On August 5, the Fifth Circuit will hear Miller v Doe, 23-50537, the case over Texas ballot access laws for independent candidates and newly-qualifying parties. The lower court had upheld all those laws except it had struck down the ban on electronic signatures. Both sides are appealing.
Electronic signatures = fraud
Bob = King of fraud
Just Me = Robert K Stock = massive troll
@Bob,
Kerri Lake qualified for the primary ballot with all electronic signatures.
What kind of electronic signatures are we talking about: actual signatures recorded electronically (e.g. made with a stylus on a touchscreen or made with pen and paper but then digitalized) or digital signatures (e.g. public-key cryptography or blockchain)?
1954 BROWN V BD OF ED IN ANY BRIEF ???
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/23-50537
DOCKET
BALLOT ACCESS = WAR TYPE EVENT
Electronic signatures are totally awesome!
@Nuña,
No one least of all, Judge Robert Pitman, knows what is meant by electronic signatures.
The case was about ordinary barriers to Ballot Access in Texas, such as large numbers of signatures, an early filing date, short period for collection, and the primary screen-out. They also brought up the issue of electronic signatures.
The court’s opinion was that SCOTUS precedent is that the flimsiest of post hoc rationalizations related to “modicum of support”, “voter confusion” or “ballot crowding” justify any barriers in law.
But the court ruled that because the primary-nominating parties may use electronic means as part of their nomination process, that petitioning should be electronic as well. In Texas, primaries are conducted by the political parties, and administered at the county level (by county parties). Candidates for statewide office and multi-county districts file with the state party chair. The statewide chairs must then transmit these candidacies to the up to 254 county parties so the candidates names may be placed on the county ballots. In days gone by (before 2013), the certifications were “in writing” and “delivered” to the county parties.
Since 2013, the candidates are posted on the SOS website. The SOS provides internet access, and gives a password to party chairs so that they can enter the data. The state party chair then “notifies” the county chairs to get the candidate information from the SOS web site. The bozo judge thinks this is the equivalent to “petitioning”. It would be straightforward to let the convention-nominating parties use the same method to communicate candidacies.
The judge asked the plaintiffs and the SOS what electronic petitioning is. The SOS said it would be using a stylus. The judge said that it had to be “electronic” and told the SOS to provide for the methodology. The legislature could provide legislation, and let the SOS fill in the implementation details. But the SOS could not do this without legislative direction.
Electronic signatures are the shit!