The Wisconsin Supreme Court Just Made Ballot Drop Boxes Illegal
The ruling has been hailed as a fraud-reducing measure. The only problem? A vanishingly low incidence of fraud in the first place.

On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a ruling which rendered most ballot drop boxes illegal in the state. The Court found that state law, which requires that mail-in ballots be delivered to a "mailbox," does not allow "delivery to an unattended ballot drop box." The ruling stands as a victory for Republicans in the state, who have consistently attempted to outlaw ballot drop boxes to reduce the incredibly rare phenomenon of voter fraud.
"Today's ruling is a massive victory for election integrity," wrote Paul Farrow, the chairman of the Wisconsin GOP. "Democrats have long abused the practice of ballot harvesting, which undermines voter confidence by interfering with the appropriate chain of custody of ballots—but with today's decision, they'll be forced into a fair fight that holds them accountable for their record."
Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler wrote in response to the ruling that "[n]o matter their politics, those who believe in democracy strive to ensure that every eligible voter can cast a ballot. With its ruling today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is making it more difficult to vote. It's a slap in the face of democracy itself."
Former President Donald Trump weighed in on the ruling on social media, arguing that it should somehow apply to past elections. Following the ruling, Trump wrote on the conservative social networking site Truth Social that Wisconsin House Speaker Robin Vos "has a decision to make! Does Wisconsin RECLAIM the Electors, turn over the Election to the actual winner (by a lot!), or sit back and do nothing as our Country continues to go to HELL? Brave American Patriots already have a Resolution on the Floor!"
However, concerns cited by Republicans—that drop boxes lead to increased voter fraud via "ballot harvesting"—are overblown. As CNN reports, ballot drop boxes are "designed and set up to securely receive ballots without tampering, theft, or other kinds of fraud—they are designed with anti-tampering measures, affixed to the ground, made with durable materials, and often monitored by video surveillance."
Research shows that voter fraud concerns are often overstated and exaggerated. A 2007 report from the Brennan Center for Justice found vanishingly low rates of confirmed voter fraud, "between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent," arguing that "[i]t is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls." A Washington Post report on the 2016 election found just four confirmed instances of voter fraud.
But in the wake of Trump's loss in the 2020 election, Republican politicians proliferated claims of widespread voter fraud. Several states opened up baseless investigations into the election and conducted lengthy recounts, with Republican lawmakers hoping to manifest enough evidence to justify "decertifying" states' electoral college votes. In Wisconsin, claims of election fraud continue to dominate in the state Legislature, taking the form of an ongoing investigation headed by a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice (who was recently found guilty of contempt for refusing to comply with open records requests about his apparently partisan review of the election two years ago).
The available evidence indicates that the United States has incredibly secure elections. Attempts by politicians to sow doubts about election integrity and pass laws that make voting harder are largely intended to tip electoral scales.
However, voter suppression claims also suffer from exaggeration. Current evidence indicates that many "voter suppression" measures, like voter ID laws, don't significantly reduce voter turnout. (Though they also don't significantly reduce voter fraud either.)
Contemporary political arguments around how elections are conducted and who can vote serve largely to energize voters from both parties while creating the impression that elections are illegitimate no matter which party wins.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Keep lying, totalitarian pieces of shit.
You're not going to be protected when the reckoning comes.
More evidence of fraud than virtually all of the hyperventilating here about Dobbs.
I actually have made 18,000 Dollars within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra
money on-line visiting this interface.> http://oldprofits.blogspot.com
"A vanishingly low incidence of fraud in the first place."
Keep pushing that narrative. Emma is gonna fit RIGHT in here with Reason Editors.
If you don't look for fraud it doesn't exist.
Just like nobody ever jaywalks since Cops don't really enforce it.
Trump looked with his voter fraud commission
GW BUsh looked for FIVE years.
You partisans are the biggest idiot anti American fucks in the country.
And you can't do math.
Just out of UVA and assistant editor.
Absolutely fits in.
Cites CNN and studies from 2007 to address the 2020 election.
Just out of UVA
I hear she dated Haven Monahan.
"A vanishingly low incidence of fraud in the first place."
The main purpose of secret ballots is to protect eligable voters from coercion, not to prevent identity fraud. Given how many Republicans are married to someone who hates Trump, that's a pretty big deal.
Your life doesn't matter.
The problem with unmonitored ballot box fraud is it’s easy to do and difficult to monitor. Hence, it’s hard to gather actual evidence of fraud. Systems not specifically designed to preclude fraud, such as unmonitored drop boxes, should be outlawed. Realistically, everyone should be required to show up in person, with a valid voter ID, unless they are physically incapacitated. In this case, a registered poll worker should travel to the incapacitated person’s home and certify that the vote was placed in secret, there was no compensation given to the voter, and the vote was placed without any threat of physical or mental duress. Voter confidence in election integrity is far more important than voter convenience - and the popular press immediately declaring, in unison, that 2020 election was the “most secure in history” does not inspire such confidence.
If voting is so important, it should be neither convenient or easy.
Equal access, but you have to work for it.
Why should important actions be hard and inconvenient to accomplish?
If it is easy to commit fraud, then each instance undoes a valid vote. Which is far worse than simple instructions like "mail in your ballot" or "take it to a manned voting site".
Those aren't onerous conditions. Do you want someone to lick the envelope for you too?
The antecedent in your conditional is different. Aloysious' antecedent concerns importance.
Trump looked with his voter fraud commission
GW BUsh looked for FIVE years.
You partisans are the biggest idiot anti American fucks in the country.
Marxists get their throats cut.
Again, just because evidence of voter fraud is hard to gather does not mean it did not happen and was not widespread in key districts. If you don’t have election systems in place that make it very difficult to cheat, there will be no confidence in the results, regardless of how many in the colluding media crow about how secure it was.
Doug's parents failed miserably.
The states that were pioneers in voting by mail are the old person states. Age is a huge indicator of party preference. A lot of old person votes for the republican party would be lost in states like Arizona and Florida if drop box and voting by mail were eliminated.
My parents didn't fail to inform me about this. Growing up in Arizona, my parents were big supporters of voting my mail, because they wanted more seniors voting for republicans.
And in those states, "voting by mail" means the voter personally requests a ballot and provides proof of residence and eligibility, and one ballot is sent to that specific voter, who must return it with a signature to be verified against the voter registrations. It does not mean "mail one or more ballots to everybody in the district and count all the ones that make it back regardless of any verification laws". In the states where I have voted by mail, the two reasons acceptable were being temporarily out of town for job requirements, or disability affecting access to the assigned polling place. (when I was working out of town, I was just a young pup)
The right wingers are always pretending that mailing ballot applications is the same as mailing ballots.
by mail is your keyword here, not by drop box.
Wisconsin law still allows for mailing your ballot back.
Yeah, this is the amazing thing: how these special collection boxes — not at staffed polling places, not regular P.O. mail boxes — became accepted as alternatives. I mean, the arrangement looks sooo fishy!
"Why should important actions be hard and inconvenient to accomplish?"
Just pathetic parenting.
Ya your parents should be ashamed
You have no value, soy.
You've never been to my polling place, apparently. Every 90 year old in my district who can still walk is there on election day.
Arizona allows folks to submit a ballot in the mail after requesting one. Those ballots must be returned in the mail or at the voting precinct. What happened in 2020? See below. Democratic operatives were going out and harvesting ballots. If they caught one, you know damn well that there were more illegal activities.
https://apnews.com/article/arizona-presidential-elections-conspiracy-election-2020-government-and-politics-65a3f0f130905dd7151e5189e7242784
Just like other places where Zuck's money was received, it's was almost exclusively used in areas that would help boost the Democrats. No widespread fraud huh?
As Biden himself said in one of his last lucid moments "we've created the greatest vote fraud operations in this country's history"
Trump looked with his voter fraud commission
GW BUsh looked for FIVE years.
You partisans are the biggest idiot anti American fucks in the country.
freedomwriter really wants to die.
Is it too much wonder why he/she chose a username that reflects one of the stupidest, most shallow characters ever portrayed on TV?
Because that's what gives those actions value?
^
I keep pushing to require a concealed carry permit to vote, just to show how needing permission to exercise your rights is an "infringement".
I like that idea!
We could normalize the process for getting a weapon carry permit with the voter registration process. You know, invasive questionnaire, proof of citizenship and residency, multiple picture IDs, fingerprinting, wants & warrants checks, require repeating the whole process every few years.
Wrong. Weighing who to vote for should take consideration and time, in the comfort of your own home over days with the internet, news sources and friends to research the issues. Actual voting SHOULD be convenient, easy and fast.
Voting should be, first and foremost, secure so that voters, including those on the losing side, have confidence in the results. Otherwise, we have banana-republic style elections.
A vanishingly low incidence of fraud in the first place.
Oh, boy. You really blew that one, comrade. The party line is that there is NO voter fraud. Enjoy your cancellation!
-jcr
Pretty funny.
The real response is "how could you possibly know that??"
Every investigation into the ballots from 2016 was blocked. They allowed claims that had no chance, like counting machines being rigged or miscounted ballots.... But every relevant jurisdiction blocked any look into things that might invalidate ballots. No signature audits, for example. No investigations of ballot harvesting. No looking at late arriving ballots.
The signature match is the key one, because any signature match is necessarily going to invalidate a significant percentage of the ballots. It always does, even if no fraud is present. It would have been well above the margin in all of the battleground states, even if every vote was proper.
Such matches are required by law. Yet none took place.
I don't know the reason that they didn't take place, but I am quit certain that the reason nobody is even asking the question is not to protect the integrity of elections.
> The only problem? A vanishingly low incidence of fraud in the first place.
I recall the 2020 election (oh so long ago) when Republicans were decrying the official drop boxes in California as being instruments of fraud... and at the same time were setting up their OWN unofficial drop boxes in clear violation of the law. It was a weird time. Even my own mother claimed with a straight face that California would elect Trump if only the Democrats weren't stealing votes. [/face palm]
So what makes an official drop box illegal, but a Republican controlled drop box perfectly fine?
https://calmatters.org/politics/california-election-2020/2020/10/california-republican-drop-boxes-legal-trouble/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/us/politics/california-gop-drop-boxes.html
California also has a new procedure that you can TRACK your mail-in or drop-box ballot. A good idea. You know if it got received by the registrar of voters. Doesn't mean I adore the state, just means it's a good idea.
Plus, reading the actual ruling, this really seems to be something where they drop boxes break current Wisconsin law for voting. So, Wisconsin can just change those rules. This feels like the court doing what it should, and the legislature should stand up and change things if it wants.
Particularly because the first charge brought in this filing was that the Drop Box stuff was an "unpromulgated administrative rule" and I am extremely unsympathetic to administrative rules like that. Just legislate shit if you actually want it. I'm not really against it. I'm also not against mail-in voting, and sort of think that the drop-boxes should be generalized to mail-in if that's the way you're gonna go.
This feels like the court doing what it should, and the legislature should stand up and change things if it wants.
Just like in WV vs. EPA, confining the executive to actions expressly endorsed by a legislature is literally Fascism.
I could be reading the ruling wrong. I only scanned it and I'm not a lawyer. Still, it reads like it's saying these administrative changes are at odds with state law. So, change state law if they want it. That's not even meant as a sarcastic gotcha.
Actually their drop boxes were 100% comply ant with the law and was done as a protest to show how absurd dropboxes were.
You are sub human trash
There is more evidence of fraid than there is that the Russians stole the 2016 election.
Yet despite the KRAKEN sized load of evidence, none of it has ever come forward.
Especially if you ignore everything that contradicts your lefty narrative.
Trump looked with his voter fraud commission
GW Bush looked for FIVE years.
You partisans are the biggest idiot anti American fucks in the country.
"I'm a pathetic little bitch who obediently places my full faith in The State and corporate media."
-brandybuck
There have been many indictments for fraud.
There have also been 2 dozen completed lawsuits about illegal voting practices.
Care to try again?
Except for the MASSIVE amount exposed in 2000 Mules.
Watch "2000 Mules".
There's literally video of the poll watchers being kicked out after being told counting was stopped for the night in Georgia and ballot boxes being pulled out from underneath a table and counted immediately afterwards.
A Washington Post report on the 2016 election found just four confirmed instances of voter fraud.
Seriously, does anyone believe this is true? Out of ~150 million votes, only four are fraudulent?
It's very dependent on how you define fraud. They did a linguistic trick of referring to ballot harvesting, which is some third party dropping off absentee ballots of a voter, and then jumped to fraud where one voter submitted a vote under the name of another voter. They're not the same thing.
Further making it murky is how ballot harvesting is used as either something sinister or something banal (Me dropping my mom and dad's ballot off because I was going to the post-office anyway. Something like that) depending on who's arguing what.
A lot of voting related discussion relies on linguistic slight-of-hand and Reason does it too.
Even then, I don't think it's possible to get 4 examples of fraud out of a sample of 150,000,000, no matter how you define it. If I were a teacher and all 40 of my students aced the last exam, I wouldn't be patting myself on the back for my teaching skills.
That's reasonable. I'm sort of guessing it's a definition thing, but I can't read the article. Might be something like "four criminally convicted cases of voter fraud" or something.
Even then, seems weird. Heritage gives about 1000 instances of convicted voter fraud over a pretty big window, so the numbers are low. But even then, in 2016 in Arizona we had 7 convictions:
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=AZ
And Arizona is the greatest and most honest state of them all. All of us take oaths to our state and to Barry Goldwater each night. And even we had 7 cases.
Convicted fraud is but a small sub sample of actual fraud. Especially when state AGs dont' investigate it.
I know of more cases than 4 in just one town in Arizona in 2020.
Signature rejection in GA averaged around 2% for mailed/absentee ballots in the 5 previous elections, with no significant variation.
With mail in voting massively expanded in 2020, and more voters total, the signature rejection rate dropped 90% to 0.2%.
That’s just evidence that it was the cleanest election evah!
So either the verifiers got overwhelmed and quit looking for stuff, or the same number of fraudsters as ever tried to sneak one by but ten times as many people were mailing in legitimate ballots so the fraud was more diluted. Or the people mailing it in were somehow less likely to have their signature erroneously declared invalid. Lots of things could be going on here.
None of your scenarios lead to a drastically decreased RATE of signature rejection.
Yes and the number of mailed-in ballots increased exponentially, which should have had a greater rate of rejection, since so many were doing it for the first time.
I still want to now how the left managed to get so many ballots to arrive after the polling places closed.
Did they instruct their voters to wait until the last minute, or were those "late arriving" ballots manufactured?
It was "late arriving" ballots that turned the tide in the swing states.
It is more insidious than that.
Can we say murder is increasingly small because the number of murder convictions have gone down? While unsolved murder cases have gone up? Since there are less convictions, there are less murders?
That is essentially what they are arguing.
Murder's a bad comparison because Murder has very direct evidence most of the time. You have a corpse.
Something like benefits fraud is probably a closer comparison. We can reasonably believe more exist out there, but we don't know how many. That said, I'm pretty skeptical that it's as widespread as some assert. I'm just also sympathetic to the idea that fraud should be taken very seriously because it's a particularly corrosive type of crime.
I talked about fraud in two ways there and didn't clarify my final skepticism. "I'm pretty skeptical that voter fraud is as widespread as some assert."
Well, I would suggest that you're not looking very hard. The mathematics of the 2020 election are extremely problematic.
Have you seen 2000 Mules?
But that is my point.
How many of the 2020 "audits" were only recounts and not even surveys of voters said to have voted?
Some companies did go out and do random sampling surveys and showed a 1-2% response of "no I didn't vote."
Plus we have the evidence of people who showed up on voting day to vote who were told they already voted by mail.
My point is exactly that. Vote fraud is extremely hard to prove after the fact, let alone convict.
A lot of people also seem to try to dismiss any questions about the election just by saying there is not much fraud. But vote fraud is only one thing that people are talking about.
Ballot harvesting is when a party collects ballots and tosses out those from another party. It's hard to do, but happens. Much more frequent is voter registration drives where registration forms checking the wrong party box are tossed.
Dropping off your mom's ballot is typically NOT called "harvesting". While it technically is if you're a pendantic, that's not how the term is used in practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_collection
Is this the new liberal talking point?
Like a lot of the fascists bullshit, you have to know what the definition of "is" is.
Thousands of Georgians voting in a county where they no longer live is clearly illegal, but is it "fraud"? Dems say no, of course not.
So, we now have two states admitting that their election processes in 2020 were illegal: PA and WI. Cleanest election ever.
AZ is right behind them. I got two extra ballots after I had voted by mail. I could see my vote. My wife, who had moved out of state, got a new license and registered to vote in the new place got two more in AZ too.
Shredded both.
But see, by shredding them, you are now proof that there was no fraud.
Ga has also admitted there are up to 30k people who voted in the wrong districts in violation of state law.
Detroit Michigan on line 2.
Your making that argument about Wisconsin? Fuck you you lying cunt.
Did you check the nursing home fraud
Did you check how the green party did in WI?
No because your favored facist dems kicked them off the ballot then had a governer illegally change the rules.
Elaborate, please.
"The Court found that state law, which requires that mail-in ballots be delivered to a "mailbox," does not allow "delivery to an unattended ballot drop box." "
Can't they just have a person man the box? Get some poor sod out there with an umbrella or something.
Best I can tell, the legislation can just change the law to allow it.
Yes, they can. And that's what much of the issue is: election officials (in many states) blatantly ignored clearly established state laws and made up new rules out of whole cloth, which rules also violated state laws.
If you want to allow ballot boxes on every corner, the legislature should pass a law. Not have some election office intern set up a bunch of plastic bins around town because the Sec State doesn't want people to have to stand in lines wearing masks and 6 feet apart.
Tucson actually did do that from what I remember in 2020. They had manned station attendants set up between 1pm and 7pm to drop off ballots 4 days a week.
Tucson is the greatest city in the greatest state of the greatest country, but if their slipshod government could manage to pull that off then ain't no other city can claim they can't do it too.
Tucson city government somehow takes 4 years to add a right turn-lane in a major traffic area. No one else has excuses.
This is mostly a rant about Tucson government though. If Wisconsin wants they can change the rules of their elections to allow unmanned ballot boxes.
Broadway renovation is on year 8 🙂
"However, concerns cited by Republicans—that drop boxes lead to increased voter fraud via "ballot harvesting"—are overblown. As CNN reports, ballot drop boxes are "designed and set up to securely receive ballots without tampering, theft, or other kinds of fraud—they are designed with anti-tampering measures, affixed to the ground, made with durable materials, and often monitored by video surveillance.""
Wow, sounds very secure and safe. Question though: what about when the ballots are collected from the boxes? Are they still immune from being tampered with/stolen/thrown away?
How do they know the ballots dropped off weren't tampered with or stolen and then deposited? It is such a silly assertion.
Exactly. Somehow they think people have a problem with the boxes themselves, not what they are being used for.
Yeah, they argue two different points there. Ballot harvesting is different from the ballot box question.
What about the partisans who go around the neighborhood collecting ballots as a "favor" to the residents, then shred the ones likely to be for the other team? Sure, once the drop them in the box, they may be "secure" but the chain of evidence (as it were) is violated in a dozen ways before that point. And do we trust the election officials to handle the ballots properly? Not based on the candid footage I've seen from the different election workers. Most of them seem to be highly partisan.
I love how the "evidence" section of that CNN article consists, in its entirety, of two sentences: a quote from a CNN analyst saying he's not aware of any instances of fraud using dropboxes in the past election, and a quote from the director of a liberal nonprofit saying dropboxes don't pose "uniquely difficult security problems".
"The Wisconsin Supreme Court Just Made Ballot Drop Boxes Illegal"
Truth in headlines:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court Just Pointed Out the Ballot Drop Boxes in the last Election Were Illegal
Usually the dishonest headline would also include some sort of charge of racism and the subhead would lament the danger to our democracy.
It's a REPUBLIC!
It was, but we failed to keep it.
Bingo! It was the state legislature that made them illegal. The state supreme court just reminded people of that.
But this is typical of a left-wing legal realist approach to the law: There isn't any law until the courts rule what the random words the legislature emitted mean, and never mind what those words happen to say.
No, they did not make them illegal. They correctly interpreted the law already passed by the Wisconsin state legislature.
There does seem to be some confusion about what the function of the judiciary is in the Reason writers bullpen lately.
Which is typical for a ball club with a lot of rookies on the roster. I am seeing more and more new names, but not so much in the way of new ideas.
The late former Democrat governor of New Jersey, Brendan Byrne once quipped that when he died he wanted to be buried in Hudson county so that he could remain active in politics.
Mr Potato Head got 10 million more votes than Black Jesus. Bull fucking shit!
Eat a dick Reason.
https://twitter.com/realdanlyman/status/1547596582572269571?t=goxNfjb-6tWpHOFDREOZVQ&s=19
The Legend of @alexstein99 is growing to absolutely mythical proportions
[Video]
https://twitter.com/nicholaswu12/status/1547597308556034049?t=KxE_zjZNCGimiIw7Co5RAA&s=19
Here’s what the Capitol Police had to say about last night’s incident with @AOC :
“…The comments, although inappropriate, are not criminal. In the video, the man never threatened or touched the Congresswoman…”
Say they stopped him and ran his info too:
[Link]
Wikler's pearl clutching that actually following election law is a slap in the face to democracy is ridiculous. Not everything that makes voting easier is an unalloyed good for democracy. Security in that the votes counted are legitimate votes is also required to maintain a healthy respect for election results.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fed-finds-fed-did-nothing-wrong
In what is likely the least surprising news headline of the day, The Federal Reserve's Watchdog has cleared Chair Jerome Powell and former Vice Chair Richard Clarida of any wrongdoing in their trading activity.
“We did not find evidence to substantiate the allegations that former Vice Chair Clarida or you violated laws, rules, regulations, or policies related to trading activities as investigated by our office,” Inspector General Mark Bialek said in a letter to Powell dated June 11 and published Thursday.
Emma Camp in a close race with Scott Shackford for plying the most bullshit today.
If you're incapable of finding a mailbox, maybe just skip voting.
https://twitter.com/pepesgrandma/status/1547666969293635584?t=Q45Qi6avYswmWbjoROm4zA&s=19
Weeeeee, here we go again!
“Hundreds of farmers in Argentina fill the road in the city of Guiglicho, in opposition to the government's policies, in light of an economic crisis in the country”
[Link]
It's like 1848 all over again.
Except now it's the socialists being revolted against
Question of the day:
What new disease will appear at the end of Summer requiring easier voting requirements?
I think they were shooting for Monkeypox but they forgot to run the name through marketing.
Not a winner with the general public.
If you wanted to set up a system for undetectable election fraud, drop boxes would be 1 or 2 on the list. Simply impossible to audit between election day and time to certify results. They are still trying to audit Bush Gore race to find out who really won Florida and there were no drop boxes.
The ruling has been hailed as a fraud-reducing measure. The only problem? A vanishingly low incidence of fraud in the first place.
Democrat propaganda. True libertarians know Trump won 80% of the vote.
I have no idea how much election fraud there is. But if it is vanishingly little, shouldn't we try to keep it that way? Non-in-person voting is just more susceptible to shenanigans by it's nature. And vote fraud isn't the only way to unduly influence the outcome of elections.
As I've said, I'm not convinced that a lot of vote fraud occurred (and I don't rule it out). But the "fortifications" and various bitts of media censorship, while probably not illegal, I think are worthy of concern.
This is where I'm at.
If you close your eyes you'll see nothing and this is what Democrats demand when it comes to actually detecting vote fraud. There are common sense voting reforms that would not appreciably raise the burden for legitimate voters but would limit vote fraud, Democrats are against them all.
"The Wisconsin Supreme Court Just Made Ballot Drop Boxes Illegal"
No they didn't. They ruled that drop boxes were already illegal based on WI law. Whether or not there is a "vanishly low level of fraud" is irrelevant.
Way too many people seem to think that a court's job is to deliver good policy outcomes, not to interpret the law as it stands.
Election fraud is extremely rampant in our elections. The only reason you idiots can't find it is because every person whose job it is to find that fraud is on board with it. The Democrat party is not a legitimate national party and hasn't won a POTUS election without significant fraud since Kennedy.
This is, very likely, more close to the truth than anything out there.
Emma,
How much fraud is acceptable? Is a little bit of fraud a good thing, just a bit of spice for the dull election day boredom?
How much fraud can you eliminate? As with anything the more you attempt to get perfection the most effort and money it takes. Only way to get to zero fraud is to not hold elections.
The goal should simply be to lower any fraud to a level that it does not affect the election outcomes. In 2020, every investigation from AG Barr on down found levels of fraud insignificant to changing the outcome.
GTFO.
There is very little evidence of speeding in towns without patrol cars and radar guns as well
+10
Of course there's no fraud when no one is allowed to actually look for it. And when they keep trying to limit "fraud" to "in-person voter impersonation".
When I support voter ID, it's not so much that I'm worried that Bill is trying to impersonate Dave and steal his vote. I'm more concerned that Bill may not live in this district, let alone this state. When I lived in Atlanta, I knew a lot of people--esp. recent grads--who kept their old out-of-state drivers licenses and maintained old address (usually parents). Are they Georgia residents? Did they absentee vote at their old address? If you're trying to vote in Atlanta, but show the election person a DL from Macon, Ga, you may be trying to vote illegally (perhaps unintentionally).
Like this clown: https://freebeacon.com/blog/heartbreaking-vice-story-voter-id-laws-disenfranchise-idiots/
I'm sorry, but why should I believe that voter fraud is exceptionally rare? Historically it is not, there's been plenty of massive scandals that have been covered in the past century. Somehow all of our elections just became overwhelmingly clean starting in the 1980s?
The incentives for attempting to cheat are tiny for the individual voter, but for organized groups, the incentives are massive. Every single election is the most important election of our lifetimes. The country is constantly about to fall into fascism, or socialism. If the wrong party wins, they're going to make the planet explode by failing to combat climate change. There's people who actually believe this, and therefore have massive incentives to stop the wrong candidate from winning. And that's ignoring the pork and the bail-outs that different groups expect to get.
When something is strongly incentivized, it's likely happening unless there are counter incentives, like potential punishments. But claims of fraud are hard to prove, there's layers of disconnect between a voter and their ballot being counted. There's no way for any individual voter to check and see that their ballot was correctly counted. And people are claiming that simply auditing these things is a waste of time, or worse, undermining the democratic process. AUDITING the process is somehow considered undermining, when it's simply an attempt to confirm that the votes were counted correctly and nobody voted in a location they shouldn't be allowed to.
Let's say you're a campaign worker. You've got a couple of friends who work at a retirement home. There's some elderly people there who are going to receive a ballot who may not be competent to fill it out. But man, wouldn't it be nice if you could ensure an extra 30 votes from that district? Especially if it's a smaller race.
I simply don't believe that voter fraud is vanishingly rare. I've been to polling stations. I've WORKED at polling stations, when I was younger. The people they hire are not the country's best and brightest. Their processes are shitty. Many places I've seen, you've got one check-in station and 8 voting machines, but it takes 5 minutes to vote while it takes 10 minutes to check in. This results in no more than 2 of the 8 voting machines being used at any time while there's a line out the door waiting to get checked-in to vote.
And there's errors all the time. The county I used to live in still thinks I'm registered to vote there, even though I've registered and updated my driver's license, and it's been two years ago. When I get checked in, since my first initial is the same as my father's, they've printed out a form with his name on it. I've had to tell them to fix the information and void out the check-mark saying my father has signed in to vote.
And these are processes in a state that has voter ID laws, where they theoretically are checking to make sure you are who you claim to be. I don't know how they'd ever catch voter fraud in a state that doesn't check ID.
Literally trillions of dollars and global domination on the line, but Reason would have us believe the thoroughly corrupt left, who have captured all institutional power and constantly lied to get their way, are being honest about this.
If you believe this election - in which they wrote an article bragging about massive public+private+nonprofit collusion to "fortify" it, saw unprecedented statistical anomalies, had vote counting mysteriously/falsely stop at the same time in 6 different states, provided a result contrary to everything we saw with our own eyes and basic human nature, etc - was legitimate, you're delusional.
I don't believe in the massive conspiracies, based on the belief that massive conspiracies would be caught. But smaller, localized instances of fraud, I have to believe are overwhelmingly common. A smallish district that's overwhelmingly blue (heck, or red) where people don't question certain things, or don't really want to challenge signatures.
Especially when you've got "Get out the vote" drives that go around to make sure people in certain areas have got their ballots and have filled them out correctly. That's always extremely sketchy. They can meet people who will say they're never going to vote, but they'll just get their information, register them, and then they know the name of someone who is never going to vote, and therefore, would never discover the fraud. Ballot harvesting is a dirty practice, and I refuse to believe that there's not, as a BASELINE, 500ish extra votes in every state that result from it.
They wrote an article bragging about one aspect of the massive conspiracy they pulled off, their "fortifications".
Biden said he had the most effective and diverse vote fraud team in US history.
Pelosi told us ahead of time that Trump would win on election day but Biden would get "enough" votes through mail in to overcome it in the ensuing days.
Voter turnout was 20% higher than any previous election. Coincidentally, Trump's performance in 2020 was (at least) about 20% better than 2016.
Major metro polling stations "stopped counting" at the exact same time in 6 states separated by thousands of miles. Remember the "water main break" in Fulton County that turned out to be a lie, with the media initially reporting it then memory holing it 12 hours later?
Thousands of people came forward to bear witness to various types of shenanigans and malfeasance.
Trump won 18/19 "bellwether" counties, Florida, and Ohio.
The statistics are not internally consistent with the results. Biden did not receive 81 million legitimate votes. I suspect that number is MASSIVELY inflated because they underestimated Trump's popularity (hence the middle of the night panic "stoppage" in just those places Ds had complete control over).
It's not hard to pull off a conspiracy when you prevent everyone from looking for it, have a monopoly on institutional power to say "nothing to see here", and pretend the conspiracy that you'd spent weeks announcing isn't really a conspiracy.
^^^THIS^^^
In-person, voter impersonation may indeed be very rare.
But there are other types of voter fraud and irregularities that can and should be addressed.
During COVID, we saw mass-mailed ballots. Some apartment dwellers reported received 4 or 5 different previous tenant's ballots. How many people could not resist a chance to vote for their guy multiple times with likely impunity?
During COVID, we saw mass-mailed ballots have to be collected by USPS drivers. Given the political skew of the USPS employee base and their union, how hard would it have been for carriers to simply vanish ballots from predominantly conservative neighborhoods or specific households (e.g., ones with Republican campaign signs). Or maybe there are carriers who lean the other direction, they could vanish ballots from the other side in the same way.
During COVID, we saw ad hoc rules being made up on the spot be election officials..."cure" ballots, ignore signature mismatches, let nursing home employees harvest ballots. All of these actions were wrong, illegal, and courts are finally getting around to dealing with these overreaches.
As the data sees to show in Georgia, a lot of people voted incorrectly. They were not properly registered in the proper district. They voted in the wrong district, perhaps even in the wrong state.
I want every single person who is eligible to vote be able to do so if they choose to do so.
At the same time, I want to be able to verify that each ballot cast is cast by an eligible voter, who is voting their own ballot, in the district in which they legally reside as citizens, and that they are voting once and only once. I want the counting methods to be repeatable and auditable, to help ensure that only valid ballots cast by actual eligible voters are counted. I want the people doing the counting (or running the counting machines) to be impartial, or at least honest. Maybe since there can be no such thing, at least have equal number of partisans working each step (sort of like solving the problem by "one of you gets to cut the cake, the other gets first pick", which tends to result in *precisely* even slices).
What pisses me off is the authoritative declaration that voter fraud is vanishingly rare, when the truth is that we have vanishingly little evidence of voter fraud.
Reason has not done any investigative reporting on what processes are in place to check for voter fraud. They cite to other publications who have a bias, and those publications don't do any real in-depth searches. The processes have tons of vulnerabilities.
For example-do you think you're getting actual handwriting experts doing signature matches? There simply aren't that many experts to cover the extreme amount of ballots. And nobody's signature is perfectly identical to any other signature they've done. I have to believe that 90% of the time, you've got people looking at a scribble and saying, "Meh, it's close enough" and moving on, because they've got a pile of 1,000 envelopes in front of them that they need to process in 2 hours.
In Nevada they use computerized signature verification. There is a threshold set to which the signature either passes or fails to match. That threshold was lowered from something like 60% down to 20%.
Steven Crowder got addresses off voter rolls. He went to those addresses. He filmed the absence of a domicile at dozens of them. He was then kicked off all social media.
Back in the '90s I worked for the Jon Coon campaign, and we canvased the entire district he was running for state Rep in.
Yeah, it was remarkable how many addresses listed in the registration list didn't even exist. It was several percent, as I recall.
Whether there's fraud or not, elections need to be fully auditable. Currently, they're not: the system can recount ballots ad nauseam, but it can't guarantee that all the ballots that are counted are validly cast by legitimate voters. So we're treated to the endless spectacle of the losing side claiming the election was illegitimate. That didn't start with Trump, it's been going on at least since Bush v. Gore.
It's past time to improve the auditability to the point where everyone acknowledges that fraud isn't a problem.
BTW, I live in Oregon, which has been 100% vote-by-mail for decades. I always bring my ballot to a drop box, since I believe there's more security in properly monitored ballot drop boxes than in the US postal service. I believe vote-by-mail can be made secure. I believe it's sufficiently secure in Oregon, but I can't vouch for other states.
With mail-in ballots, recounts cannot ensure that they are counting all the ballots people cast, whether they were put into the mail or drop boxes or given to ballot harvesters. To many places along the way for someone handling those ballots to "lose" some before they ever hit the poll workers hands.
"A vanishingly low incidence of fraud in the first place."
Ha-hahahahaha-a-hahahahahahahahahaha-ha ha ha ha... Oh wow!
Can't find it if we don't look, and accuse everyone who wants to look of being a conspiracy theorist and try to get them kicked off the internet.
Fuck off you lying leftist cunt. If the police stopped answering 911 calls and ignored all incidents while restricting being able to file a report to every other Thursday from 2-3am you'd see a rmsharp reduction in reported crimes according to them. Problem is people can see that they are lying and you and the DNC are the same when it comes to voting.
As someone from Wisconsin, I'd be fine with it if the legislature approved dropboxes. But they haven't, and you can't just implement them without the approval of the legislature. Whether it's a good idea is irrelevant to the court - their job is to determine what the law *is*, not what they feel like it should be.
Wisconsin law 6.87(4)(b) says in relevant part: "The envelope shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots." There are two options: mail, or deliver in person. I don't think it's reasonable to say that sticking something in an unmanned dropbox is delivering in person. (Especially since dropping it in a mailbox clearly *isn't*, since they needed a separate provision for that.)
And if you read Wisconsin statute 6.84 you'll see language which would indicate a strict reading, rather than a permissive one, is appropriate here. "The legislature finds that the privilege of voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse". Several provisions, including 6.87(4), "shall be construed as mandatory" (I guess they knew in advance that some people would think the law was non-mandatory?) and "Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be counted."
Wrong headline. SCOWI confirmed that the dropboxes were always illegal. Former justice Gableman's investigation has uncovered more examples of the Election Commission violating state law, but SCOWI has yet to confirm this.
"Earlier this week leading Republicans in Wisconsin held a press conference where they insisted that if the drop boxes aren’t legal under election law, then the ballots that were collected in the drop boxes in the 2020 Election were also not legitimate.
The number of ballots deposited in the drop boxes in Wisconsin outnumbered the slim margin of victory given to Joe Biden in 2020." GWP
Drop boxes are and were illegal under Wisconsin law in the 2020 election. Only the legislature can change election law under Wisconsin's state Constitution. Wisconsin state Dictator and governor authorized illegal drop boxes without the consent of the legislature.
EXCLUSIVE: Maricopa County Mail-In Ballots Clearly Reveal Party Affiliation Which Is ILLEGAL
Maricopa County’s early mail-in ballots are sparking concerns among voters whose party affiliation is clearly displayed in the corner of their envelope.
Maricopa County’s mail-in ballots are a clear and direct violation of SB1002, which was signed into law by the Governor on March 18, 2021. Arizona Statutes have been updated to read, “The officer charged by law with the duty of preparing ballots at any election shall: Ensure that the ballot return envelopes are of a type that does not reveal the voter’s selections OR POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION and that is tamper evident when properly sealed.”
Liz Harris and Captain Seth Keshel, two Patriots who led a canvass of Maricopa County homes, calculated that over 173,000 votes were LOST. 34.23% of canvassed voters who were recorded with no vote said they had voted.
"Vanishingly Low" C'mon Emma. From Kennedy/Nixon in 1960 to Biden/Trump in 2020, there have been substantial frauds that have altered elections. The thing about 2020 was that it was so widespread and blatant. It is stunning to me that the Reason staff refuse to look at all the evidence. Here is a link for you to start, https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/bombshells-belie-big-lie-21-confirmed-illegalities-irregularities-2020. John Solomon is no partisan hack, rather a respected independent journalist.
So, our writer here is asserting not merely that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but the further proposition that simple rarity of evidence sufficient to sustain criminal convictions is evidence of absence.
Gonna mount my hobbyhorse and point out the most obvious example of open fraud:
What do you call it when the government bodies controlled by the two parties (legislatures, election bureaucracies, courts) deliberately and openly omit the names of candidates, and the nominees of entire parties, from the ballot?
That's what they do with third parties. Of course, I acknowledge they can charge what I'd call the "advertising costs" - nondiscriminatory fees to cover the cost of the extra names on the ballot - but keeping names off because of unpopularity, or the unwillingness of potential supporters to sign petitions and get doxxed and harassed?
And in states without a write-in option, keeping the names of the ballot is not only fraud, but also vote suppression.
If they're capable of that, I'm willing to believe they're capable of other things as well.
update: keeping names off ballots can always be called vote suppression, denying a write-in alternative is *disenfranchisement.*
The ruling isn’t a “fraud reducing measure”. The ruling orders election officials to follow the f*cking law, because it is state legislatures, not the executive branch, that determines election procedures.
The ruling would be correct even if it increased the potential for fraud.
Good god, are you this stupid, or are you deliberately gaslighting people?
The more interesting part of this story is that this is not a new idea. This was asserted long before the election.
Around the country, courts declined to intervene in illegal changes to election procedures citing "standing". Nobody can show that they have been harmed... Therefore they lack standing to sue.
Then, after the election, all the same courts ruled that the question was moot. There is no valid claim, because it is too late to remedy the situation. You lack standing due to mootness.
It was a really effective judo move.... They went around the legislature and used attorneys general and election officials to change procedures, and the courts abdicated their responsibility to enforce the law.
^^^ +1000% ^^^
Understand Emma- that admitting fraud exists, and taking steps to prevent it - is a good move, especially when the goal of progressives is more fraud and obscurity regarding election results. Congratulations on your recent graduation from college. Stick around and you might learn something they'd never teach you at a liberal arts college. Free speech is in fact not dead - though it may be on life support!
The Wisconsin Supreme Court did *not* just make ballot drop boxes illegal. They were already illegal under state law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court just recognized that fact.
But it failed to notice that the system of drop boxes had been used for many years throughout the state. This is a problem that did not exist till the former President lost the election.
I suspect that there's a bit of a bait and switch there. In 2020 they were putting unattended drop boxes in random public places. A bit of googling and Wayback machine work hasn't found any references to drop boxes being used in prior elections, though if you've got some I'd like to see them.
What I think is going on is that they did have 'drop boxes' in the election offices. Not sitting out somewhere else unattended.
But I could be wrong. Am I?
The 2020 election was botched so badly that we will never know what the voters intended. We all saw videos of illegal ballot counting procedures and have sworn witness testimony. With a secret ballot there is no way to fix a botched election once invalid ballots are in the system. It is suggestive that most of the illegal ballot handling seems to have been in heavily Democrat cities.
Can you cite any of that sworn testimony? We heard a lot about that, but no one ever actually came forth to be sworn under oath and examined.
The WI Supreme Court did not "make" drop boxes illegal. The Supreme Court has no legislative power in Wisconsin.
Furthermore, only the state legislature--in any U.S. state--has the constitutional power (and this power is absolute, granted by the U.S. Constitution) to set the manner of choosing electors for president and vice president.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, rather, found that drop boxes outside election offices were NEVER legal in Wisconsin. That is to say, they were illegal in 2020 too.
And, this means that not a single ballot received in a drop box outside an election office was legal to count in 2020.
That is what the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling means.
Let me know when you have one worth discussing. I won't hold my breath.
Big talk from the whimpering casualties of America's culture war, who have been losing at the marketplace of ideas -- and complying with the preferences of better Americans -- during more than a half-century of American progress.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, that is.
Typical arrogant, ignorant leftist dim bulb, can't learn from history or his " betters, of which most folks likely qualify.
He "permits" others to be free, a slave owner outlook that fascists love.
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (vsg-06) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk
Ya the streets of Westchester one of the richest counties in the country.