SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I may be 72," Maria Arredondo from Michigan told us when we called her. "But I'm alive and breathing. My mind is working fine and I'm healthy."
Maria said she had voted for Joe Biden and was surprised to hear that her name had appeared on a list of supposedly dead voters in the state.
We spoke to other people in similar situations to that of Maria in Michigan and found similar stories.
To test the list, we picked 30 names at random. To this we added the oldest person on the list.
Of this list of 31 names, we managed to speak directly to 11 people (or to a family member, neighbour or care home worker) to confirm they were still alive.
For 17 others, there was no public record of their death, and we found clear evidence that they were alive after the alleged date of death on the list of 10,000. A clear pattern emerged - the wrong records had been joined together to create a false match.
Finally, we found that three people on the list were indeed dead. We examine these cases later.
When we looked for another centenarian, who according to the list had died in 1977, we found that she had still been alive when her postal ballot was returned in September. However, a neighbour told us the woman had died just a few weeks ago. We also found a matching obituary from October to confirm this.
Two other men on our list of 31 died some time ago, yet votes had been cast in their names - with the correct postcodes and years of birth - according to the voting database.
We found that for both men, there were sons with the same name currently registered at the same address as their deceased fathers.
In both cases, a ballot was sent in for the dead fathers.
Local election officials told us that one of the votes had been counted but there was no record of the son having voted.
In the other, it was the son who actually voted, but it had been recorded as the father's due to a clerical error.
US Election 2020: The 'dead voters' in Michigan who are still alive
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 10 2020, @11:22PM (16 children)
You missed the primary objection to federal laws regarding the elections:
The states are responsible for their own election laws. The objections raised by dissenting Senators, was that the Feds would be infringing on state's rights by passage of these proposed laws. It would require a constitutional amendment to give the federal government some kind of authority to force the states to do as required here. Or, a couple progressive activist judges.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 11 2020, @12:00AM (1 child)
So they would be opposed to the federal government overturning a state's election based on, say, a lawsuit from Texas?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2020, @12:54AM
Legal recourse permits all sorts of legal challenges, that can be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. I didn't much like it when Bush beat Gore, and I wouldn't much like it this time either. But, I could accept it if Creepy Joe were sent home to Delaware.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2020, @12:03AM (4 children)
And yet they seem fine with allowing one state to sue another state because they don't like the results of their election. So much for no constitutional amendment that allows the federal officials to force states to do what they want with their election. Or it being the fault of progressive activist judges if it does happen.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 11 2020, @12:45AM (3 children)
I'm sure that un-American-as-fuck lawsuit has nothing to do with the fact that the guy filing it might be going to jail...
No selling out democracy in exchange for a corrupt pardon going on here for sure! [khou.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2020, @12:55AM (2 children)
Pardon me, Senpai. OwO
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 11 2020, @01:18AM (1 child)
I'm so glad you asked for clarification!
The State of Texas, at the command of their Attorney General Ken Paxton, is suing to force the federal government to overturn the election results in various swing states.
Ken Paxton has been subpoenaed by the FBI because he's being investigated for abuse of office, fraud and bribery.
I'm alleging that Paxton knows he's going to jail and is fucking with our Democracy to save his own ass via a pardon from Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2020, @03:07AM
I think you misunderstood. That was a joke at Paxton. A note of his probable pardon intent, the meme "Notice me, Senpai," and the use of "OwO" to ram the joke home. But thank you for your clarification either way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2020, @12:23AM
If you think those Senators gave two shits beyond their own power consolidation I've got a bridge to sell you. I used to think Republicans had a sliver of integrity regarding their small gov states rights crap, but the current ctop of conservatives have proven that it really is just window dressing.
If those pricks believed what they say, AND they cared about securing democracy, then they would have pushed states to secure thwir elections. Since they did not it is clear Republicans have been cheating for years and don't wanna give up their power. Even if you don't believe they are complicit in fraud they are still not doing anything to stop it.
Better luck next time dummy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fustakrakich on Friday December 11 2020, @02:43AM (1 child)
No amendment required. The fed's authority is in the body of the constitution itself
Article 1 Section 4:
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2020, @03:11AM
A conservative read the Constitution? They read it like the read their bibles, pick and choose the parts that already agree with what their dogma and high priest says.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by hemocyanin on Friday December 11 2020, @03:03AM (1 child)
No Constitutional amendment necessary and no infringement on states' rights -- just do what they did with the drinking age, deny Federal highway dollars for those states which refuse to hold fair, auditable, secure elections in which only eligible voters vote. The states are free to turn down the money and run rigged systems. End of story,
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2020, @09:54PM
lolololol
how quickly conservatives violate their own ideals
everyone should listen to hemo so they know the kind of shit to ignore
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2020, @04:19AM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/pennsylvania-texas-supreme-court-trump-election-2020-b1769664.html [independent.co.uk]
Hmm, the state leader of US 'patriots' is trying to undermine states' rights. Fucking hilarious, could you start condemning the traitorous GOP fuckers? Or do you really need human ovens before you acknowledge they might be bad?
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday December 16 2020, @03:12AM (2 children)
The Federal government just has to offer money if States follow these rules, like they do with highways.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 16 2020, @03:19AM (1 child)
The justification for most all that funding BS comes from the fed's authority to regulate interstate commerce. I don't know how they can bring the vote under the interstate commerce balloon.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday December 16 2020, @03:39AM
Is that the only justification? What about when they forced the States to have a uniform drinking age? Hmm, that was tied to highway funding too. Well just do the same with elections, from the decision of S. Dakota vs Dole, as long as the highway funds are only reduced and honest elections are good for the general welfare, it would likely be Constitutional, at least if pushed by Republicans so the Supreme Court knows how to vote.