Are Democrat judges foolishly expanding mail-in voting rules in their states?
For months, Democrats have been planning to win the election through mail-in voting. This is because mail-in voting easily allows fraud. Democrat judges have done what they can to help by riding roughshod over state voting statutes to increase opportunities to mail ballots after the election. Doug Ross, however, argues that, if you look at the Constitution, these judges may be encouraging their state’s citizens to cast votes that cannot be counted in federal elections.
One of the most egregious examples of judges running amok came out of Pennsylvania. That state’s Supreme Court, which has five Democrats and only two Republicans, looked at the state’s explicitly written statute governing mail-in voting and decided to expand upon its terms:
Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania have previously been due by the time polls close on Election Day. But the court's order adds a three-day extension to receive ballots that are postmarked by 8 p.m. on Election Day. Ballots with a preelection postmark will now be counted as long as they are received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6, three days after the polls close.
The court also wrote that ballots “received within this period that lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible, will be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.”
In other words, after the polls close, if Trump has won (as I believe he will), Democrats can then figure out how many more votes they need to change the outcome and simply deliver the ballots without even bothering with the pretense of mailing. In theory, that’s how you win an election, every single time. Lazy voters don’t have to bother with polling places or deadlines. They just wait until called upon to act.
Pennsylvania’s not alone. Activist judges in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have also entered rulings throwing over their state’s statutes regarding mail-in voting and, instead, substituting judge-made rules that drag voting out far beyond the November 3 election.
Doug Ross thinks these activist judges may have been too clever by half. Typically for Democrats, these activist judges don’t know the Constitution:
All of these illegal proclamations directly contravene state law and are simply naked, partisan attempts to swing the election.
More importantly, they are in clear violation of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 4
...The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…
The Judicial branch -- at any level of government -- has no role in deciding the times, places and protocols for Congressional elections.
Ross reads the Constitution to mean that, while the judge-made rules can affect state elections, they cannot affect federal elections. At the federal level, the only elections that count are those that comport with legislation. Put another way, only the people’s representatives in a given state have the authority to decide how federal elections should be handled in that state. Judges don’t have that power.
Doug says the same line of thinking applies to the presidential election:
As for the presidential election, the Constitution is equally clear, as Mark Levin has repeatedly pointed out.
Article II, Section 1
...Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector…
Once again, the legislature is wholly responsible for directing the manner of presidential elections.
If the new rules from the activist judges suppress in-person voting, that may prove to be a disaster if the subsequently mailed ballots get thrown out. No wonder Democrat bigwigs are starting to encourage their peeps to vote in person.
This is the kind of issue that will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. That’s why the Supreme Court must have nine justices. Better still, these justices should owe their intellectual fealty to the United States Constitution, not to political outcomes and policymaking. They need to be the type of people who look to the Constitution first and follow where it leads. Amy Coney Barrett has made clear throughout her career that she is that judge.