The first, known as the "Out of precinct policy" requires individuals who vote in-person to cast their respective ballots in their designated election location.
The second policy limits who may handle mail ballots to the individual voter, his or her close family member, mail carriers, and electoral officials, a policy that effectively bans groups who target vulnerable populations from engaging in ballot harvesting.
Sophisticated political organizations train and deploy operatives to visit these communities and collect ballots, exerting a hefty influence on vulnerable voters in the process.
If the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision, any protection that states use to ensure the integrity of the voting process will be in doubt.
A well-funded and sophisticated cadre of attorneys stands ready to initiate challenges to such traditional measures as requiring receipt of mail ballots by election day, requiring mail voters to pay for postage for ballots, and requiring witness verification for mail ballots.
Until a few years ago, both Republicans and Democrats agreed that voting by mail posed inherent risks, requiring state-level prohibitions on ballot harvesting.
In 2005, a blue-ribbon committee headed by President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State James Baker issued a report warning of the increased risk of fraud in mail voting.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to discern fact from fiction, and unfortunately the media has a strong bias. They spin stories to make conservatives look bad and will go to great lengths to avoid reporting on the good that comes from conservative policies. There are a few shining lights in the media landscape-brave conservative outlets that report the truth and offer a different perspective. We must support conservative outlets like this one and ensure that our voices are heard.
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
SCOTUS Set To Rule If States Can Protect The Integrity Of Their Votes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment