Fogbow

So, a volunteer election day worker would be responsible for checking a fingerprint? Unless every voting location is provided with some kind of scanner (I'm sure that would be really cheap! ), the responsibility would fall on mostly retired volunteers with magnifying glasses?

Mrich wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:46 pm So, a volunteer election day worker would be responsible for checking a fingerprint? Unless every voting location is provided with some kind of scanner (I'm sure that would be really cheap! ), the responsibility would fall on mostly retired volunteers with magnifying glasses?

It so happens that I carry around a fingerprint scanner with me where ever i go all the time. Shouldnt be too difficult for Dominion or Smartmatic.

I don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to giving my fingerprint to the state. I gave it to the Michigan State Police and the FBI over 25 years ago (background checks for teaching).

That said, Americans are rather touchy about things like that. Too, also, Lake and others don't care about fraud. This is all about creating distrust and allow restrictions so only the right type of person votes. It is their way of trying to avoid, as its called, "the darkening of America."

northland10 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:14 pm
That said, Americans are rather touchy about things like that. Too, also, Lake and others don't care about fraud. This is all about creating distrust and allow restrictions so only the right type of person votes. It is their way of trying to avoid, as its called, "the darkening of America."

QOP motto: "If it's all white...it's alright...."

Mrich wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:46 pm So, a volunteer election day worker would be responsible for checking a fingerprint? Unless every voting location is provided with some kind of scanner (I'm sure that would be really cheap! ), the responsibility would fall on mostly retired volunteers with magnifying glasses?

Fingerprint scanners are cheap, easy to use and pretty good... no one at the voting location has to know anything about fingerprints except "put your finger there". There are some available for less than $20.00


Fingerprint Scanner

How many states are using that technology? Something about it doesn't sit well with me. Why should I give the state my fingerprint just to vote? I found this report from TN while looking for a list of states suing this:

I'm sure laws could be written that closes the fingerprint database to any use outside elections. I'm also sure a certain amount of people will say it's the mark of the beast or giving in to the deep state or the Illuminati etc... no matter what. But as a strictly security thing, it works. The technology exists to make voting easy and universal, instead of long lines at voting locations, you could potentially open up voting times and locations all over, so I don't have to drive 30 miles to go vote on my lunch break, I could go to the nearest voting location, no matter what jurisdiction, and my fing3erprint would automatically bring my proper ballot up, and I vote, a paper ballot is printed on location and collected for future audit (which I can check before leaving it) and there you have it, easy, secure elections. I also don't see why it would take more than a few hours to count the votes that way. Computers update data instantly and all you have to wait on is late arriving mail ins post marked before election day.

The late founder of the Uber right wing Heritage Foundation, Paul Weyrich once said,

“Now many of our Christians have what I call the ‘goo-goo syndrome.’ Good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

as others have posted before...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... tions-win/
--------------
The last time Republicans made a big, nationwide push on voter restrictions, it was voter ID. Except while the idea was ostensibly about secure elections, a few unhelpful GOP souls occasionally pointed to something less savory: that it was about helping Republicans win elections.

It’s happening again — a lot.

A growing number of GOP officials have in recent weeks and months justified the voter restrictions their party is pursuing by pointing to the supposed electoral benefit. If there’s a difference between last time around and today, it’s that these ones cut considerably higher profiles.
----------------

I've been suggesting to the people advocating for secure voting that we set up a national database for voter identification by DNA.

You do a quick cheek swab, and you vote. Easy peasy, no cheating or fraud.

The funny thing is, they don't seem all that enthusiastic about that idea....

I've been thinking about this and to my lay person logic, it seems that in a weird way, the SC screwed over Lake.

By taking latches out and reframing her complaint as being "not about the policies themselves, but about the implementation of those policies" they have kicked the chair out from under Lake. (NADT)

First off, they made this about policies (specifically, the Election Proceedures Manual). There is no way under this framing to question the policies, and take latches out of the picture at the same time.

So in a backwards way, they have barred Lake from questioning the actual policies. Unfortunately for her, that is the core of her argument. She wants to limit the signature verification to a single document in the registration record, while the defendants can point to the fact that the EPM (the policies), clearly allow them to look at the entire registration record.

I simply can not see how Lake can argue that the implementation of the EPM policies was flawed.

Am I off base on this?

Chilidog wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:59 pm I've been thinking about this and to my lay person logic, it seems that in a weird way, the SC screwed over Lake.

By taking latches out and reframing her complaint as being "not about the policies themselves, but about the implementation of those policies" they have kicked the chair out from under Lake. (NADT)

First off, they made this about policies (specifically, the Election Proceedures Manual). There is no way under this framing to question the policies, and take latches out of the picture at the same time.

So in a backwards way, they have barred Lake from questioning the actual policies. Unfortunately for her, that is the core of her argument. She wants to limit the signature verification to a single document in the registration record, while the defendants can point to the fact that the EPM (the policies), clearly allow them to look at the entire registration record.

I simply can not see how Lake can argue that the implementation of the EPM policies was flawed.

Am I off base on this?

It's hard to be too far off base when your thesis begins with "Kari Lake is wrong".

SCOAZ notably did not attempt any docket wizardry to permit the sanctions and signature issues to proceed simultaneously in two courts.

Meaning Lake's grift off the laches vacation will continue.

And I assume, if Lake is sanctioned, she'll appeal to SCOTUS. Where she'll lose, of course, but the purpose of that detour would be to again put off the day of reckoning for even later.

laches is not the same as latches

what about latkeis?

I prefer latkes.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:32 pm I prefer latkes.

So do I, I just can't type.

I would have been a latchkey kid except my mom went and got preggers at age 38.

Ok.

I had some time to waste, so I decided to crunch the numbers on Lake's proposed "proportional reduction" scheme.

Based on Maricopa County election data, in the 2022GE, 1800 ballots were rejected for bad signatures, and 1299 were rejected for no signatures. Or 0.14% and 0.10% respectively.

My assumption is that those numbers represent the voters who failed to respond to the cure notice, or failed to respond in time.

Unfortunately, what we don't have is the number of cure notices that went out for each category.

WORST CASE: If we assume that the court were to order the totals to be lowered without allowing the voter an opportunity to cure a bad signature issue (and, I honestly can't see that occuring), then applying a proportional reduction to each candidate would require the rejection of 161,647 early ballots or 6.32% of the total number of ballots cast in the state or 12.49% of thevl erarly ballots cast in Maricopa County.

This is the absolute minimum of mail in ballots that would have to be rejected outright with no cure.

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:34 pm I would have been a latchkey kid except my mom went and got preggers at age 38.

HEY!!! COME ON NOW! Quit blaming mom...she had help.

Chilidog wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:50 pm Ok.

I had some time to waste, so I decided to crunch the numbers on Lake's proposed "proportional reduction" scheme.

Based on Maricopa County election data, in the 2022GE, 1800 ballots were rejected for bad signatures, and 1299 were rejected for no signatures. Or 0.14% and 0.10% respectively.

My assumption is that those numbers represent the voters who failed to respond to the cure notice, or failed to respond in time.

Unfortunately, what we don't have is the number of cure notices that went out for each category.

WORST CASE: If we assume that the court were to order the totals to be lowered without allowing the voter an opportunity to cure a bad signature issue (and, I honestly can't see that occuring), then applying a proportional reduction to each candidate would require the rejection of 161,647 early ballots or 6.32% of the total number of ballots cast in the state or 12.49% of thevl erarly ballots cast in Maricopa County.

This is the absolute minimum of mail in ballots that would have to be rejected outright with no cure.

Not without trashing the due process rights of a significant number of people.

Chilidog wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 4:52 pm Not without trashing the due process rights of a significant number of people.

Okay, so I'm going to put that down as "maybe".

Stephen Richer—Maricopa Cnty Recorder (prsnl acct) @stephen_richer wrote: Yup. Still have them.

But before we hear your drivel @KariLake about signature verification, the Supreme Court first wants to discuss sanctioning you for your inaccurate statements about the trial court record.

Kari Lake War Room @KariLakeWarRoom wrote: .@KariLake: "We just hope and pray for Stephen Richer and Maricopa County's sake, and America's sake, that they still have those envelopes. That they haven't destroyed them."

Stephen Richer is my not so secret crush.

Lovely responses from Richer (and btw, I SAW HIM FIRST) in the thread above. You can sure spot the trolls by their unfamiliarity with what actually was testified to in court.