For the past several weeks, people have rightfully grown increasingly suspicious of the various restrictions and lockdowns that have been arbitrarily put in place ever since COVID-19 arrived to the United States in the spring, courtesy of China. Now, suspicion is likely to reach a fever pitch after an extremely disturbing decision by the Supreme Court yesterday that has massive implications for mail-in voting for the 2020 election.
In a nutshell, the Supreme Court agreed that it is up to “state officials” to determine whether or not witnesses should be required for mail-in voting.
State officials in Rhode Island, one of the most liberal states in the nation, suspended the witness requirement for mail-in ballots for the state’s June 2 primaries. The reasoning? You guessed it. State officials predictably argued that people shouldn’t have to have a notary witness their signature because it could expose voters to the virus.
Now, the state “officials” of Rhode Island have proclaimed that they will extend the exemption for witness requirements for the November 2020, which drew heated opposition from the RNC and Republican Party in Rhode Island. Bringing their concerns to the Supreme Court, they were flatly denied yesterday.
“The application for stay presented to Justice Breyer and by him referred to the Court is denied. Unlike Merrill v. People First of Alabama, 591 U. S. ___ (2020), and other similar cases where a State defends its own law, here the state election officials support the challenged decree, and no state official has expressed opposition. Under these circumstances, the applicants lack a cognizable interest in the State’s ability to “enforce its duly enacted” laws. Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. ___, ___ n. 17 (2018). The status quo is one in which the challenged requirement has not been in effect, given the rules used in Rhode Island’s last election, and many Rhode Island voters may well hold that belief.
Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would grant the application.” [Source: Supreme Court]
Well, it is frankly unsurprising that “no state official has expressed opposition” in one of the ultraliberal bastions of the United States, as opposition would mean greater election integrity.
And, unsurprisingly, one of the state “officials” was quick to praise the Court’s decision on Thursday. Rhode Island’s Secretary of State, Nellie Gorbea, proclaimed that removal of the notary or witness requirement was essential for protecting people from exposure to COVID-19, noting that the Court’s decision was “a common-sense step that will protect Rhode Islanders during this pandemic.” [Source: Breitbart]
Nice commentary, Ms. Gorbea. You know what else is a common sense step? Ending all the “protests” in which participants rarely demonstrate social distancing. Seems people have much greater risk of “exposure” to COVID-19 in such settings, but the Democrats, as usual, have remained utterly silent about the “protests” and risks to people’s health.
Furthermore, another stunning element of this rather scant commentary of the Court illustrates that only Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have supported the Republicans. That means six other justices failed to actively dissent against one of the most disturbing trends to threaten the electoral process in American history.
As seen by the map below, the vast majority of states already allow voters to mail in their ballots with no excuse whatsoever, including crucial swing states like Florida. Since state officials can now apparently do whatever they want in terms of mail-in voting requirements, even if they run contrary to federal law, concerns are mounting over the integrity of the 2020 election.
Since many states already allow mail-in voting with no excuse whatsoever, the implications of this terrible decision are even graver. Depending on how “state officials” feel, it may well be possible for residents across several states to vote from the privacy of their home with no witness in sight to verify the legitimacy of the ballot.
One can only imagine the various stories that may emerge from such a situation.
Even more disturbingly, the Court’s decisions regarding mail-in voting in other states just a few months earlier run counter to the decision announced yesterday. For instance, the Court intervened in a 5-4 decision to allow Alabama to continue requiring witnesses for mail-in voting.
Needless to say, it is highly unsurprising that traditionally conservative states are more concerned with election integrity than their liberal counterparts.
It will be interesting to see which other state officials now leap to action in an attempt to make their savior Biden win the election, which is why it is even more crucial than ever for Americans to show Democrats once and for all that their freedom is not for sale.