to over-explain the pure mechanics of your nefariousness to everyone's (or indeed anyone's) satisfaction become making the assumption of nefariousness.

I mentioned this before. There's a broad legal concept called "estoppel." And one precedent of it is that you can't after the fact demand a distinction be clarified after you've already declared yourself on one side of.

If I open "Joe's House of Dirty, Dirty Smut" and get hit with an obscenity violation, I can't then go after the fact and argue that the line between smut and erotica wasn't clearly defined in the stature because I've already said which side I knew I was on.

The Republicans have already openly declared their intent to screw with this election. Some wishywashy "What? How is this tampering with the election?" pettyfogging has to happen before you admit planning to mess with the election is exactly what you are doing, not after.

Suppose I say, "I'm going to kill Jim." Then you see me driving my car on a street where Jim is walking. It doesn't mean you can convict me of vehicular homicide, not even if I'm speeding.

You can't use "estoppel" to say that every vote-related acts by the GOP is voter suppression. Your argument is asinine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

California Assembly Bill 1921, passed in 2018.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1921

And yet, no one's been arrested and the prosecutor is evaluating the arguments put forth in the GOP response letter.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump Tweets

There is a nasty rumor out there that @SenatorCollins of Maine will not be supporting our great United States Supreme Court Nominee. Well, she didn’t support Healthcare or my opening up 5000 square miles of Ocean to Maine, so why should this be any different. Not worth the work!

Big T was not a reference to me, but rather to Big Tech, which should have been properly pointed out in Twitter’s Fake Trending Section!

Steve Scully of @cspan had a very bad week. When his name was announced, I said he would not be appropriate because of conflicts. I was right! Then he said he was hacked, he wasn’t. I was right again! But his biggest mistake was “confiding” in a lowlife loser like the Mooch. Sad!

Collins is behind in the polls and Trump throws her under the bus? Stable genius in action.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Suppose I say, "I'm going to kill Jim." Then you see me driving my car on a street where Jim is walking. It doesn't mean you can convict me of vehicular homicide, not even if I'm speeding.

Yeah but the Republicans keep getting caught trying to kill Jim. This is just like the most recent time.

"Benefit of the Doubt" is a thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They've been told in no uncertain terms that these boxes are illegal, and any votes left in them will almost certainly be invalid as a result.
Their response was to double down on using the boxes.

That is not the response of an organization that was honestly trying to increase access to voting, but just made a mistake in interpreting the law.

Where did you get that highlighted bit from?

Have any ballots they've already turned in been flagged? Or invalidated?

 

[JoeMorgue]

And yet, no one's been arrested and the prosecutor is evaluating the arguments put forth in the GOP response letter.

The exact wording of the stature matters to the discussion and questions about it where asked so I put the info out there neutrally, no more, no less.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"LOL you can't prove our illegal ballot boxes that we refuse to remove despite a court order have anything to do with us trying to effect the election."

My God what a wonderful world of Algonquin Round Table argumentatives we live in. Surely we are blessed to live in a such a gilded age of discourse.

There's not been a court order. There was a cease and desist letter to which the response is being evaluated.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a poignant music video from the Lincoln Project.



It's like watching a music video based on footage from some dystopian TV series. My heart bleeds for the States.

Lavato performed this song on the Billboard Awards with different images in the background. The show's producers edited out the word VOTE from the ending shot.

It's a heart wrenching song.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was under the impression that in CA it's legal only if the voter puts the name of the person they have authorized to submit their ballot for them. Can't really do that when you don't know who is going to be collecting the ballots from those boxes.

The voter is supposed to know the person they are giving the ballot to. I don't believe any identifiers are required beyond that.

 

[tyr_13]

I suppose my point is that whether or not this harvesting project is evidence of screwing with the election is unclear to me. What precisely was the plan? If we don't have a pretty good idea, then we don't know that their action in this instance was nefarious.

If your claim is that the GOP is not following CA law when harvesting ballots, I have no problem. If you're saying that this is evidence of screwing with the election, it's not at all clear to me. None of this is to suggest we ignore the fact that Republicans have made many comments to the effect that voter suppression is in their interest and that they intend to pursue it.

It's a matter of relevance. Is this particular case evidence of the lengths to which the GOP will go to suppress the vote? Or is it (merely) evidence of their disregard for vote harvesting laws? The former is worse than the latter, but also harder to see in this case.

The mechanism here is violating the law in a way that gets those votes thrown out, which they can then cite as evidence that the election was rigged against them and the law is applied 'unevenly', or the votes get allowed in spite of the election law violation, which they can cite as evidence the election was insecure.

Either way, they can claim the election was invalid. It really isn't different than any government function that the GOP claims can't work, when the major reason it isn't working is they're sabotaging it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The exact wording of the stature matters to the discussion and questions about it where asked so I put the info out there neutrally, no more, no less.

Did you notice it said groups and organizations could collect the ballots as long as no one was paid?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The mechanism here is violating the law in a way that gets those votes thrown out, which they can then cite as evidence that the election was rigged against them and the law is applied 'unevenly', or the votes get allowed in spite of the election law violation, which they can cite as evidence the election was insecure.

Either way, they can claim the election was invalid. It really isn't different than any government function that the GOP claims can't work, when the major reason it isn't working is they're sabotaging it.

How are the ballots being disqualified or thrown out? Why would the GOP collect GOP ballots that they believed would be invalidated?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For those of you who complained about my highlighted shouting, it got the conversation started where my foot stamping did not. At least people are thinking about the issue instead of only ranting unsupported assertions in an echo chamber.

 

[tyr_13]

How are the ballots being disqualified or thrown out? Why would the GOP collect GOP ballots that they believed would be invalidated?

In the exact way that has already been listed. By California law harvested ballots have to have the name of the person harvesting the ballot written on the ballot by the voter and certified by a witness. Those things can't happen with these boxes.

And the why is answered in the post you're quoting.