The issue about WI IC voters is that they were not required to show their ID. They still had to have it and they couldn't use the IC status to get around having to show ID. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/wisconsin-supreme-court-leaves-voters-decide-confined-status/6539363002/

With regard to signature verification, you appear to be conflating separate issues. The signature verification process involved representatives from all parties involved as well as election officials who are often trained in signature comparisons. Election observers are there to ensure that the process if being followed, but they do not have a right to see the actual writing on the envelopes. That would be ridiculous. They would not be trained to know what they are looking at.

This has been one of the worst misleading concerns that people have been trying to claim. Observers do not have to be close to determine that the process is being followed, They can see that representatives from all parties are taking part at each step of the process. They are not there to double check the work of election workers. Period.

@TaLoN132 shit cooled down fast after Kyle put some of em down

woah don't get us banned bro

we need to moderate that type of talk

So has there been a response to this yet?

Yes it’s false. The page has gone down now apparently.

Ok cool. Thanks

There's always next time, I reckon.

It's late where I am in the world so maybe I am extra slow but the link you posted says this:
Under state law, people can vote absentee without showing an ID if they say they are indefinitely confined because of age, disability or infirmity.
So I'm not sure what point exactly we are debating here?

"Election observers are there to ensure that the process if being followed, but they do not have a right to see the actual writing on the envelopes. That would be ridiculous. "
I would like more details on this, because I even have a super liberal friend, who is 100% anti-trump. He's been a poll worker for 20 years, he said that the poll watchers all have the right to challenge a ballot during the process. They don't get to physically handle the ballot but they're allowed to look at it and challenge it, then it goes to adjudication. Is this incorrect then or what?

Unless you are arguing it from a legal sense that they don't have to be close - and that was one of the lawsuits if I remember right. The poll watchers are there to make sure things are done by the book, but if they aren't at a meaningful distance then what's the point of having them there?

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2020/12/02/indefinitely-confined-voters/

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2020/12/02/indefinitely-confined-voters/

You need to be more specific unless you want me to read your mind? Because that article backs up exactly what I am saying.

IC status is not **supposed** to be used to skirt voter ID laws but since it's self-determined, you can basically do whatever you want. Many of those who voted IC **do** have voter IDs on file but notice they said have them, they didn't say sent in with voter ID.

yes goldfish voted 100% and Dane Co clerk Told them all to train them to do so...

Can you just talk like a normal human being? It's late here I don't need riddles

voter id Optional to need not prove anything and here is you Ballot...

sorry i am a cat i like goldfish...

I can go to a baseball game and sit in the stadium and see that the correct team is on the field, I can observe the action of the game and I can verify that the participants in the game are doing what they are supposed to do - including the referees. I don't have to be on the field to ensure that the process of playing the game is taking place according to my potentially "less than informed" standards.

The observers are the equivalent to spectators. Every step of the election process has checks and balances built into it. Observers that tried to insert themselves into the process were not following the rules. At no point, were the bi-partisan election workers removed from the process for things like adjudication or signature verification - or any other part of the process.

https://twitter.com/nygovcuomo/status/1348673192609591296?s=21 😆 😆 😆

So if I understand you correctly you would be fine with all the poll watchers being off to the side, watching via binoculars?

there was a lawsuit on this very issue but I can't remember how it turned out

They won

Issue resolved

One of the only cases Trump won

https://www.businessinsider.com/state-dept-staffer-changed-site-to-say-trump-pences-term-end-january-11-2021-1

I wonder what disgruntled him

@SoonMrWick what is the difference between the 1967 1993 and 2019 riots. They all have something in commom..
To call one mob terrorists is ignoring the fact the reason why it all them started

I mean again, I would be talking anecdotally here but to take your stadium analogy further. If that was always the case and suddenly Republicans are complaining, then yeah I see no issue. But from what I am reading and hearing it was standard practice (before corona) to have poll watchers next to each other, one from each party (and sometimes a third independent one) for the signature verification process. Anecdotally, my friend that I mentioned before said this was always standard practice.

just skip the 2000 and 2016?

So it would be like allowing observers onto the field game after game, then suddenly saying "no, you have to go back into the stands and observe from there"

It depends on a number of factors. Observers are not trained election workers. I saw so many cases where they filed affidavits, because they lacked the basic understanding about what is supposed to be going on at any given step. Part of the problem was the implementation of new voting systems and procedures. I think that letting anyone be an observer without training them on what is supposed to be happening at any given point in the process and what to look for as far as what constitutes questionable activities is a recipe for disaster, which is what we witnessed in the aftermath of the 11/3 election. I think that the uninformed claims may have obscured valid claims.

I agree with you on that point, everyone should go through training and know what they are or aren't looking for. But also many of these affidavits were from seasoned poll workers who said something was amiss this election.

Without covid I don't think we would have had anywhere near as contentious election. But covid gave rise to mail in ballots and also added in some social distancing issues in the counting centers.

@TaLoN132 especially this was distracting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o4DLcH9U_Y

🕺 🕺 🕺

What a loon brought to you by guliani

The signature verification process in most states happens primarily at county clerk offices as the ballots are received in the run up to the election, which is why they can let the voters cure their ballots.

BTW - I forgot to mention in PA that the SotC sent instructions to all counties to allow mail-in ballot curing. In heavily Republican counties, they chose not to cure, because they believed that doing so would favor the Dems who were more likely to vote by mail. There were not two sets of rules.

I think it's a shame that the media went ahead and put the most crazy one to the spotlight (Melissa) and used that to delegitimize the other dozens of speakers at these events. There were some batshit testimonies but also some really interesting and compelling ones, but those don't get any attention.