Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What you're suggesting is a horrible ROI. Let's assume you're in Waco and I get 100 illegal votes for a Dem candidate. (And I know criminals don't think like this) But what election do you know I can flip with200 illegal votes?

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

---

You guys, as usual, just don't get it. It's not only about stopping illegals from voting, it's to ensure overall election integrity so that we the people can trust in the electoral process again. With each person having to provide a unique identifier when voting, a random person won't be able to fill out multiple ballots in the place of the elderly, the infirm, and the homeless who have no idea that they voted. It isn't asking much for all citizens to get an ID. We need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator in our society at the expense of trust in our electoral process and start asking more from our citizens. "Disenfranchisement" not only isn't a road block, it actually doesn't happen when you look at what happened in states like Georgia. Our society can only prosper when we bring UP all citizens to standard, not bring DOWN our standards to the lowest citizens. And a country that doesn't trust its elections is a country that will get torn apart from within.

---

It's not to ensure the election integrity. There is no honest election if Trump loses. That's what you're missing.

We have a sore loser at the top of the ticket who has no integrity, no sense of fairness and no love for country other than its service to him.

Sadly, he's sucked you good people into his vortex. We are being looted in real time, but look over there. They must be cheating.

---

If the electoral process wasn't so compromised as it was in 2020, we likely would not have had a Jan 6. You're missing everything. If you want every election from here on out to be questioned and contested, even violently, then by all means, keep thinking the way you do.

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

---

How many States have been overturned?

This has been going on for 5 years. Nothing changed from that election, no matter how many of these posts you put up. I know it is a million person conspiracy against Trump. Got it.

I am done trying to have discussions on this. I will go with Bill Barr, the AG at the time and lifelong Conservative.

My position is States need to update their election processes, like Florida did after the "haning chad". Until we have a law saying otherwise, that is the law of the land. Out...

---

You do realize that no Court could ever overturn a state's election for president?

There is basically an eight week period between the general election and the meeting of the electors. Even if a candidate was capable of getting a court to toss out the results in that short period of time (or delay the results past the meeting of the electors), the election process would still continue in January. And if that state's electors kept someone's total below the needed 270 - in comes House. Were getting a new president on January 20th unless the House remains deadlocked - no matter how many illegal votes were cast.

Mootness prohibits any significant investigation thereafter.

---

You do realize if they find and prove fraud they work with the Feds to remedy the situation. So, of course if a State Court finds fraud and prove it is at a level to overturn they would be able to start a process to overturn which is a combination of State and Federal courts and politics. It is not easy...

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

---

How many States have been overturned?

This has been going on for 5 years. Nothing changed from that election, no matter how many of these posts you put up. I know it is a million person conspiracy against Trump. Got it.

I am done trying to have discussions on this. I will go with Bill Barr, the AG at the time and lifelong Conservative.

My position is States need to update their election processes, like Florida did after the "haning chad". Until we have a law saying otherwise, that is the law of the land. Out...

---

You do realize that no Court could ever overturn a state's election for president?

There is basically an eight week period between the general election and the meeting of the electors. Even if a candidate was capable of getting a court to toss out the results in that short period of time (or delay the results past the meeting of the electors), the election process would still continue in January. And if that state's electors kept someone's total below the needed 270 - in comes House. Were getting a new president on January 20th unless the House remains deadlocked - no matter how many illegal votes were cast.

Mootness prohibits any significant investigation thereafter.

---

You do realize if they find and prove fraud they work with the Feds to remedy the situation. So, of course if a State Court finds fraud and prove it is at a level to overturn they would be able to start a process to overturn which is a combination of State and Federal courts and politics. It is not easy...

---

Which election in your hypothetical is being overturned?

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

---

How many States have been overturned?

This has been going on for 5 years. Nothing changed from that election, no matter how many of these posts you put up. I know it is a million person conspiracy against Trump. Got it.

I am done trying to have discussions on this. I will go with Bill Barr, the AG at the time and lifelong Conservative.

My position is States need to update their election processes, like Florida did after the "haning chad". Until we have a law saying otherwise, that is the law of the land. Out...

---

You do realize that no Court could ever overturn a state's election for president?

There is basically an eight week period between the general election and the meeting of the electors. Even if a candidate was capable of getting a court to toss out the results in that short period of time (or delay the results past the meeting of the electors), the election process would still continue in January. And if that state's electors kept someone's total below the needed 270 - in comes House. Were getting a new president on January 20th unless the House remains deadlocked - no matter how many illegal votes were cast.

Mootness prohibits any significant investigation thereafter.

---

You do realize if they find and prove fraud they work with the Feds to remedy the situation. So, of course if a State Court finds fraud and prove it is at a level to overturn they would be able to start a process to overturn which is a combination of State and Federal courts and politics. It is not easy...

---

Which election in your hypothetical is being overturned?

---

I think FLBear was unclear in his point, but if I read it right he is basically saying by the time a court can determine an election should be overturned, it's too late to really change the office.

For example, suppose compelling evidence was revealed proving Trump actually won the Presidential election in 2020. Since Biden's term is already completed, there would be no point in a court ruling on a moot condition.

That's just one reason real fraud doesn't get addressed; you have a tight window when evidence is very hard to produce before it's too late to do any good. Once an election is certified, no one's seriously going to consider overturning it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

---

How many States have been overturned?

This has been going on for 5 years. Nothing changed from that election, no matter how many of these posts you put up. I know it is a million person conspiracy against Trump. Got it.

I am done trying to have discussions on this. I will go with Bill Barr, the AG at the time and lifelong Conservative.

My position is States need to update their election processes, like Florida did after the "haning chad". Until we have a law saying otherwise, that is the law of the land. Out...

---

You do realize that no Court could ever overturn a state's election for president?

There is basically an eight week period between the general election and the meeting of the electors. Even if a candidate was capable of getting a court to toss out the results in that short period of time (or delay the results past the meeting of the electors), the election process would still continue in January. And if that state's electors kept someone's total below the needed 270 - in comes House. Were getting a new president on January 20th unless the House remains deadlocked - no matter how many illegal votes were cast.

Mootness prohibits any significant investigation thereafter.

---

You do realize if they find and prove fraud they work with the Feds to remedy the situation. So, of course if a State Court finds fraud and prove it is at a level to overturn they would be able to start a process to overturn which is a combination of State and Federal courts and politics. It is not easy...

---

Which election in your hypothetical is being overturned?

---

I think FLBear was unclear in his point, but if I read it right he is basically saying by the time a court can determine an election should be overturned, it's too late to really change the office.

For example, suppose compelling evidence was revealed proving Trump actually won the Presidential election in 2020. Since Biden's term is already completed, there would be no point in a court ruling on a moot condition.

That's just one reason real fraud doesn't get addressed; you have a tight window when evidence is very hard to produce before it's too late to do any good. Once an election is certified, no one's seriously going to consider overturning it.

---

Actually, that is my point. FL keeps spouting no court cases prove Trump's fraud claims.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

---

How many States have been overturned?

This has been going on for 5 years. Nothing changed from that election, no matter how many of these posts you put up. I know it is a million person conspiracy against Trump. Got it.

I am done trying to have discussions on this. I will go with Bill Barr, the AG at the time and lifelong Conservative.

My position is States need to update their election processes, like Florida did after the "haning chad". Until we have a law saying otherwise, that is the law of the land. Out...

---

You do realize that no Court could ever overturn a state's election for president?

There is basically an eight week period between the general election and the meeting of the electors. Even if a candidate was capable of getting a court to toss out the results in that short period of time (or delay the results past the meeting of the electors), the election process would still continue in January. And if that state's electors kept someone's total below the needed 270 - in comes House. Were getting a new president on January 20th unless the House remains deadlocked - no matter how many illegal votes were cast.

Mootness prohibits any significant investigation thereafter.

---

You do realize if they find and prove fraud they work with the Feds to remedy the situation. So, of course if a State Court finds fraud and prove it is at a level to overturn they would be able to start a process to overturn which is a combination of State and Federal courts and politics. It is not easy...

---

Which election in your hypothetical is being overturned?

---

I think FLBear was unclear in his point, but if I read it right he is basically saying by the time a court can determine an election should be overturned, it's too late to really change the office.

For example, suppose compelling evidence was revealed proving Trump actually won the Presidential election in 2020. Since Biden's term is already completed, there would be no point in a court ruling on a moot condition.

That's just one reason real fraud doesn't get addressed; you have a tight window when evidence is very hard to produce before it's too late to do any good. Once an election is certified, no one's seriously going to consider overturning it.

---

Actually, that is my point. FL keeps spouting no court cases prove Trump's fraud claims.

---

please keep in mind that FLBear despises Trump and is incapable of agreeing with him on any issue being discussed. He will tangentally agree with something Trump did in the past, if in doing so he believes he can pretend to look objective in his new attack on Trump.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What you're suggesting is a horrible ROI. Let's assume you're in Waco and I get 100 illegal votes for a Dem candidate. (And I know criminals don't think like this) But what election do you know I can flip with200 illegal votes?

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

---

You guys, as usual, just don't get it. It's not only about stopping illegals from voting, it's to ensure overall election integrity so that we the people can trust in the electoral process again. With each person having to provide a unique identifier when voting, a random person won't be able to fill out multiple ballots in the place of the elderly, the infirm, and the homeless who have no idea that they voted. It isn't asking much for all citizens to get an ID. We need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator in our society at the expense of trust in our electoral process and start asking more from our citizens. "Disenfranchisement" not only isn't a road block, it actually doesn't happen when you look at what happened in states like Georgia. Our society can only prosper when we bring UP all citizens to standard, not bring DOWN our standards to the lowest citizens. And a country that doesn't trust its elections is a country that will get torn apart from within.

---

It's not to ensure the election integrity. There is no honest election if Trump loses. That's what you're missing.

We have a sore loser at the top of the ticket who has no integrity, no sense of fairness and no love for country other than its service to him.

Sadly, he's sucked you good people into his vortex. We are being looted in real time, but look over there. They must be cheating.

---

If the electoral process wasn't so compromised as it was in 2020, we likely would not have had a Jan 6. You're missing everything. If you want every election from here on out to be questioned and contested, even violently, then by all means, keep thinking the way you do.

---

Jan 6th happened because Trump is a sore loser. After all his appeals, after all the recounts, after all the investigations, Trump decided he'd rather the country burn than accept defeat.

Here's the final trick. As long as he can keep you mad at me, he can pick your pocket.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I am entitled to react to it for its obvious comedic character.

Here's what's happening while you're looking at the butterfly


https://www.democracynow.org/2025/12/8/headlines/pentagon_awards_620m_contract_to_startup_backed_by_donald_trump_jrs_venture_capital_fund

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/spy-sheikh-secret-stake-trump-crypto-tahnoon-ea4d97e8

Cry more.

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/18/nx-s1-5702503/trump-government-lawsuits-pay-himself-billions

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

---

How many States have been overturned?

This has been going on for 5 years. Nothing changed from that election, no matter how many of these posts you put up. I know it is a million person conspiracy against Trump. Got it.

I am done trying to have discussions on this. I will go with Bill Barr, the AG at the time and lifelong Conservative.

My position is States need to update their election processes, like Florida did after the "haning chad". Until we have a law saying otherwise, that is the law of the land. Out...

---

You do realize that no Court could ever overturn a state's election for president?

There is basically an eight week period between the general election and the meeting of the electors. Even if a candidate was capable of getting a court to toss out the results in that short period of time (or delay the results past the meeting of the electors), the election process would still continue in January. And if that state's electors kept someone's total below the needed 270 - in comes House. Were getting a new president on January 20th unless the House remains deadlocked - no matter how many illegal votes were cast.

Mootness prohibits any significant investigation thereafter.

---

You do realize if they find and prove fraud they work with the Feds to remedy the situation. So, of course if a State Court finds fraud and prove it is at a level to overturn they would be able to start a process to overturn which is a combination of State and Federal courts and politics. It is not easy...

---

Which election in your hypothetical is being overturned?

---

I think FLBear was unclear in his point, but if I read it right he is basically saying by the time a court can determine an election should be overturned, it's too late to really change the office.

For example, suppose compelling evidence was revealed proving Trump actually won the Presidential election in 2020. Since Biden's term is already completed, there would be no point in a court ruling on a moot condition.

That's just one reason real fraud doesn't get addressed; you have a tight window when evidence is very hard to produce before it's too late to do any good. Once an election is certified, no one's seriously going to consider overturning it.

---

Actually, that is my point. FL keeps spouting no court cases prove Trump's fraud claims.

---

please keep in mind that FLBear despises Trump and is incapable of agreeing with him on any issue being discussed. He will tangentally agree with something Trump did in the past, if in doing so he believes he can pretend to look objective in his new attack on Trump.

---

Keep the propaganda going. I have agreed with Trump and said much more than you admit he ever misstepped. Actually, I cant think of any time you said Trump misstepped, including Epstein and people being shot in the street. Maybe you are in line with Trump and Epstein. Well, Old did Trump misstep with his relationship with Epstein?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What you're suggesting is a horrible ROI. Let's assume you're in Waco and I get 100 illegal votes for a Dem candidate. (And I know criminals don't think like this) But what election do you know I can flip with200 illegal votes?

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

---

You guys, as usual, just don't get it. It's not only about stopping illegals from voting, it's to ensure overall election integrity so that we the people can trust in the electoral process again. With each person having to provide a unique identifier when voting, a random person won't be able to fill out multiple ballots in the place of the elderly, the infirm, and the homeless who have no idea that they voted. It isn't asking much for all citizens to get an ID. We need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator in our society at the expense of trust in our electoral process and start asking more from our citizens. "Disenfranchisement" not only isn't a road block, it actually doesn't happen when you look at what happened in states like Georgia. Our society can only prosper when we bring UP all citizens to standard, not bring DOWN our standards to the lowest citizens. And a country that doesn't trust its elections is a country that will get torn apart from within.

---

If you can't accept the fact that Biden won in 2020, no new laws are going to help. Trump and his ilk will keep finding ways to deceive you. That's what is tearing the country apart in terms of trust in the electoral process.

The tragedy in all this is that the truth is not unknowable. Many courts looked at the substantive issues, sometimes when they didn't have to, because they knew the importance of trust. Many of those judges were Republican appointees. Trump's claims simply weren't supported by the evidence. But Trump told you they were all thrown out by crooked judges, so that's what most here choose to believe.

FLBear going more and more Demodumb by trying to stick Epstein on Trump.

Despite everything we know now.

That's just sad, really.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear going more and more Demodumb by trying to stick Epstein on Trump.

Despite everything we know now.

That's just sad, really.

---

Didn't answer? I thought so.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear going more and more Demodumb by trying to stick Epstein on Trump.

Despite everything we know now.

That's just sad, really.

---

Didn't answer? I thought so.

---

Turn the tables then - what connection do you believe Trump has with Epstein?

I gave you no less than you earned.

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear going more and more Demodumb by trying to stick Epstein on Trump.

Despite everything we know now.

That's just sad, really.

---

Didn't answer? I thought so.

---

Turn the tables then - what connection do you believe Trump has with Epstein?

---

Well let's keep it simple, the 8 times he is in the flight log on Epstein's plane, same as Clinton. If you are riding on Epstein's plane you need to explain the connection. Even you would consider riding on someone's private plane as a connection?

Years of those flights please, and destination.

Context matters, to rational people anyway.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Years of those flights please, and destination.

Context matters, to rational people anyway.

---

You fly on strangers' personal planes a lot? You wouldn't say there is a relationship to get on someone's personal plane? How about lying about it? That make it a bit more worth looking in to for a sitting President?

Keep going Bear... When in a hole, stop digging.

So, once again nothing of value from FLBear, just spite and spittle.

Sad, he used to be one of our better minds here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, once again nothing of value from FLBear, just spite and spittle.

Sad, he used to be one of our better minds here.

---

You really have shut down over Trump. You don't see anything here? You don't see any activities that are questionable for a President? I will stay away from policy, because we agree on the higher level policies. How this Administration is handling things, you seen no issues? DOGE/MUSK, Cyber, Epstein, nepotism, the tweets.

Today the pesticides? You live in a rural, ag state. You think the deregulation of pesticides is good?

Seriously, answer this and I will shut up on the subject. This is the American Executive Branch you want?

Seriously, FLBear, you have reached the point where you grasp at just about anything in hopes of sliming Trump.

You have not come close to supporting any of your innuendo with even a shred of support.

You not only do not deserve to be take seriously, you are close to earning a flood of mockery.

We get it, for some reason you completely lose your sanity whenever you think about Trump.

It's not a good look for you, and frankly it's charity by now that most of us ignore your screeds for the most part, because you are just embarrassing yourself.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Seriously, FLBear, you have reached the point where you grasp at just about anything in hopes of sliming Trump.

You have not come close to supporting any of your innuendo with even a shred of support.

You not only do not deserve to be take seriously, you are close to earning a flood of mockery.

We get it, for some reason you completely lose your sanity whenever you think about Trump.

It's not a good look for you, and frankly it's charity by now that most of us ignore your screeds for the most part, because you are just embarrassing yourself.

---

You made your position clear and where you stand.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What you're suggesting is a horrible ROI. Let's assume you're in Waco and I get 100 illegal votes for a Dem candidate. (And I know criminals don't think like this) But what election do you know I can flip with200 illegal votes?

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

---

You guys, as usual, just don't get it. It's not only about stopping illegals from voting, it's to ensure overall election integrity so that we the people can trust in the electoral process again. With each person having to provide a unique identifier when voting, a random person won't be able to fill out multiple ballots in the place of the elderly, the infirm, and the homeless who have no idea that they voted. It isn't asking much for all citizens to get an ID. We need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator in our society at the expense of trust in our electoral process and start asking more from our citizens. "Disenfranchisement" not only isn't a road block, it actually doesn't happen when you look at what happened in states like Georgia. Our society can only prosper when we bring UP all citizens to standard, not bring DOWN our standards to the lowest citizens. And a country that doesn't trust its elections is a country that will get torn apart from within.

---

If you can't accept the fact that Biden won in 2020, no new laws are going to help. Trump and his ilk will keep finding ways to deceive you. That's what is tearing the country apart in terms of trust in the electoral process.

The tragedy in all this is that the truth is not unknowable. Many courts looked at the substantive issues, sometimes when they didn't have to, because they knew the importance of trust. Many of those judges were Republican appointees. Trump's claims simply weren't supported by the evidence. But Trump told you they were all thrown out by crooked judges, so that's what most here choose to believe.

---

Voter ID, no mass mail in ballots or 2AM dropoffs, and spot forensic examination of ballots would have gone a LONG way in preventing the post-election chaos, and you know it. Compromised election integrity was the lifeblood of the conservative distrust of the results, not Trump. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the tables were turned, and it was Trump who overcame a 100,000 defecit overnight as you slept and won the election, that it'd be you and your friends here making the exact same arguments we're making. You can make this about Trump all you want, but the inescapable fact is that 2020 election was complete CRAP when it came to integrity and trustworthiness, no matter who won. Voter ID is only the beginning of ensuring election integrity. I personally think every voter should be assigned a number and everyone's vote should be posted on a website so the public can check the accuracy of their vote as well as the overall count.

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear going more and more Demodumb by trying to stick Epstein on Trump.

Despite everything we know now.

That's just sad, really.

---

Didn't answer? I thought so.

---

Turn the tables then - what connection do you believe Trump has with Epstein?

---

Well let's keep it simple, the 8 times he is in the flight log on Epstein's plane, same as Clinton. If you are riding on Epstein's plane you need to explain the connection. Even you would consider riding on someone's private plane as a connection?

---

Why?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What you're suggesting is a horrible ROI. Let's assume you're in Waco and I get 100 illegal votes for a Dem candidate. (And I know criminals don't think like this) But what election do you know I can flip with200 illegal votes?

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

---

You guys, as usual, just don't get it. It's not only about stopping illegals from voting, it's to ensure overall election integrity so that we the people can trust in the electoral process again. With each person having to provide a unique identifier when voting, a random person won't be able to fill out multiple ballots in the place of the elderly, the infirm, and the homeless who have no idea that they voted. It isn't asking much for all citizens to get an ID. We need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator in our society at the expense of trust in our electoral process and start asking more from our citizens. "Disenfranchisement" not only isn't a road block, it actually doesn't happen when you look at what happened in states like Georgia. Our society can only prosper when we bring UP all citizens to standard, not bring DOWN our standards to the lowest citizens. And a country that doesn't trust its elections is a country that will get torn apart from within.

---

If you can't accept the fact that Biden won in 2020, no new laws are going to help. Trump and his ilk will keep finding ways to deceive you. That's what is tearing the country apart in terms of trust in the electoral process.

The tragedy in all this is that the truth is not unknowable. Many courts looked at the substantive issues, sometimes when they didn't have to, because they knew the importance of trust. Many of those judges were Republican appointees. Trump's claims simply weren't supported by the evidence. But Trump told you they were all thrown out by crooked judges, so that's what most here choose to believe.

---

Voter ID, no mass mail in ballots or 2AM dropoffs, and spot forensic examination of ballots would have gone a LONG way in preventing the post-election chaos, and you know it. Compromised election integrity was the lifeblood of the conservative distrust of the results, not Trump. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the tables were turned, and it was Trump who overcame a 100,000 defecit overnight as you slept and won the election, that it'd be you and your friends here making the exact same arguments we're making. You can make this about Trump all you want, but the inescapable fact is that 2020 election was complete CRAP when it came to integrity and trustworthiness, no matter who won. Voter ID is only the beginning of ensuring election integrity. I personally think every voter should be assigned a number and everyone's vote should be posted on a website so the public can check the accuracy of their vote as well as the overall count.

---

Trump deliberately chose not to challenge no-excuse mail-in voting and other controversial procedures until after the election. By using them as a basis for his false and exaggerated claims, he was able to create the chaos he wanted.

It made very little difference to me who won in 2020. I took time to read some of the cases because I care about the integrity of the system. Trump is counting on the fact that most people won't.

When someone hates Trump, all Reality must bend to whatever makes him look bad.

Sad, pitiful way to live, but some have chosen so.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What you're suggesting is a horrible ROI. Let's assume you're in Waco and I get 100 illegal votes for a Dem candidate. (And I know criminals don't think like this) But what election do you know I can flip with200 illegal votes?

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

---

100 votes can turn just about every non presidential election.

You clearly also missed the part about the fake mail in ballots.

You clearly also missed the part of ILLEGALS voting. Or even just non citizens.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What you're suggesting is a horrible ROI. Let's assume you're in Waco and I get 100 illegal votes for a Dem candidate. (And I know criminals don't think like this) But what election do you know I can flip with200 illegal votes?

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

---

You guys, as usual, just don't get it. It's not only about stopping illegals from voting, it's to ensure overall election integrity so that we the people can trust in the electoral process again. With each person having to provide a unique identifier when voting, a random person won't be able to fill out multiple ballots in the place of the elderly, the infirm, and the homeless who have no idea that they voted. It isn't asking much for all citizens to get an ID. We need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator in our society at the expense of trust in our electoral process and start asking more from our citizens. "Disenfranchisement" not only isn't a road block, it actually doesn't happen when you look at what happened in states like Georgia. Our society can only prosper when we bring UP all citizens to standard, not bring DOWN our standards to the lowest citizens. And a country that doesn't trust its elections is a country that will get torn apart from within.

---

If you can't accept the fact that Biden won in 2020, no new laws are going to help. Trump and his ilk will keep finding ways to deceive you. That's what is tearing the country apart in terms of trust in the electoral process.

The tragedy in all this is that the truth is not unknowable. Many courts looked at the substantive issues, sometimes when they didn't have to, because they knew the importance of trust. Many of those judges were Republican appointees. Trump's claims simply weren't supported by the evidence. But Trump told you they were all thrown out by crooked judges, so that's what most here choose to believe.

---

Voter ID, no mass mail in ballots or 2AM dropoffs, and spot forensic examination of ballots would have gone a LONG way in preventing the post-election chaos, and you know it. Compromised election integrity was the lifeblood of the conservative distrust of the results, not Trump. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the tables were turned, and it was Trump who overcame a 100,000 defecit overnight as you slept and won the election, that it'd be you and your friends here making the exact same arguments we're making. You can make this about Trump all you want, but the inescapable fact is that 2020 election was complete CRAP when it came to integrity and trustworthiness, no matter who won. Voter ID is only the beginning of ensuring election integrity. I personally think every voter should be assigned a number and everyone's vote should be posted on a website so the public can check the accuracy of their vote as well as the overall count.

---

Trump deliberately chose not to challenge no-excuse mail-in voting and other controversial procedures until after the election. By using them as a basis for his false and exaggerated claims, he was able to create the chaos he wanted.

---

The chaos was created by the controversial procedures and all the usual voting rules being completely bypassed in an election which saw boxes of ballots being dropped off at 2 AM and a 100,000 vote surge overnight. Trump may have fanned the flames, but it's not like his claims were implausible. I'm not a J6'er, but I have NO trust in that 2020 election. People with TDS are trying to pretend like they wouldn't be arguing the exact same had Trump won in like manner. Why not prevent all this as much as possible by taking away all the controversy that fed it in the first place? It's like you guys just don't want to learn anything from 2020 and you just want to make it all about "orange man bad".