Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,521
edits
Changes
→Primary election tampering
This meant the election could be materially altered by events occurring after formal conclusion of the [[primary election]] — not least, news about the apparent election result. To address this problem, Judge Conley further ordered the Wisconsin Election Commission and election inspectors to suppress any report of the voting results until after the new April 13 deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots.<ref>https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/the-supreme-courts-misunderstood-ruling-on-wisconsins-coronavirus-primary/</ref> Democrat Gov. [[Tony Evers]] then banned in person voting in the April 7, 2020 primary. The Wisconsin Supreme Court then ruled Evers exceeded his authority with his [[Executive Order]] to cancel elections.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEIrRZpwsqQ</ref> The same day [[SCOTUS]] ruled to stay a district court order that had extended the absentee voting deadline. As a result, the absentee ballot postmark and in-person return deadlines were reinstated to April 7, 2020.<ref>https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_Party_primaries_in_Wisconsin,_2020</ref> The issue was that authority did not rest with the courts or the governor and there was no time to reschedule. [[Fake news]] media, of course, was quick to blame Republicans for the Democrat's lawsuit and the Democratic governor's overreach of [[executive branch]] authority.<ref>https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/videos/775321722874199/</ref> Democrat operative [[James Carville]] again stole the spotlight as the most [[demagogic]].<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/04/08/carville-wisconsin-primary-proved-republicans-will-kill-people-to-stay-in-power/</ref> ''The Wisconsin State Journal'' reported three weeks after the voting that Wisconsin's rate of infection actually declined after in-person voting.<ref>https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/health-med-fit/no-bump-in-covid-19-rates-after-wisconsins-april-7-election-study-says/article_b1aade1d-abec-5fc2-92fb-e1c64ccbc92f.html</ref>
This meant the election could be materially altered by events occurring after formal conclusion of the [[primary election]] — not least, news about the apparent election result. To address this problem, Judge Conley further ordered the Wisconsin Election Commission and election inspectors to suppress any report of the voting results until after the new April 13 deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots.<ref>https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/the-supreme-courts-misunderstood-ruling-on-wisconsins-coronavirus-primary/</ref> Democrat Gov. [[Tony Evers]] then banned in person voting in the April 7, 2020 primary. The Wisconsin Supreme Court then ruled Evers exceeded his authority with his [[Executive Order]] to cancel elections.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEIrRZpwsqQ</ref> The same day [[SCOTUS]] ruled to stay a district court order that had extended the absentee voting deadline. As a result, the absentee ballot postmark and in-person return deadlines were reinstated to April 7, 2020.<ref>https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_Party_primaries_in_Wisconsin,_2020</ref> The issue was that authority did not rest with the courts or the governor and there was no time to reschedule. [[Fake news]] media, of course, was quick to blame Republicans for the Democrat's lawsuit and the Democratic governor's overreach of [[executive branch]] authority.<ref>https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/videos/775321722874199/</ref> Democrat operative [[James Carville]] again stole the spotlight as the most [[demagogic]].<ref>https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/04/08/carville-wisconsin-primary-proved-republicans-will-kill-people-to-stay-in-power/</ref> ''The Wisconsin State Journal'' reported three weeks after the voting that Wisconsin's rate of infection actually declined after in-person voting.<ref>https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/health-med-fit/no-bump-in-covid-19-rates-after-wisconsins-april-7-election-study-says/article_b1aade1d-abec-5fc2-92fb-e1c64ccbc92f.html</ref>
=====Supreme Court agrees to hear the case=====
''Redstate'' reported:
{{quotebox|"a federal judge extended the deadline for receiving [[absentee ballot]]s during the [[primary election]] cycle by a period of six days. No one objected to that extension in the early days of state “lockdown” orders to address the outbreak of the COVID 19 virus. But, five days before the scheduled election, the same judge clarified the order to state that ballots postmarked on or before the extended day for receipt of ballots could be counted even though that violated Wisconsin election law which required that they be postmarked no later than Election Day, and no party in the case had asked for the Court to grant the additional relief. The Supreme Court reversed that provision of the district court’s order, writing as follows:
:''Nonetheless, five days before the scheduled election, the District Court unilaterally ordered that absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after election day, April 7, still be counted so long as they are received by April 13. Extending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters—not just received by the municipal clerks but cast by voters— for an additional six days after the scheduled election day fundamentally alters the nature of the election… This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election…. The District Court on its own ordered yet an additional extension, which would allow voters to mail their ballots after election day, which is extraordinary relief and would fundamentally alter the nature of the election by allowing voting for six additional days after the election.
The four liberals on the Court, including the late [[Justice Ginsburg]], dissented from this order and would have allowed votes to be cast and counted after the deadline imposed by state law in Wisconsin, basing their judgment on the complications of the COVID 19 pandemic.
So, you can see where the lower court judges are finding their “justification” for rewriting election rules more to the liking of plaintiffs who — in every case I’ve looked at — are Democrat party interest groups.<ref>https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/10/04/a-supreme-court-showdown-of-federal-judges-rewriting-state-election-laws-based-on-covid-is-at-hand/</ref>}}
==Economy==
==Economy==