Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules undated ballots won’t be counted in presidential election

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Pennsylvania’s highest court did not, however, agree with Republicans that provisional ballots should not be granted to people whose original mail ballots were too flawed to be counted.

Mail ballots submitted without a date will not be counted in Pennsylvania after all, the state’s highest court ruled Friday after a lower court declared they should be accepted.

The Epoch Times reports that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Republican National Committee and Pennsylvania Republican Party’s emergency request for a stay of a appellate court ruling two days earlier that the “free and equal elections clause” of the Pennsylvania Constitution required the Philadelphia Board of Elections to count a set of undated envelopes in a September special election for a state House seat.

While those envelopes did not directly concern the 2024 presidential election, if the ruling stood it would have had major ramifications for the race between Republican former President Donald Trump and Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris. Therefore, the justices made clear that the appellate decision “shall not be applied to the November 5, 2024 General Election.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s election decisions have not all been favorable to Republicans, however; it previously ruled that Pennsylvania voters will be allowed to cast provisional ballots in the event of a problem with the mail ballots they already cast, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene Friday.

“The actual provisional ballots contain no identifying information, only a vote,” GOP attorneys argued, to no avail. “Once ballots are separated from their outer envelopes, there is no way to retroactively figure out which ballots were illegally cast. In other words, once the egg is scrambled, it cannot be unscrambled.”

Pennsylvania holds 19 electoral votes (down one from prior elections due to redistricting), and is believed by many to be a crucial swing state that could be enough to decide the election’s outcome. The RealClearPolitics polling average for the state places Trump in the lead at just 0.4 percent, while RaceToTheWH’s average has Harris ahead by a scant 0.3 percent. Trump won the state in 2016; outgoing Democrat President Joe Biden claimed it in 2020.

Election integrity has long been an issue in American politics, but the controversy significantly intensified when the 2020 presidential election was marked by widespread election irregularities and numerous allegations that the election had been rigged for Joe Biden against Donald Trump, bolstered by the dramatic expansion of voting by mail in the wake of COVID-19.

Twenty-eight states relaxed their mail ballot rules in 2020, contributing to a 17-million vote increase from 2016. In addition to mail ballots generally being less secure than in-person votes, four of those states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – changed their rules without legislative consent. Those four alone comprised 56 of Biden’s electoral votes, more than enough to decide the victor.

At the same time, attempts to prove the election had been stolen were undermined by judges who dismissed some claims on process issues without ever considering their merits as well as flawed legal briefs by election challengers and dramatic examples of “smoking guns” that never panned out. Nevertheless, the controversy did lead to 14 states tightening their election rules over the following two years.

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

Published on

logo

By

Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are…trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage…about American political controversies…and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
Continue Reading

Business

Largest fraud in US history? Independent Journalist visits numerous daycare centres with no children, revealing massive scam

Published on

A young journalist has uncovered perhaps the largest fraud scheme in US history. 

He certainly isn’t a polished reporter with many years of experience, but 23 year old independent journalist Nick Shirley seems to be getting the job done. Shirley has released an incredible video which appears to outline fraud after fraud after fraud in what appears to be a massive taxpayer funded scheme involving up to $9 Billion Dollars.

In one day of traveling around Minneapolis-St. Paul, Shirley appears to uncover over $100 million in fraudulent operations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X