Octopus Overlords

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:45 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:21 am

Taking this at face value, why would he be voting in Chicago? What races are going on there / in Illinois that an Irish national would care about, or that some outside group would want to swing? You'd think they would be hitting NV / AZ / TX / CA or something more like that.

I would say 90% complete bullshit, 9% that it's some Project Veritas type bullshit, and 1% that it's true.

They got the feeling that he was doing it for a free trip and was voting whatever he was told, not doing it for some greater cause. He knew who he was voting for but didn't know any of the politics. It was just really detailed to be bullshit.

Why Chicago? Apparently he said because they could get to 3 precincts in 3 states by starting in Chicago and that's what they were told to do.



Also, I filed to vote by mail. I just got notification today that my ballot was mailed and would arrive in up to 7 days. 7 days would be after the election. I assume you can still send in a ballot after the election?

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:40 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:38 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:37 pm 7 days from today is after the election. So if I get it in max time, I'm screwed. Well, not screwed, just my meaningless vote won't be counted.

If it arrives by the 20th, you'll be counted.

If I get it on the 7th (or late in the 6th even), I can't return it with an election day or prior postmark. I also can't go to the poll to vote without the mail ballot it looks like.

I'm assuming it will take 3-4 days though so I'm not overly concerned.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:00 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:40 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:38 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:37 pm 7 days from today is after the election. So if I get it in max time, I'm screwed. Well, not screwed, just my meaningless vote won't be counted.

If it arrives by the 20th, you'll be counted.

If I get it on the 7th (or late in the 6th even), I can't return it with an election day or prior postmark. I also can't go to the poll to vote without the mail ballot it looks like.

I'm assuming it will take 3-4 days though so I'm not overly concerned.

The rules specify that you can't vote in person? I would assume you could, except that if you also returned the mail ballot then they would disqualify that second ballot (and possibly the first too).

hepcat wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:43 pm Welp, Kemp is claiming that the Dems hacked the voter database now. This on the heels of an expose detailing just how vulnerable his system is. It appears he’s trying to turn the narrative around. Kemp is rapidly racing to the top of the list when it comes to worthless scumbags in politics.

Law Enforcement has been strongly notified to watch closely for any ILLEGAL VOTING which may take place in Tuesday’s Election (or Early Voting). Anyone caught will be subject to the Maximum Criminal Penalties allowed by law. Thank you!

Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:10 pm Man, when law enforcement is STRONGLY notified, you know it’s serious.

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:47 pm
DOJ to monitor voter fraud in mostly Democratic counties.

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:47 pm

DOJ to monitor voter fraud in mostly Democratic counties.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:49 pm I imagine that those folks are going to be under some heavy scrutiny and we will have video before the ballots close.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:59 pm It's weird that Lowell and Malden are on the list. They're far from the most Democratic areas of the state, and there just aren't that many people there. They're not places that I would pick if my goal were to suppress Democratic turnout in a meaningful way, because there aren't that many people, they're not places with a massive democratic edge, and I don't think they're going to matter for many federal elections.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:13 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:59 pm It's weird that Lowell and Malden are on the list. They're far from the most Democratic areas of the state, and there just aren't that many people there. They're not places that I would pick if my goal were to suppress Democratic turnout in a meaningful way, because there aren't that many people, they're not places with a massive democratic edge, and I don't think they're going to matter for many federal elections.

Presumably there has to be some cover for the operation. If it were all democratic counties it would pretty easy to call shenanigans, for whatever that's worth these days.

On the other hand, it might just be bullshit cover for Sessions himself, so that he can point and tell the prez "see? I'm doing it like you told me to do".

The North Carolina Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement has voted to hold an evidentiary hearing to address irregularities in the U.S. House District 9 race.

State election officials voted 7-2 Friday to hold the hearing on or before Dec. 21.

The vice chair of the bipartisan board made the motion, calling for officials to look at absentee by-mail ballots and potentially other matters in the district that stretches from Charlotte to Bladen County....

...Another affidavit said Dowless was “doing absentee” for Harris. The document claims Dowless said, “You know I don’t take checks. They have to pay me cash.”

Another affidavit points to workers going to voters' doors to collect absentee ballots. One voter said a worker told her she would finish the voter’s ballot for her. Both acts would be illegal.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:34 pm Crickets from the Usual Suspects on what appears to possibly be real, felonious, voter fraud? Color me surprised!

The North Carolina Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement has voted to hold an evidentiary hearing to address irregularities in the U.S. House District 9 race.

State election officials voted 7-2 Friday to hold the hearing on or before Dec. 21.

The vice chair of the bipartisan board made the motion, calling for officials to look at absentee by-mail ballots and potentially other matters in the district that stretches from Charlotte to Bladen County....

...Another affidavit said Dowless was “doing absentee” for Harris. The document claims Dowless said, “You know I don’t take checks. They have to pay me cash.”

Another affidavit points to workers going to voters' doors to collect absentee ballots. One voter said a worker told her she would finish the voter’s ballot for her. Both acts would be illegal.

What Channel 9 found appears to be a targeted effort to illegally pick up ballots, in which even the person picking them up had no idea whether those ballots were even delivered to the elections board.

Consistently, Channel 9 found the same people signing as witnesses for the people voting, which is very rare.

Of the 159 submitted and accepted absentee ballot envelopes, below is the breakdown of those who signed as witnesses:

Woody Hester witnessed 44
James Singletary witnessed 42
Lisa Britt witnessed 42
Ginger Eason witnessed 28
Jessica Dowless witnessed 15
Cheryl Kinlaw witnessed 13
Deborah Edwards witnessed 11
Sandra Dowless witnessed 10

Many times, people on that list witnessed ballots together.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:19 am The Post has a long article giving more details on the fraud.

I gotta say, I'm pleasantly surprised that the NC elections board isn't (to date) burying this. I guess the NC state GOP hasn't gotten control of them.

The incoming House majority leader said Democrats might refuse to seat a North Carolina Republican next year unless and until “substantial” questions about the integrity of his election are resolved.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:49 pm WaPo

The incoming House majority leader said Democrats might refuse to seat a North Carolina Republican next year unless and until “substantial” questions about the integrity of his election are resolved.

stessier wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:32 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:19 am The Post has a long article giving more details on the fraud.

I gotta say, I'm pleasantly surprised that the NC elections board isn't (to date) burying this. I guess the NC state GOP hasn't gotten control of them.

The board is 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 1 affiliated with neither party by law.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:56 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:49 pm WaPo

The incoming House majority leader said Democrats might refuse to seat a North Carolina Republican next year unless and until “substantial” questions about the integrity of his election are resolved.

I've been wondering whether the outgoing or the incoming House gets to decide whether to seat new members. This makes it sound like the latter, although if that's the case, wouldn't it matter a lot in what order representatives are seated?

El Guapo wrote:Is this the board that the GOP tried to stack but a court ruled it unconstitutional?

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:33 pm

El Guapo wrote:Is this the board that the GOP tried to stack but a court ruled it unconstitutional?

Yes, and then put a provision on the ballot to overturn that decision and stack it again. Fortunately voters called them on that bullshit and it didn't pass.

Two Suffolk County election workers and a local Independence party leader were charged with forging signatures on nominating petitions in an attempt to boost the chances of GOP candidates, according to a Wednesday Newsday report.

When Texas election officials announced their plan to vet the legal status of 95,000 voters, President Donald Trump took notice.

But in a tweet about the matter, he got the facts wrong.

"58,000 non-citizens voted in Texas, with 95,000 non-citizens registered to vote. These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg," Trump tweeted Jan. 27. "All over the country, especially in California, voter fraud is rampant. Must be stopped. Strong voter ID! @foxandfriends"
...
In this case, Trump is miscasting information from the Texas Secretary of State.

The state's list is not the final word on how many people have voted illegally. It is now up to county officials to collect more information about these voters and determine their citizenship status. It's possible in some cases, for example, that someone obtained a driver’s license before earning their citizenship.

The whittling process that is just starting across Texas has played out in other states that mounted similar voter roll purges based on driver’s license data, said Justin Levitt, a Loyola law school professor and expert on voter registration.
...
State officials looked at two sets of data for their current investigation: the names of people who provided documents indicating they were not citizens when they obtained a driver’s license or a state ID, and the names of people who registered to vote.

That resulted in a list of 95,000 people with a current driver’s license or state ID who also had a voter registration record in Texas. Of those, 58,000 people voted in elections back to 1996, said Sam Taylor, a spokesman for the secretary of State.

But the same advisory that is the source of those numbers urged caution in interpreting them, using all capital letters to describe the similar records as "WEAK matches." The announcement didn’t say 58,000 noncitizens definitely voted.

Despite the warning, the numbers inspired some overhyped reactions, including from the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican who tweeted a "voter fraud alert."

County officials can’t cancel a voter’s registration based on the information provided so far. The advisory states that if registrars have reason to believe a voter is not eligible, they should send a letter to the voters asking for proof of citizenship within 30 days. After that point, election officials can cancel the person’s registration.

Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper says a trial judge's ruling striking down North Carolina's new constitutional amendment mandating photo identification to vote "has a sound basis" in the law but ultimately will be resolved by higher courts.

Cooper told reporters Tuesday that Wake County Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins wrote a "well-reasoned opinion" recently that voided a pair of amendments approved by voters in November.

Collins agreed with the state NAACP that two amendments had been put on the ballot last year by a General Assembly that had been "illegal constituted" because of racial bias in House and Senate districts.

Republican legislative leaders are appealing Collins' order and seeking to have its enforcement delayed. The ruling brings uncertainty to whether a December law implementing the voter ID amendment ultimately will stand.

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:36 pm This doesn’t qualify as voter fraud, just run of the mill voter suppression...

When an overwhelming majority of Floridians voted in November to restore voting rights for as many as 1.4 million felons, liberals and conservatives alike celebrated the largest expansion of voting eligibility in the country since the elimination of poll taxes and literacy tests in the 1960s.

The bipartisan cheering waned this month when Republican state lawmakers proposed limiting the scope of what’s known in Florida as Amendment 4 — and Democrats lashed out with accusations of voter suppression.

Republicans said they want only to guide implementation of a sparsely worded amendment and are committed to following the intent of the voters who approved it. Their critics said the GOP is trying to go far beyond that. Although the legislation is not final, the episode has revealed how complicated and increasingly polarized the issue of voting law has become — and how likely it is to remain that way through the 2020 election.
...
Amendment 4 restores the voting rights of felons upon completion of all terms of their sentence, including parole and probation. It excludes those convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses. The amendment took effect on Jan. 8, and although it’s not possible to track voter registration among felons, a spike in registration followed.

But Republicans, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, said the amendment required implementing legislation. In particular, GOP leaders said three terms in the amendment — completion, murder and sexual offense — needed to be defined for clarity, so the state’s 67 county elections supervisors could administer the measure uniformly.
...
What Republicans came up with prompted an uproar. One GOP proposal broadly defined sexual offense to include — in addition to violent crimes — video voyeurism, lewd exhibition, prostitution, and locating an adult entertainment store within 2,500 feet of a school.

Amendment 4 advocates said the list should have been limited to those crimes that qualify criminals for the state’s sex offender registry. But James Grant, a Republican state representative from Tampa who wrote one of the legislative proposals, said that’s not what Amendment 4 said.

“‘Felony sex offense’ means absolutely nothing in a legal context,” Grant said. He said likening his effort to a poll tax was the kind of “partisan tribal crap that’s crippling the country.” It’s common in Florida, he said, to draft clarifying legislation after constitutional amendments are approved.

Lawmakers defined sentence completion to include prison time, probation, parole, fines, fees and restitution declared by a judge to be part of a sentence. More troubling for Amendment 4 advocates, though, was the inclusion of costs that have been converted by a judge to civil liens to allow poor defendants more time to pay. Under those rules, it could take years for an individual who has otherwise completed their sentence to be eligible to vote.

In a move that critics say undermines the spirit of what voters intended, thousands of people with serious criminal histories will be required to fully pay back fines and fees to the courts before they could vote. The new limits would require potential new voters to settle what may be tens of thousands of dollars in financial obligations to the courts, effectively pricing some people out of the ballot box.
...
With the House voting 67-42 along party lines on Friday to endorse the new restrictions, the legislation goes next to Gov. Ron DeSantis, who had called on the Legislature to set additional standards for registering ex-felons to vote.
...
Pressed for time as they near the end of the annual session, senators on Thursday afternoon tacked the new repayment requirements onto a previously unrelated bill that addressed some of the elections problems that surfaced during last year’s recount. The surprise legislative maneuver forced Democrats who might have otherwise favored the elections bill to oppose it. The State House had earlier endorsed a bill that included the strict repayment provisions.

But as part of a compromise late Thursday between House and Senate Republicans, people with felony convictions would have ways to become eligible to vote other than just full repayment of fines and fees. They could ask a judge to waive financial obligations or convert them to community service. The Senate had initially hoped to be more lenient, and it appeared that the compromise in any case would leave a large number of potential voters unable to register.