For those that will challenge the source here’s the ruling
This might be a bigger deal than it initially appears, but right now it’s just a foot in the door.
Ballots would need to be independently audited on a case-by-case basis to see if voters lied about their status. In order to invalidate a vote, it would need to be proven that a voter lied.
In its final decision, the justices concluded that it’s up to each voter — not the county clerks or anyone else — to decide if and when they qualify as indefinitely confined.
Of course, we can’t discuss Wisconsin SC today without mentioning that they threw out Trump’s lawsuit to toss those 200k votes. As above, you can’t toss the votes for no reason - you need to prove it was invalid.
What if a large quantity of these voters don’t exist? Or are dead? Or moved out of state?
The Supreme Court can dismiss a case for procedure without hearing it or probing the evidence. This is in fact what transpired in Wisconsin and everywhere else where plaintiffs have been precluded from presenting their cases. In my opinion, the election was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. It was a disgrace that will live in infamy.
Which, by the way bikki, is a relatively new concept.
Before the last half century, standing to sue was not a contested issue in federal courts. Access to court was determined by the substantive law at issue,7 and the limited number of common law actions, governed by strict pleading requirements, kept most suits within the confines of what we would now consider an Article III “Case or Controversy.” Although early courts certainly sought to identify the “proper parties” to the suit before it, and sometimes distinguished between public and private rights, they did not use the term standing, nor did they view the identification of proper parties as a requirement of Article III.8 For example in the famous case Frothingham v. Mellon,9 the plaintiff argued that the Maternity Act of 1921, which provided federal support for state anti-infant mortality programs, usurped a traditional prerogative of state government in violation of the Tenth Amendment.10 The plaintiff claimed an injury on the grounds that the Maternity Act would cause her to pay more taxes than she otherwise would have. Without using the language of standing, the Supreme Court rejected that claim because the plaintiff’s expected future tax liability resulting from the Act was “comparatively minute and indeterminable” and that “the effect upon future taxation” was “remote, fluctuating and uncertain.”11
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/LitigatingChallenges_33.pdf
The courts have created this concept of “standing” relatively recently in an effort to avoid controversial topics.
It’s pure cowardice.
The U.S. Supreme Court itself dodged this case. Excellent research GSC. There are still a number of cases pending before mixed jurisdictions, I think somewhere plaintiffs will be proceed to trial. We need National Voter I.D. cards with photos and thumbprints, and the thumbprints should be affixed to all ballots. They do it in Mexico where they on account of corruption now have a far better system than we do. Trump easily won this election. It wouldn’t surprise had he won the popular vote as well. There needs to be an effort to examine the workings of all voting machines. All counting should be scrutinized by observers. All ballots entered into machines should be photographed by the machines. .
bikki - all of those are good ideas. But the only thing that would make a difference is a mandatory forensic audit (ballots, hardware, software, and potential connected networks) no later than 30 days after every election BY LAW… and those audits need to be conducted by 3 SECRET, INDEPENDENT firms that have 3 separate and independent result sets that will then be compared and contrasted in public.
That’s it. That solves the problem.
I would pay extra in taxes with a smile on my face to ensure that our vote is always protected.
I don’t think that increasing the vote is wisdom at all. I think people need to vote in person if they truly care about their governance. If a person is too indolent to travel to the polls, that person doesn’t deserve to vote. The only mail in ballots that should be accepted are those of the military. Even at Amazon, they are not putting up with mail-in voting shenanigans in their union vote, so let the voting be of patriots who give a damn.