You claim that the Republican way of verifying signatures is the "correct" way while the Democrat way is the "wrong" way, then accuse the Democrats of making the reverse assumption. This really isn't my claim. I think they're both dumb ideas, personally.
But what's important is that the "new way" isn't verification at all. Going into further detail, the change to the law did one thing, precisely what DNC lawyer Marc Elias wanted to do: It made it more difficult for election officials to reject absentee ballots. In 2016, 6.4% of mail-in ballots were rejected. In 2018, that figure dropped to 3.6%. And in 2020, only 0.4% were rejected. All this, while there was never any discussion of the legal basis for reducing the rejections. Democrats in the election offices checked the ballots in one year and 6.4% were rejected. Eight years later, only 0.4% were rejected. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE.
Marc Elias, the DNC's lawyer, was applying pressure to Brad Raffensperger in GA, and things were heating up. Elias and the Democrat party demanded of Raffensperger, and got, a new procedure for reviewing signatures on mail-in ballots. Marc Elias had out done the idiot Raffensperger and convinced himto enter into a consent decree by which the law permitted curing of absentee ballots by a number of methods. (Raffensperger's legal counsel later testified that Republicans agreed to these provisions because they wanted to keep Democrats from extending election day by delaying ballot deadlines.)
Bottom line, the settlement got rid of "ANY MEANINGFUL SIGNATURE MATCH" for mail-in ballots.
"The old law required signatures to match the signatures on file with the Georgia voter registration database. The settlement allowed the signature to match ANY SIGNATURE on file, including the one on the ballot application -- an application Raffensperger sent to EVERY ADDRESS ON FILE.
What this meant was a fraudulently obtained ballot would easily have a signature match, leaving no way to detect fraud." (Mollie Hemingway)
The bottom line is one guy signed off on this deal because of political heat ginned up by Stacy Abrams. Voters never had a say, competent management never had a say, no elections board, no none. And this idiot (a Republican) never saw the adverse consequences from having done it.
What's the right answer? Who knows. Literally no one knows. This was sheer political power against weak negotiating skills, that sold the Georgia vote to Democrats for thing.
You want to talk about right or wrong. I'm telling you this was about a back room deal between two lawyers and didn't give a moment's consideration to the consequences of his acts.
It isn't as though voters showed up and cast their votes and the votes were carefully counted and results posted.
This was a the result of a back-room bargain that had nothing to do with what the people wanted. It is what two lawyers agreed upon so one of them could just make it go away.
Changed the election outcome. |
