Only one thing to do.

Federal law is pretty clear on elections as is some state law if they don't change the law in the middle of an election. If a state cannot abide by the law, federal or state, then the election must be held again to protect the votes of the legal voters.
Any laws in place at the start of voting (thanks to the democrats that is now 90 days before election) must remain in place until after this election cycle is completed and that means the first week of January.
Polling operations shall be open to registered poll watchers at all levels. Failure to do so will result in the detention of the obstructing official(s).
Voting rolls shall be verified for completeness and accuracy every two years before a general election. The dead, convicted felons (in most states), and non-citizens cannot vote in a federal election. Each qualified citizen shall have only one vote in a federal election.
Mail in voting is highly subject to fraud and will not be authorized for a federal election.
The state's and municipalities are responsible for the segregation of state and federal ballots should the state not want to maintain the federal requirements for ballot health. Failure to do so is a federal felony.
All voters shall be required to present ID at the place of polling at the time of voting. Absentee ballots must have a legible signature that matches that on file and a legible postmark prior to and the day of the election during the time the polls are open.

Any state in violation of two or more of these laws must hold their election again within 20 days. Properly verified absentee ballots must be retained to enfranchise distant voters.

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, and Illinois are on notice.

No sir, You do NOT get a do over suck it up you LOST

He is right there is ony 1 thing to do put TRUMP in jail, if he does not want to leave the white house on his own , ok let him leave in a body bag

Good example of what's going bad about this country. You want to talk deplorable. Nothing I wrote is partisan. It only serves to protect our rights to a free and fair elections. That fact that you take exception demonstrates a certain feeling of guilt. You know that the democrats are cheating. You're fine with it on the surface, your side and all, but you also know that what they are doing is not what this country is supposed to stand for. What do you stand for?

Any state in violation of two or more of these laws must hold their election again within 20 days. Properly verified absentee ballots must be retained to enfranchise distant voters.

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, and Illinois are on notice. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Do you REALLY think that there will be new elections?

I have been listening to several lawyers supporting Trump and that has never been an item of discussion.

Well, if they prove fraud then they have to discuss the remedy. I'm sure that someone will say give the votes to the the victim but is that FAIR. Assuming the Biden campaign and/or the DNC is the guilty party how will rank and file Biden supporters feel if their votes are given to Trump? Three choices; let the criminals prevail, award damages to the victim, or hold the election happen again and let the chips fall where they may.

There is another possibility; article 2 of the constitution says that each state shall advance a slate of electors chosen by the state to cast their votes for president. The state's use popular elections to chose the slate of electors but there is no prohibition that the electors could not be chosen by the state assembly as was done over 200 years ago. That would take the election out of the hands of corrupt officials and give it to the state house. No new election, no additional cost, no new campaign, but a result grounded in precedent.

The real question is if Nancy wants a do over. After all the Dims lost 7 seats.

Well, if they prove fraud then they have to discuss the remedy. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

You have to start with a base of evidence. There is no such thing as "if".










Fuckin' morons in charge.

I swear!

Well, if they prove fraud then they have to discuss the remedy. I'm sure that someone will say give the votes to the the victim but is that FAIR. Assuming the Biden campaign and/or the DNC is the guilty party how will rank and file Biden supporters feel if their votes are given to Trump? Three choices; let the criminals prevail, award damages to the victim, or hold the election happen again and let the chips fall where they may.

There is another possibility; article 2 of the constitution says that each state shall advance a slate of electors chosen by the state to cast their votes for president. The state's use popular elections to chose the slate of electors but there is no prohibition that the electors could not be chosen by the state assembly as was done over 200 years ago. That would take the election out of the hands of corrupt officials and give it to the state house. No new election, no additional cost, no new campaign, but a result grounded in precedent. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

And


https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_com...e_legislatures

Heading into the 2020 elections, Republicans had majorities in 59 chambers and Democrats had majorities in 39 chambers. In the Alaska House, there was a power-sharing agreement between the parties as part of a coalition.

Justice Alito just said that ballots must be segregated JUST IN CASE!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/weather/gop-asks-supreme-court-to-halt-pennsylvania-vote-count/vi-BB1aMjXy

GOP asks Supreme Court to halt Pennsylvania vote count

Justice Alito repeats the guidance that post-Tuesday mail ballots must be segregated, but it doesn't direct them to stop counting.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/pennsylvania-late-ballots-supreme-court-alito.html

The Supreme Court preserved the possibility of a major postelection battle over the validity of many Pennsylvania ballots on Wednesday, leaving the door open to a Bush v. Gore reprise in the weeks after Nov. 3, even as they punted the question of late-arriving ballots down the road.


Wednesday’s order involves a long-running dispute over Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot procedures. A state statute requires all ballots to be received by Election Day, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that—due in part to the unprecedented nature of voting during a pandemic—this requirement violates the state constitution. It ordered officials to count ballots that are mailedby Election Day but arrive by Nov. 6, three days after the polls close. Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block that ruling; last week, it refused by a 4–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals. In light of Amy Coney Barrett’s then-imminent confirmation, Republicans went back to SCOTUS, asking them to re-decide the case immediately in their favor.


The justices declined this invitation on Wednesday with no noted dissents, but that doesn’t tell the full story. Barrett did not participate, though she made it clear that she had not recused herself, but rather lacked the time “to fully review the parties’ filings.” Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a separate statement that reads much like a dissent. Alito wrote that he “reluctantly” decided that “there is simply not enough time” to resolve the case “before the election.” He noted, however, that Pennsylvania officials will voluntarily segregate ballots that arrive before Election Day and after. If SCOTUS overturns the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just after the election, then, “a targeted remedy will be available.” This means that SCOTUS can still decide to order the state to throw out those ballots received between Nov. 4 through 6, and that Barrett can still opt to participate in the case after Election Day.


Alito described this potential “targeted remedy” as “modest relief.” It would be anything but: This “relief” would likely involve the U.S. Supreme Court nullifying thousands of ballots cast under a lawful court order. It’s hard to overstate the potential impact of such a dramatic action. FiveThirtyEight reports a 37.1 percent chance that the election will come down to Pennsylvania. If the race is close enough, the winner of Pennsylvania—and the presidency—might come down to a few thousand ballots. There’s a chance, however slim, that those late-arriving ballots, in other words, could decide the whole election. If SCOTUS throws them out and ends up handing Trump a second term, it would make Bush v. Gore look like a warm-up act.


Why, exactly, do at least three justices want to toss all these ballots? After all, 22 states and the District of Columbia count ballots that are mailed by Election Day but arrive shortly thereafter. And it’s historically been black letter law that federal courts cannot overrule state courts’ interpretations of their own state constitutions. But the federal Constitution says that state legislatures have authority over election law. And it was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that ordered a deadline extension under its interpretation of the state constitution. Alito claimed that its decision unconstitutionally usurped power from the legislature.

What if the SC says those ballots are not legal? What then?

I have no idea how this will all play out but it is obvious that this isn't over yet.

Wouldn't that be a hoot if the US Supreme Court rules that what the Penn. SC did was un-constitutional and the 5th and deciding vote was cast by Amy Coney Barrett.

Mail in voting is highly subject to fraud and will not be authorized for a federal election. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

This is a lie.

Well, if they prove fraud then they have to discuss the remedy. I'm sure that someone will say give the votes to the the victim but is that FAIR. Assuming the Biden campaign and/or the DNC is the guilty party how will rank and file Biden supporters feel if their votes are given to Trump? Three choices; let the criminals prevail, award damages to the victim, or hold the election happen again and let the chips fall where they may.

There is another possibility; article 2 of the constitution says that each state shall advance a slate of electors chosen by the state to cast their votes for president. The state's use popular elections to chose the slate of electors but there is no prohibition that the electors could not be chosen by the state assembly as was done over 200 years ago. That would take the election out of the hands of corrupt officials and give it to the state house. No new election, no additional cost, no new campaign, but a result grounded in precedent. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Umm no.

We’re still searching for those 3 million illegal votes in the election he won.

Fuck that guy.

Not gonna happen.

This is happening............