Conflicting Court Orders Promise Election Day Woes

Conflicting Court Orders Promise Election Day Woes

Conflicting Court Orders Promise Election Day Woes

I never thought I’d long for the days of hanging chads. But, as they say, time marches on and now we face an all new election day controversy. Well, to be honest, an early election controversy. Courts are being asked to determine not only where drop-off boxes for mail-in ballots can be located but how many locations a oounty should have. The problem arises because jurisdictions are coming to different answers. All the while, the liberals are trying to distract voters, not to mention the judiciary, from the real issue: preventing voter fraud.

Yesterday, two different federal courts in two different states came to two different decisions. The first was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It granted a temporary stay of a lower court ruling that overturned Gov. Greg Abbott’s order allowing only one drop-off place per county. In arguing for the stay, State Attorney General Ken Paxton argued:

The district court’s order undermines our election security, disrupts the democratic process, and will only lead to voter confusion. It cannot stand,” Paxton said in the news release. “Mail-in ballots are particularly vulnerable to fraud. Protections that ensure their security must be upheld and my office will continue to fight for safe, free and fair elections.”

You know as well as I do that liberals are quick to argue that claims of voter fraud are over-exaggerated. That voter fraud is a figment of President Trump’s imagination. They go on to claim that limiting the number of locations where mail-in ballots can be dropped off is somehow going to disenfranchise voters and is–gasp–discriminatory.

But, at the heart of it all is the claim there is little to no chance of voter fraud.

Hmmm. Tell that to the authorities in Denton County, TX, who this past week arrested Zul Mirza Mohamed on a number of charges all related to voter fraud. According to WFAA, he “allegedly forged at least 84 voting registration applications for Denton County residents and had the resulting registrations sent to a post office box he had obtained with false identification.” But it gets better. When he was arrested, he allegedly was in the process of trying to illegally obtain ballots in Dallas County. He was caught because the strict rules governing mail-in ballots in TX worked. Well, that and the fact he overplayed his hand, allegedly in an attempt to influence the results in the Carrollton mayoral race–in which he was a candidate.

But voter fraud doesn’t happen.

To help prevent that when these mail-in ballots are dropped off, states like Texas feel limiting the number of locations will help increase security. In other words, to help prevent–or at least deter–voter fraud. Part of this is done through the requirement that only the person whose ballot it is may drop it off. They must present ID to prove the ballot is theirs. Once they have, their ballot will be marked as received on the voter rolls, thereby helping prevent someone from turning in another mail-in ballot in their name or even trying to vote in person in her their name.

This also helps insure that each political party can have poll watchers in place to keep an eye on the process. That’s something else the liberals don’t want us thinking about. After all, they’ve been the ones crying about the lack of poll workers–and I’m not talking about poll watchers, but those who man the voting area, check in voters, etc–due to Covid-19 concerns. So, limiting the number of drop-off locations means there is a better chance of actually having the location fully staffed.

Unfortunately, the Fifth Circuit only issued a temporary order staying the lower court’s order throwing out the governor’s plan. Equally as unfortunate, and showing the very real potential for legal battles to come, U.S. District Court Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan ruled against the Trump campaign’s attempt to limit the use of drop boxes in Pennsylvana. In this case, the judge ruled the Trump campaign didn’t offer any “concrete evidence” of voter fraud. So, apparently, there’s no need to worry about it happening in an election that is probably the moste contentious in recent memory.

And as for no evidence of voter fraud, all you have to do is type in “arrested for voter fraud” in your favorite search engine. On the first page of returns on Google, you have the Carrollton case mentioned above, another case out of NJ where two councilmen and two others were arrested for voter fraud, four arrested in NC, a Florida man arrested after asking for a ballot for his dead wife and a LULAC worker arrested for voter fraud. And that doesn’t include all the returns on that single page.

But there is no voter fraud.

Then you have this out of NYC. This time, a teacher was sent two mail-in ballots. The second arrived last week. He was one of more than 99,000 who received a second ballot. Included with the second ballot was a letter “saying their first ballots may have been addressed with wrong names or had other errors.” They were then advised to fill out the new ballot and send it back. As for the first ballot, they were to destroy it.

But. . .

You knew there had to be a but.

But, if they’d already mailed in the first ballot, they were to fill out the second ballot and send it back.

The Board will ensure that the second ballot will be the only one that is counted,” the letter said.

Like this teacher, my faith in the elections board to not muck this up is slim to none.

But we’re supposed to not worry about the security and validity of mail-in ballots and look at any attempt to secure the process as something meant solely to disenfranchise voters.

Here are two very imporatnt questions we should be asking:

  • Is it unreasonable to take precautions to prevent voter fraud?
  • Are the precautions laid out by limiting the number of locations where ballots can be dropped off reasonable? (Remember, if those ballots are dropped off somewhere besides the elections office, they will then have to be transported, leading to another potential break in the chain of security.)

And here is the most important question to ask:

  • Why is it the ones most loudly complaining about limiting the number of locations where ballots can be dropped off are also the same folks who scream and whine about Voter ID laws?
    Enter a focus keyphrase to calculate the SEO score

If your answer is because they don’t want to prevent voter fraud, you’re right. At least that’s the only reasonable explanation available.

We have more than ample evidence the Dems are willing to do everything they can to keep Trump from winning a second election. This is just another arm of their plan of attack. It is up to us to make sure they don’t win. We do that by voting, by being poll watchers, by helping get out the vote. Most of all, we do it by making sure we do not become complacent.

Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “Our American heritage is threatened as much by our own indifference as it is by the most unscrupulous office or by the most powerful foreign threat. The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.” That is as true now as it was when he said it. Let’s face it, the threat to our Republic is even graver now than it was then and the anger comes from within.”

Do not stand silent. Do not listen to the MSM and lose hope. Stand tall. Stand proud. Vote to protect our Republic and the rights we enjoy as citizens of it.

Welcome, Instapundit readers!


Featured Image: Mail-In Voting (Colorado) by PondShots. Licensed through Adobe Stock.

Written by

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner