Difference between revisions of "Election Fraud"
From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)
|Line 5:||Line 5:|
Latest revision as of 11:14, 24 June 2021
This article was started by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Please interact! To interact with any particular point made here, simply click "edit", then right after that point, type four dashes (to create a horizontal line), hit "enter" to start on the next line typing your response, then close with four tildes which will leave your real name, time etc.; then on the last line, four more dashes.
To vote, Like, rate, argue, change your past comment, add a section with a heading that appears in the Table of Contents, start a new article, use colors, write in Greek, etc. find suggestions and codes at Begin!
What can we do to ensure future fair elections?
Consider the degree of election fraud we have just been through, the degree of Republican acceptance of the results as correct despite the fraud, and now with the fraud machine in charge of the U.S. legislature and presidency while promising to pack the courts, while free speech is being completely shut down in our newsrooms and social media against any suggestion of the least fraud.
What will keep fraud from spreading to the remaining 44 states, and from presidential elections on down the line - if they haven't already? What courageous new movement will rise to restore honest elections?
Note to Polk County, Iowa Republican Central Committee members
(This is in response to their email January 12 asking for help locating candidates for school board and city council, and announcing that there will be no January meeting because of covid rules by our Republican governor)
Can you give us a vision of what we can do to ensure future fair elections?
After the degree of election fraud we have just been through, and the degree of Republican acceptance of the results as correct despite the fraud, and now with the fraud machine in charge of the U.S. legislature, executive, while promising to pack the courts, won't the fraud reach Iowa - if it hasn't already?
I have worked polls for a few years and my wife a few years more, and we have complimented Mauro for his vigilance to keep things fair, but it has not occurred to us to watch here in Polk County for the fraud we have seen in those infamous six states.
Have you seen the responses of Grassley and Ernst to concerns about fraud? Frighteningly weak. I can't imagine what they saw that is so different than what I saw to support their conclusion that there was certainly not enough fraud to tip the results. Dialog with them about that would be very helpful.
Letter From Iowa Senator Charles Grassley
January 12, 2021
Dear Mr. Leach:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns regarding the 2020 election. As your senator, it is important to me that I hear from you.
First, I want to be absolutely clear that the violence and disruption we saw on January 6, must not be allowed to disrupt or intimidate us from performing our constitutional duty as lawmakers. I took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, even in the face of threats. I viewed my role in the process of counting the Electoral College votes through this lens.
Throughout the election season and following Election Day on November 3, 2020, I have heard from many thousands of Iowans concerned about the electoral process. I appreciate being made aware of your views as well. My response to you will be the same as the other thousands of Iowans from all political perspectives because there is no possible way to give different responses to each one, and I do not tell different Iowans different things anyway.
The Constitution and our laws give Congress few options and limited authorities when it comes to certifying presidential election results. Congress has no role in conducting elections or adjudicating election disputes, only receiving and formally counting the electoral votes cast in each state. This constitutional process allows the states to determine under their own laws and legal systems how their electoral votes are allocated. And let’s be clear about what the stakes are here. If an objection to a state’s electoral certification is sustained, the state’s electoral votes are thrown out, not reallocated to a different candidate. So anyone voting to object to any state’s certification of electoral votes is voting to disenfranchise an entire state.
Senator, do you mean to imply that it would be unconstitutional to take seriously the very practice of a joint session hearing objections on January 6? Was the trouble gone to, to create this practice, for the purpose of creating merely a symbolic ritual? Of what is it a symbol, then, if not of a Congressional check on invalid electors?
The right place to resolve electoral disputes is in the courts.
What is your basis for saying courts are "the right way"?
As we saw in Iowa’s Second District House race, there is an established process to review election disputes, and that process should not involve Congress overriding independent judicial decisions. Our independent legal system is tasked with expeditiously evaluating election disputes. To date, 78 lawsuits have been filed by Trump campaign lawyers alleging election irregularities in various states. They have had their day in court but none of them was able to meet the legal standards to prove that there was widespread fraud or irregularities of the magnitude that would affect the election results. In fact, some of the more prominent claims about systematic, widespread fraud have been made primarily in the media, while the actual court filings by the Trump campaign’s lawyers either stipulated that fraud did not occur or such claims were withdrawn.
In December 2020, seventeen states filed suit in the Supreme Court attempting to challenge the election results in four states over claims of fraud and other voting irregularities. Iowa’s Attorney General Tom Miller made the independent decision to not join the Texas lawsuit. Ultimately the Supreme Court dismissed the suit, ordering that “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
Politicians in Washington should not second guess the courts once they have ruled, and we cannot and should not consider allegations not formally presented to a court of law. The question before Congress is not whether there are legitimate complaints about how elections were conducted; only whether to accept or reject entirely the electoral votes cast by a state. I could not in good conscience vote to disenfranchise an entire state.
As outlined in the Constitution, the Electoral College met on December 14, 2020, to select the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect of the United States. The results, as certified and transmitted to Congress by the Electoral College meeting in each state, resulted in the election of former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris.
On Wednesday January 6, 2021, Congress met to formally count the vote of the Electoral College. This occurred in a joint session of Congress. During this session, a number of representatives and senators raised objections to the certification of the Electoral College result in specific states based on concerns of voting irregularities. This was not unprecedented and occurred three times in the recent past following both the 2000 and 2004 elections of President George W. Bush and the 2016 election of President Trump. The objection in 2005 came in the wake of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about voting machines changing votes for John Kerry to George W. Bush and was signed by both Representative Tubbs Jones and Senator Boxer. In the ensuing debate in both chambers on whether to reject the electoral vote from Ohio, those members and many prominent members of their party echoed the concerns of many in the grassroots of their party about voting processes in Ohio and elsewhere.
Following the objections raised by members of Congress this time, like in 2005, the House and Senate returned to their respective chambers to debate the matter and vote whether or not to count the votes from the states in question. I opposed rejecting the state certified vote counts each time it was proposed by the other side and I did again this time. Our Constitution sets up a federal system, of which the Electoral College is a key component, ensuring that states like Iowa have a voice. I swore to uphold the Constitution, therefore I cannot support any effort to undermine the constitutional role of states in elections.
That said, the debate we had was important in airing concerns about election irregularities and restoring faith in our election system. Partisan pundits and politicians who supported such a debate in 2005 are wrong to reject this discussion out of hand. Going forward, it’s important that state legislatures closely scrutinize the events of this election and take necessary steps to promote independence, transparency, and trust in future elections.
As we enter the 117th Congress, I am focused on the pressing issues facing our nation. Although we have made great progress in our battle against COVID-19 and the related economic damage it has caused to our country, there remains much work to be done. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be the next President and Vice President of the United States, as President Trump has acknowledged. As your senator, you can rest assured that I will work with them whenever I can find common ground in the best interests of our state and the nation and I will oppose policies that I do not think meet that standard as I have with every other president during my time in Congress.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please keep in touch.