“It’s not complex at all.”Wishing doesn't make it so. Read some legal briefs, court opinions, or listen to oral arguments. They certainly aren't simple.
Legal opinions are regularly described in simpler terms, as is often the case during news reports for example. There is nothing that makes this ruling any different.
“You can’t claim you are indefinitely confined because of Covid or any other declared health emergency, or a governors orders. If you do and you vote, your vote is illegal.”
You can legally request an absentee ballot in Wisconsin based on age alone and the determination is made solely by the individual voter based on their current circumstances. Physical illness, infirmity, or disability also grant legal qualification—the determination is made solely by the individual voter based on their current circumstances.
ANY Wisconsin voter can request an absentee ballot. The State is a no excuses State. The only difference is that claiming indefinite confinement, the requirement to show Photos ID is waived. That has the potential to be a big deal when it comes to those wishing to commit vote fraud, which is why the Republicans took the case to court.
Back to my point, a Wisconsin voter can’t claim indefinite confinement just because there is a Safe At Home State order or for any other public health reason. The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an injunction in March that confirmed this. Anyone who, after that date, that continued to claim Indefinite confinement on those grounds were breaking election law, and if they voted their votes would not count because they were not legally cast.
“People appeared to do so during the Presidential election based on the massive numbers of voters claiming indefinite confinement.’
Appearances can be deceiving. Of course, if emotions override reason people will believe almost anything. That out of 3.3 million voters, 220,000 would meet one go the four legally qualifying conditions, which includes age, wouldn't exactly set off alarm bells—especially during a pandemic.
Every voter is entitled to request a mail in ballot for any reason, very little need to employ the Indefinite Confinement clause. Which might explain that prior to the announcement that every voter should employ the indefinite confinement clause, that the numbers were so low. It also might explain why the the numbers grew so quickly following the announcement from people who did not really qualify for the indefinite confinement clause. It’s as valid of a theory as your “age related theory”.
“Wrap it in all the legalese you wish".
It's not my wish. It's what the law and courts consider and require.
Actually no. We are now outside of the court and legalese is notlonger required to have a conversation about the case.
You just grossly over simplify.
I do not.
Bloviate all you wish, it won’t change a thing.
I don't change anything regarding the matter, courts do.
Just like you failed to undermine my take on the court’s order.
“More endless bloviation.”
“Furthermore, if individual electors did not follow the statutory mandate and continued to vote as indefinitely confined, despite no longer meeting the statutory requirements, they would cast their votes contrary to the statute. In turn, because compliance with the absentee ballot process is mandatory, their ballots would not count.”
If... a word with only two letters and frequently a great deal of importance.
Absolutely IF a voter who declared indefinite confinement based on a faulty directive from an election official, and after that directive was reversed, decided to vote as indefinitely confined their vote would not be a legal vote.
“Illegal votes….fraud.”
Speculation. Based on no apparent understanding of what fraud means in the law or to courts.
You are correct that I’m not a Lawyer, but I do know this. Votes cast that break the election code are illegal, Voters who cast their vote knowing that their vote is in conflict with the election law is committing fraud.
Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in Donald J. Trump v. Joseph R. Biden, December 14, 2020:
We conclude the Campaign is not entitled to the relief it seeks. The challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots is meritless on its face
We conclude the challenge to indefinitely confined voter ballots is without merit
The challenge
as submitted by the Trump team. The relief asked was more than any court is going to grant regardless of the proof IMO.
Another court, like SCOTUS might also disagree. Or a court hearing a fraud case against a voter, they too might find the claims compelling.
“I can’t imagine a State Representative would be confused about the law…"
Different courts routinely reach different opinions regarding questions of law, but you "can’t imagine a State Representative would be confused about the law”?
LOL! This was a case at the Wisconsin Supreme Court about current election law…in the run-up to an election. In a State where they were taking great pains to educate voters about how to vote by mail correctly. We are talking about a sitting State Representative doing campaign work and even being an Elector to the Electoral College. Yea right ..she had no clue. /s
Despite whatever assertions a talk radio station might make regarding election laws and fraud...
Designation of indefinitely confined status is for each individual voter to make based upon their current circumstance. It does not require permanent or total inability to travel outside of the residence.
Why yes your honor, although my client is not of old age, is in in good health and is not infirm, she does self identify as Indefinitely Confined. And yes she has been campaigning for the upcoming election, attending parties, church services and serving as an elector to the electoral college. But this your honor falls under the cover of “not requiring total inability not to travel outside of the residence”.
Sheesh.
