BREAKING: A federal judge in Wisconsin has ruled against Democrats & upheld a state law that requires absentee voters to fill out their mail in vote in the presence of an adult witness. The fraudsters want this law gone to making stealing the 2024 election easier
Democrats claim this law makes it harder to vote because some voters won't find a witness but the judge called bull on that claim
"Plaintiffs say that their circumstances make it more difficult for them to find a witness when preparing the absentee ballot. But under this court’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 6.87, a witness may be any adult U.S. citizen; plaintiffs are not restricted to witnesses who have personal knowledge of their voting qualifications. And if a voter will be out of the country on election day and will not have ready access to another U.S. citizen, that voter may submit an absentee ballot up to 14 days in advance. Wis. Stat. § 6.86(b). None of the plaintiffs allege that they have been unable to vote in an election for want of a witness.
Good on Judge James Peterson for this reasonable decision
Democrats claim this law makes it harder to vote because some voters won't find a witness but the judge called bull on that claim
"Plaintiffs say that their circumstances make it more difficult for them to find a witness when preparing the absentee ballot. But under this court’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 6.87, a witness may be any adult U.S. citizen; plaintiffs are not restricted to witnesses who have personal knowledge of their voting qualifications. And if a voter will be out of the country on election day and will not have ready access to another U.S. citizen, that voter may submit an absentee ballot up to 14 days in advance. Wis. Stat. § 6.86(b). None of the plaintiffs allege that they have been unable to vote in an election for want of a witness.
Good on Judge James Peterson for this reasonable decision
It's important to get these types of rulings before the election.
1. It pressures the election officials to run a clean election
2. It creates legal precedent to fuel election challenges in the event of a fraudulent election
What do you think?
1. It pressures the election officials to run a clean election
2. It creates legal precedent to fuel election challenges in the event of a fraudulent election
What do you think?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
