One of the many reasons political parties can’t “cross over the aisle” and work together is the rejection by liberals of being contained by the letter of the law.
With the democrat’s inability to live within the confines of the United States Constitution, they turn to the judicial branch of the government to amend and or uphold absurd overhearing laws, via progressive judges who will apply their “logic” which, in effect modifies parts of the laws.
With the Senate race between incumbent Republican Lindsey Graham and very heavily funded democratic Jaime Harrison, neck and neck, the left hopes that a judges’ ruling can help their candidate come out ahead. One question that I can only ask, and leave it up to you to answer is: Why do they think saving ballots whose signature does not match the signature on file will help their candidate and not hurt them? What do they know that we do not?
Surely they do not think their voters are too dumb to sign their name correctly, do they? It seams reasonable that is the signature on the envelopes for the voter, does not match the voters signature, the ballot should be disqualified on the spot, no? Does a court really need to make the decision?
Well, even though the South Carolina legislature added the extra fraud safeguard of checking for matching signatures, a federal judge in South Carolina ruled Tuesday that local election authorities cannot discard absentee ballots whose signatures do not match those on file after all.
U.S. District Judge Richard Mark Gergel, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said that the signature authorization procedures being used by local authorities were “subjective.”
The judge added that matching the signatures was a significant “burden” on the right to vote, the Washington Post noted. This could all be cleared up by forcing people to show ID or include a thumb print to vote, but that’s none of my business.
The State, a Columbia, South Carolina-based newspaper, reported:
The ruling applies only to voter signature mismatches — when election officials determine a voter’s signature on an absentee ballot does not resemble the signature on file. Voters who return absentee ballots without their own signature or without a witness signature (unless they were received by Oct. 7) will still, as of this moment, have their votes discounted and not be afforded an opportunity to correct the deficiency.
While South Carolina law directs poll managers to compare voters’ signatures on the poll list — where they sign their name before voting — with their signature on their identification card, nothing in the state code expressly allows county boards of voter registration and elections to employ any type of signature matching procedure upon receipt of an absentee ballot …
To summarize, a liberal judge thinks it’s a significant “burden” for voters to sign their paperwork the same way twice, and that reasonable voting official can’t determine if the signatures appear to be signed by the same person.
Instead of being tossed at the polling location ‘A federal judge has ordered South Carolina counties to stop rejecting absentee ballots on the basis of voter signatures appearing not to match signatures on file and ordered a review of any ballots thrown out so far for that reason.
In an order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel said any county election boards that wish to employ signature matching techniques going forward must first seek and receive permission from the court and provide voters an opportunity to correct any perceived signature mismatch issues before discounting their votes. The state reported.
So things are not as bad as they seem on their face, the ballots will not just be accepted, they will face further scrutiny. It sounds like a recipe for another ‘hanging chad’ situation with long and drawn out election result counting season. Again, can we just institute voter ID so we can avoid all these snafus?