The fact that it's up to the governor to “ascertain” who the state's electors are is a weak link in this whole process, at least in Georgia.
But in, say, Michigan, it's a very good thing right now
Best case this is nothing, worst case Kemp wants to steal our state's electoral votes. If he tries someone should sue immediately
If the Electoral College came down to Georgia it might be different, but considering it doesn't, my best guess is that Kemp will declare Biden's slate as the correct slate of electors. But hard to say for sure.
You can watch Kemp's press conference on GPB or on his official Facebook page. gpb.org/events/news/20…
Kemp is now speaking…
Can't tell which direction this is going…
Kemp notes the audit did not look at signatures…
Kemp calls on Raffensperger to audit the absentee envelopes (without matching them to ballots) and backs photo ID for absentees
Kemp is now getting to the results
Kemp notes certification gives Trump the opportunity to seek recourse through a recount, which implies he will not be stealing the election here
And it's over.
Okay, here's what I think we just saw. Kemp is signaling that: 1) he thinks Trump's lies about fraud are legitimate, but despite this, 2) he will not unilaterally award the state's electors to Trump.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Looking at the precinct details, no candidate lost votes in any precinct overall, so I imagine there were some mail absentees that had been misclassified as provisionals. Or…maybe they were really provisionals and *now* they're being misclassified. Can't say which.
Also there’s not much point to a photo ID if you can’t see the person you’re trying to identify.
Would it be better than signature match? Uh, maybe, I’d need to think about that more. But if it would require the use of a printer, then absolutely not.
Digging into the audit detail file and wow there’s a ton of information. For example: In Bryan County’s early votes, Biden did best in the first few days and on Saturday the 24th.
I didn’t mention it (except in response to detailed questions) because it was so few raw votes but Appling did indeed appear to be missing a couple dozen votes in its certified results