Supreme Court RULES that governors can suspend laws requiring witnesses on mail-in ballots. WTF?

What you're about to read is absolutely critical.  It explains how a ruling by the Supreme Court just allowed the Dems to submit fraudulent mail-in ballots in the November election.  Seriously.

Our election system was designed back when no one truly thought there would be widespread fraud.  As a result, there are LOTS of vulnerable points in the system, where a party that wanted to steal an election by fraud could easily do so.

One of the problems arises from the fact that voting is by secret ballot.  This means Absentee ballots are one of those vulnerable points, since even though people who fill out ballots are supposed to have that act witnessed (in virtually every state), the ballots themselves don't identify the voter.  Thus once the ballot arrives at the counting point and is separated from its witness documents that supposedly authenticate it, there is no way whatsoever to know whether it's authentic or was stolen and filled out by fraudsters.

While most states require that the voter include a copy of some form of ID with the returned ballot, not all do.  Some states don't even require a witness.  In that case the only thing needed to commit fraud is just to intercept the ballot before it gets to the voter.  But that's not what we're dealing with here.

Thankfully most states require two witnesses or a notary to attest to the fact that the person submitting the ballot is who he/she claims to be.  But again, as noted above, fraudsters who steal ballots before they reach the intended recipient can simply use Joe Smith as a witness.  It hardly deters fraud.

And if this system wasn't already vulnerable enough to vote fraud, it just got massively worse, thanks to an insane ruling by the Supreme Court.

Rhode Island has been run by Democrats for decades.  Like most states it has a law on the books requiring that two witnesses attest that the person filling out an absentee ballot is the person who requested it and filled it out.  But in April the Democrat governor of that state used the excuse of the virus to simply decree that this 2-witness law was now suspended for the state's June 2nd presidential primary, claiming that requiring witnesses would expose people to the virus.  (Of course mass demonstrations were still perfectly fine.)

After the June primary passed, the ACLU filed a lawsuit demanding that the suspension of the 2-witness law be extended through the November election.  State officials--all Democrats--agreed.

Republicans objected, but a Democrat judge approved the Democrat-arranged "agreement."

Republicans claimed this was an invitation to massive fraud, and sued.  Lower courts upheld the Democrat governor's DECREE.   The case made it to the Supreme Court, and last Thursday the "justices" issued their RULING supporting the Democrat governor's decree suspending the requirement that both absentee and mail-in ballots be witnesse by two people.

Judges John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the Democrats, giving them a 6-3 win.

To re-state:  The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the governor of Rhode Island could suspend the witness requirement for mail-in ballots in the presidential election.  You need to understand the clear, unambiguous nature of this ruling.

Now, you don't live in Rhode Island so you don't think this decision affects you, right?

Unfortunately--and probably fatally--it actually affects all of us, because of a thing called precedent.  Although this particular case involved just one state, Democrat governors in other states will cite the precedent set by the court in this case to support similar decrees suspending the requirement for witnesses in their states too.  Since the cases will all have identical facts (the virus), lower courts will rule that the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Rhode Island ruling applies to all other states as well.

Oh, you say you don't believe that?  Can't possibly be true?   All a "conspiracy theory"? 

Ah, I see you weren't around when the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was now legal in every state.  While the court's ruling technically involved one plaintiff in just one state, the precedent it set instantly made it legal in every state.

Now:  All states have provisions for "absentee" voting.  But 21 Dem-ruled states have now said they're going to "mail-in voting."  Even though both terms use the mail, "mail-in voting" is hugely different from "absentee voting"--and the media is intentionally conflating the two.

The huge difference is that while in absentee voting the voter must request a ballot, by name--allowing their registration to be verified--under the Dem plan ballots will be mailed to every registered voter at the address they used.

Starting to see the problem yet?

At least 10 percent of people on voter registration rolls either move or die in the four years between presidential elections.  What happens to the ballots mailed to them?  What happens to ballots mailed to residents of nursing homes?  In the homes I'm familiar with, mail is always handed out by the staff, giving yet another opportunity to steal ballots.

 

After the court's ruling was announced, the director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, called the court’s action “a victory for basic principles of democracy.”  No.  In fact it's the opposite:  It opens the door to massive fraud, undermining our democracy.  And the Dems and ACLU and all their fellow travellers are absolutely giddy about their huge victory.

By eliminating the requirement that someone mailing in their vote have two witnesses, the Supreme Court just removed the last safeguard against massive vote fraud. 

And the Mainstream Media didn't tell you a single word about it.  Not one word.

Source.