Nevada Court Rules mail-in ballots WITHOUT Postmarks Can Be Counted after Election Day
UPDATE: 2024 Election
The Nevada Supreme Court Rules mail-in ballots WITHOUT Postmarks Can Be Counted after Election Day 🤦🏻♂️ https://t.co/cO9nQQH3yE pic.twitter.com/YD82IvtsQo
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) October 28, 2024
LIVE: The Steal Is On! Nevada Court Rules Late Mail-In Ballots To Be Accepted For Presidential Election! ― TUNE IN & SHARE
✪✪✪ #WarRoomShow LIVE: The Steal Is On! Nevada Court Rules Late Mail-In Ballots To Be Accepted For Presidential Election!
― TUNE IN & SHARE
https://t.co/y2GlaLzB8D— War Room (@WarRoomShow) October 28, 2024
Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling facilitates environment for voter fraud in Silver State. We should not but counting votes past election night. This is not Venezuela. Well maybe it is. Nevada Supreme Court ruled the state can count mail ballots that arrive w/out a postmark up to three days after Election Day, rebuffing a GOP challenge. Full order isn’t available yet, but it’s on the docket (upholding lower court judge who refused to block the state law). Nevada Democrats will now know exactly how many ballots they’ll need to manufacture after polls close, and then they’ll have three days to manufacture them. No postmark necessary means no obstacle to firing up the ballot printer and making it go brrrr.
- Key Ruling on Postmarks: Nevada’s Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots lacking a postmark can still be counted if received within three days after Election Day. This ruling aims to accommodate potential mailing delays, especially from rural areas.
Additional details:
- Impact of No-Postmark Ballots: By allowing ballots without postmarks, the court intends to ensure that technical issues with postal markings don’t prevent eligible votes from being counted.
- Voter Signature Requirements: The ruling maintains that signatures are required for verification, reinforcing the importance of voter authentication.
- Validation Requirement: The court emphasized the importance of a signature as a verification tool, asserting that ballots without it cannot be verified as legitimate.
- Impact on Election Integrity: Supporters of the ruling argue that this decision strengthens election integrity by ensuring that each counted ballot is verified.
- Opposition’s Perspective: Critics of the decision claim it may disenfranchise some voters, particularly those who may accidentally omit a signature.
- Preventing Fraud Concerns: The ruling aligns with efforts aimed at reducing the risk of voter fraud, as it requires additional verification on mailed-in ballots.
- Precedent for Future Elections: This decision sets a precedent in Nevada, potentially influencing how similar cases are handled in the future.
- Political Reactions: Both political parties have responded, with Republicans generally supporting the ruling and some Democrats expressing concerns over potential voter suppression.
- Broader Implications: Observers suggest this ruling could affect mail-in voting strategies, especially in close races where every vote counts.
- Increased Scrutiny on Mail Voting: The article highlights that mail voting has faced increased scrutiny in recent elections, with both parties pushing for reforms.
- Legal and Voter Guidance: Nevada’s Secretary of State’s office is expected to provide additional guidance on this ruling to help voters comply with requirements.
Stolen Liberties & Echoes of Freedom. 2nd American Revolution Begins – A short story by CK Sheldon, for Whatfinger News….
Chapter Links
Chapter 1 page 1
Chapter 1 Page 2
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
