my mother-in-law, a staunch life long GOP, registered her two children as soon as they became eligible, and voted for them by mail-in ballot at every election...

delta1 wrote:

So they willingly and knowingly turn over their ballot to someone else to do with as they please. This is OK to you? Unbelievable.

I guess it would be okay for folks to show up at the polling place just before close and cast votes for all the no shows because the no shows didn't care enough to do it themselves.




Wrong. The church is just lobbing for who they feel best supports their position - just like any lobbyist or special interest group. It's up to the individual to make the choice and place the vote for on who they support. The church is not collecting the church members' ballots and placing the vote for them.

I refuse to believe that you don't have an issue with blatant voter fraud.

BuckyB93 wrote:

I don't agree with it but the Federal government withholding federal money to states that don't get back in line is not a new thing.

One that comes to mind is where Federal Highway funds were held hostage until the states adopted 55 mph laws.

"The impression of a "national speed limit" stems from the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which President Richard M. Nixon signed on January 2, 1974. In the midst of an energy crisis touched off by conflict in the Middle East and a subsequent oil embargo imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that forced Americans into long lines at gas stations, the Act was part of a nationwide effort to reduce oil consumption. The law prohibited the Federal Highway Administration from approving highway projects in any State having a maximum speed limit over 55 mph. The States could retain higher speed limits if they wished, but at the cost of losing Federal-aid highway funding. As a result, all States complied with the legislation.

The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 allowed the States to increase speeds to 65 mph on rural Interstate routes without penalty. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 extended the authority to all roads. The States now have full control of speed limits. "

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.cfm#question13 

BuckyB93 wrote:

The political leanings are irrelevant, it's still voter fraud. I don't see how one can argue or justify otherwise.

BuckyB93 wrote:

Functionally what's the difference?
You're drawing a line somewhat arbitrarily and identifying anything beyond it as illegal and anything before it "lobbying".


Arbitrarily? Person A places his/her vote by their own free will. Debating and lobbing to sway person A's decision is COMPLETELY different than actually voting in the name of person A. Wow!

Where does it become a "problem"?

What if she didn't collect the ballots from all her grandchildren, but instead told them who to fill it out for, and then collected them from them, reviewed them and mailed them? Fine, they still voted with their own free will

What if she didn't review them, but instead just collected the sealed envelopes and mailed them? They still voted with their own free will

What if she allowed them to fill the ballots out, but stood next to them to watch them fill it out, and would tell them each dot to complete? Illegal, it's called voter intimidation

"Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594 

What's the difference between nana telling you which dot to fill in while you're doing it, and a church (or nana) telling you which dot to fill out the day before?

There's distinctions in each of these scenarios. But in the end, these are grown ass adults who have every opportunity to say "no" to their grandmother and fill out their own ballots. Unless there is something being held over their heads (money) to influence their votes.... then they are just being lobbied.

Agree but it becomes fraud once grandma fills out the application for them without them signing off for consent. If they sign consent but under coercion it's illegal.

This is significantly different than casting votes for "no-shows" as this nana has successfully lobbied to those people to give her their votes. Go ahead, get a list of no-shows to a polling station, and next year tell them that instead of going to vote, they should let you fill out their absentee ballot. If you can convice them, then I suppose you'll have gotten another vote.

victor809 wrote:

of course it's fraud...but the argument for shooting down mail-in voting is that there's widespread fraud by Dems...

and yet out of the horse's mouth: "if this passes, there will never be another Republican elected"

so it's not about fraud...just about winning elections by another form of voter suppression...

delta1 wrote:

In my camp it's about fraud and I don't care what party is trying to push it through - I would still disagree with it.

Anyway, back to my ballot... the opening bid still holds at a 5er of Padron 2000 maddies. Do I hear a 6er?

BuckyB93 wrote:

The political leanings are irrelevant, it's still voter fraud. I don't see how one can argue or justify otherwise.

BuckyB93 wrote:

Coercion.

From their grandmother?

And how is it coercion if she's watching them fill it out, but not coercion by telling them she is going to review the ballots prior to mailing them? In both cases the implication is quite clear (I intended it to be)... that the votes better be whatever she wants them to be.

Are there consequences for not voting the way she wants them to? If so then it's coercion, intimidation or whatever you want to call it.

What if she's just helping them by explaining each item and telling them which will be a better choice for them?

This is something you can't control. It is up to the individual to understand that in the end, they ultimately can freely chose which way to vote and can do so without fear of retribution one way or the other. If the "better choice" is that Person A should voted one way because if not, they will not get grandmas tamales or they might have to learn to write with their left hand for the next 8 weeks then then line has been clearly crossed into being illegal. If it is brought to the attention of the poll worker or an overseeing authority then it should be addressed as such.

Don't get me wrong on this Bucky. I don't disagree that this meets the letter of the law for "fraud". But it's a stretch to make it an "issue". They're adults. They are giving her their ballots. You even imply there's some "signing off for consent" which would make it legal in your mind .... if that's the case then I fail to see a real functional difference here between signing off for consent for their grandmother to complete it, and just handing it to their grandmother.

This is addressed on the ballot itself just like most legal documents and the wording is probably similar to that on any legal contract. If the direct party uses someone else actually fill out or complete the contract then it must be disclosed. Some legal mumbo jumbo wording about they swear under the penalties of law that they understand blah, blah, blah... and that they were not intimidated, coerced blah, blah, blah... They sign it and the helper signs and identifies their relationship to the person. It is then all legal and stuff.

If grandma strong arms or bribes the kids to turn over the ballot to her to fill out then it's illegal. If they willingly hand it over and grandma fills it out in their name this is also illegal. The ballot must be signed stating that under the penalties of law blah, blah, blah that the voter named at the top is the voter who completed it.

And how much do you even think something like this even can influence an election? Family units tend to have similar political beliefs. If these grandchildren voted on their own, they'd likely vote the same (I don't care whether this is R or D....it's really not going to be our nation's pressing issue)

That's fine but the individual has chance and right to vote with their conscience without fear (real or imagined) of consequence. If they chose to vote blindly along party/family/union/special interest lines that is their conscience decision.

victor809 wrote:

[email protected]

You just made the list.

HockeyDad wrote: