so a plaintiff was contesting how states handled marriage certificates since some states didnt recognize civil unions etc which led to harm. similar to how texas contested how some states held their elections because it led to diluted votership.
when obergefell was ruled it meant states had to recognize gay marriages right then and there. including past unions.
pa's case was dismissed on laches despite following obergefell's script. wi's case was dismissed on laches.
if trump won there'd be no harm.
if the clerks followed the law regarding curing, you'd be right. but they didnt cure, they modified the ballots right then and there.
we are challenging the numbers. the states can't rebut it because they dont have the numbers either since they didnt record the number or set those ballots aside. no one disputes that the number is greater than 0
the courts ruled the clerks have the dubious ability to modify ballots, but didnt resolve resolve the discrepencies between the guidelines and statutes?
the discrepency is the issue, so how can the courts the clerks have authority?
this is why we're saying this dismissal is a crock of shit. they dismissed on laches and didnt resolve anything, they didnt even rule for future elections.
so the wisc case doesnt solve anything or absolve anyone.
no harm, no standing. which is what PA's court ruled before the election.
it took you 2 seconds to do what? prove my point?
Texas' claim was denied on standing. Its case for "damages" was flimsy and the avenue by which it tried to bypass this was deemed improper. However you might want to twist and bend it around, the proper avenue to address the PA voting change was to bring it up before the election within the state courts (or just pass legislature that changed the wording).
And you're right! When a case is ruled on, all things which are outstanding going forward get altered. A state cannot continue to refuse the recognition of gay marriage if doing so violates the constitution (in this case, a specific reading of the constitution). People in unions still had to apply for marriage; they didn't magically become married overnight, as those unions still exist today and have a use. Similarly, schools couldn't continue to do 'separate but equal' when such a notion was ruled unconstitutional.
However, a vote happens the once. It doesn't stretch onwards. Once a constitutional ruling is handed out regarding these votes, you can't go up against it going forward. As it currently stands, no court has ruled that the PASC's ruling was itself unconstitutional; people just argue it, but are only ever arguing it in the same breath as they try to throw out the votes. If it were ruled unconstitutional in the future, that would not invalidate the vote -- for the same reason that no state which denied marriage before Obergefell was prosecuted for it, and for the same reason that no 'separate but equal' state was prosecuted for having done it before the ruling.
The clerks did not believe they were in violation of anything in their actions, given that such actions had been going on for a decade.
No one disputes the number is greater than 0, but no one can say if it's more than 4. That's not a firm enough ground to do fucking anything, buddy.
The courts have demurred on what the proper process is. It is a gray area precisely because they gave no correct ruling on what should be followed in the future - the statute or the guidelines - in terms of making for a 'proper' ballot. If you made a case based purely on this problem, you could get a ruling on it.
Your case by all accounts should have been dismissed on laches. You've demonstrated you fundamentally don't understand what they are or how they work by comparing their use in this election to fucking Brown and Obergefell. And now you're displaying you don't fucking understand standing, either - legal genius right here.
Something that is unconstitutional is inherently damaging. You can always have standing for making a case on this argument. The cases dismissed for LACHES were not dismissed for STANDING. You allege that the gray area in the WEC guidelines breaks the law? You won't get turned down on standing. You allege that the PA ruling violates the electors clause? You won't get turned down on standing. But you WILL get slapped by Laches for sitting around and doing nothing.
Republicans could have, after 2016, observed these problems with the WEC and had full standing to try to correct them. Provided they did not try to change the results of the election, they would not have been hit with laches. They chose not to.
BEFORE the election, the argument in PA wasn't a constitutional one - it was one based around future, potential fraud. For which you could obviously not have damages, and thus not have standing.
I have explained this distinction at least 3 times to you.
It took me 2 seconds to show that those fucking ballots are provisional ballots and are discarded if someone can't provide evidence that they're a citizen. Open up the form.
The first two questions are "Are you a citizen? Will you be 18 on or before election day?" And if you check No to either of them, viola, tossed out.
Your suggestion is that someone lies on the federal form by selecting 'yes' and it just goes through, right? Well, you still need the ID number, so if your suggestion is that they're just "allowing them damn illegals to vote," you really did not look into this. Like you didn't with everything fucking else. So long as someone on youtube says it, though, I guess it must be true.
