Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

[iceberg]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

All voters.

Not just the ones you can squeeze in if you alter the process for one sides benefit.

You use "all voters" to hide behind a lot while you push one sides "rights".

 

[Coyote]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

One topic at a time. What are your thoughts on what is happening here?

if they should not be there, remove them.

....
The counties seemed to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations, the judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner, said in her order filed late on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
.....
"seeme to have"? how do we not know? they did or they did not.

Is it appropriate to do a voter roll purge a week before an election?

is it appropriate to change voting rules just before an election?

normally no. I would say not. but if one side can do whatever they feel so can the other.

Two different things. Let’s hash out the one before going into the what about isms. Purging voter rolls, with insufficient time for voters to remedy it, is no less than an attempt to disenfranchise. Typically, this is done and should be done, either on an off year or well ahead of any election. Would you agree or disagree?

Then so is changing our election laws one month before an election.

Specifically what law, changed by whom, and who, if any were disenfranchised?

ROFL!

You can't be this stupid.

That is all you can come up with? You throw in broad general claims (as compared with the specific in the op) and expect a discussion. Ok, let’s dissect ONE claim. Can you provide that?

 

[bripat9643]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

We did nothing of the sort. Mail-in voting opened the floodgates for election fraud. Voters have a right not to have their vote canceled by fraud.

 

[Synthaholic]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

Both sides played by the same rules. The only difference was you had an orange buffoon telling his cult followers NOT to mail in their ballots and NOT to trust drop boxes and only vote in person. Combine that with cultists getting their daily programming that Trump was going to win in a landslide and I'm sure there were plenty of cultists who blew it off.

Fuck off.

 

[Dragonlady]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Worst time possible is right before an election. There is a process of sending out notifications to the those being stricken and giving them a time frame within with to respond to keep their names on the rolls.

Then a second - final notice is sent, with a proper response time, before the name is removed. There simply isn't enough time between the general and the run-off to properly identify, notify, and send final notifications to the people being stricken.

This process needs at least to begin at least 6 months before the election, not 6 weeks or less.

 

[iceberg]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

Conversely, expanding voting methods just before an election without testing that clearly benefits 1 side; could fraud be any more obvious?

One topic at a time. What are your thoughts on what is happening here?

if they should not be there, remove them.

....
The counties seemed to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations, the judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner, said in her order filed late on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
.....
"seeme to have"? how do we not know? they did or they did not.

Is it appropriate to do a voter roll purge a week before an election?

is it appropriate to change voting rules just before an election?

normally no. I would say not. but if one side can do whatever they feel so can the other.

Two different things. Let’s hash out the one before going into the what about isms. Purging voter rolls, with insufficient time for voters to remedy it, is no less than an attempt to disenfranchise. Typically, this is done and should be done, either on an off year or well ahead of any election. Would you agree or disagree?

Then so is changing our election laws one month before an election.

Specifically what law, changed by whom, and who, if any were disenfranchised?

ROFL!

You can't be this stupid.

That is all you can come up with? You throw in broad general claims (as compared with the specific in the op) and expect a discussion. Ok, let’s dissect ONE claim. Can you provide that?

Did you want the voting process changed because it equally helped all voters or because it gave the left an advantage?

 

[bripat9643]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

A corrupt democrat asshole? I’m soooo shocked.

Name the corruption.

Election fraud, for one thing.

 

[Dragonlady]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

We did nothing of the sort. Mail-in voting opened the floodgates for election fraud. Voters have a right not to have their vote canceled by fraud.

Again, you have provide no evidence of election fraud. Trump saying something doesn't make it so.

Voters also have a right not to be lied to by the President.

 

[Synthaholic]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

You are seriously ignorant. The rules on reclusal are NOT designed for just political figures or public figures or just Republicans.. Lemme help you out here..

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

(a)
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)
Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)
Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)
Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)
He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)
Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)
Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)
Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)
Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.



-----------------------------------------------------

Stacey Abrams is THE REASON those 4000 NON RESIDENTS voted the last time and is determined that they vote THIS TIME.. She's running the steal in Georgia and bragging about it.. No way her sister doesn't know this..

It's pitchfork time.. If I lived in Georgia -- I'd be spending the week protesting outside that courthouse..

Trump: "My judges"
FlaCalTenn: *crickets*

You have a serious lack of credibility on this, and I'm sure many more issues as you try to argue for "decency" and "optics" and "traditions" and all that good stuff.

 

[flacaltenn]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

This is not an option. It's ignoring the CRIMES that 4000 voters committed in November by knowingly taking advantage of mail in ballots to vote in districts they no longer live in.. Maybe aren't even RESIDENTS of Georgia.. You CANNOT ignore this.. It's a run-off.. There's no 90 day window provided.. And all HELL is gonna rain down if this is not fixed..

One extra-judicial remedy is to pass a Georgia statehouse resolution that ENHANCES THE PENALTIES for BEING CAUGHT casting fraudulent ballots next week.. THAT would satisfy most folks if the charges actually GET FILED AND PROSECUTED.

4000 fraud voters would need their own jail -- wouldn't they???

 

[bripat9643]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

We did nothing of the sort. Mail-in voting opened the floodgates for election fraud. Voters have a right not to have their vote canceled by fraud.

Again, you have provide no evidence of election fraud. Trump saying something doesn't make it so

I've posted thread after thread and post after post with evidence of election fraud, shit for brains.

Voters also have a right not to be lied to by the President.

You have no such right

 

[Synthaholic]

Stacey Abrams is THE REASON those 4000 NON RESIDENTS voted the last time and is determined that they vote THIS TIME.. She's running the steal in Georgia and bragging about it.. No way her sister doesn't know this..

So, voting is stealing - if you're a Democrat.

 

[Synthaholic]

4000 fraud voters

Fake news.

 

[bripat9643]

Stacey Abrams is THE REASON those 4000 NON RESIDENTS voted the last time and is determined that they vote THIS TIME.. She's running the steal in Georgia and bragging about it.. No way her sister doesn't know this..

So, voting is stealing - if you're a Democrat.

Yes, actually. It's a present auction on future goods.

 

[Coyote]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

All voters.

Not just the ones you can squeeze in if you alter the process for one sides benefit.

You use "all voters" to hide behind a lot while you push one sides "rights".

All voters is all voters. You are the one trying to make this partisan.

To what degree are you willing to disenfranchise voters to minimize the potential of wrong doing?

Seems to me the first step in this equation would be to first determine whether or not there is a problem so urgent that the only resolution is to take a highly unusual step and purge the rolls a week before an election.

One poster pointed out that this is necessary to prevent “duplicate votes”. That is an easy problem to quantify. Where there any duplicate votes in the Georgia November election? That would be the place to start in determining whether purging the rolls is Truly needed at this time.

 

[bripat9643]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

All voters.

Not just the ones you can squeeze in if you alter the process for one sides benefit.

You use "all voters" to hide behind a lot while you push one sides "rights".

All voters is all voters. You are the one trying to make this partisan.

To what degree are you willing to disenfranchise voters to minimize the potential of wrong doing?

Seems to me the first step in this equation would be to first determine whether or not there is a problem so urgent that the only resolution is to take a highly unusual step and purge the rolls a week before an election.

One poster pointed out that this is necessary to prevent “duplicate votes”. That is an easy problem to quantify. Where there any duplicate votes in the Georgia November election? That would be the place to start in determining whether purging the rolls is Truly needed at this time.

We've already determined there is a problem. I have no problem with preventing 1000 legal voters from voting if it stops just one illegal voter. All these fraudulent votes have disenfranchised millions of voters.

 

[iceberg]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

All voters.

Not just the ones you can squeeze in if you alter the process for one sides benefit.

You use "all voters" to hide behind a lot while you push one sides "rights".

All voters is all voters. You are the one trying to make this partisan.

To what degree are you willing to disenfranchise voters to minimize the potential of wrong doing?

Seems to me the first step in this equation would be to first determine whether or not there is a problem so urgent that the only resolution is to take a highly unusual step and purge the rolls a week before an election.

One poster pointed out that this is necessary to prevent “duplicate votes”. That is an easy problem to quantify. Where there any duplicate votes in the Georgia November election? That would be the place to start in determining whether purging the rolls is Truly needed at this time.

Then name me any source who felt this change helped all voters equally.

Every one I've read says it strongly benefitted the left.

"all voters rights" you hide behind again.

 

[Coyote]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

We did nothing of the sort. Mail-in voting opened the floodgates for election fraud. Voters have a right not to have their vote canceled by fraud.

I hate to say, but no widespread election fraud was found to have occurred. No hordes of dead people voted either (just 3 zombie fraudsters who voted for Trump). And that is not my opinion, it is per the DoJ, tbe AG, multiple state officials (mostly Republican) who oversaw the elections, and multiple court cases.

 

[Coyote]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

All voters.

Not just the ones you can squeeze in if you alter the process for one sides benefit.

You use "all voters" to hide behind a lot while you push one sides "rights".

All voters is all voters. You are the one trying to make this partisan.

To what degree are you willing to disenfranchise voters to minimize the potential of wrong doing?

Seems to me the first step in this equation would be to first determine whether or not there is a problem so urgent that the only resolution is to take a highly unusual step and purge the rolls a week before an election.

One poster pointed out that this is necessary to prevent “duplicate votes”. That is an easy problem to quantify. Where there any duplicate votes in the Georgia November election? That would be the place to start in determining whether purging the rolls is Truly needed at this time.

We've already determined there is a problem. I have no problem with preventing 1000 legal voters from voting if it stops just one illegal voter. All these fraudulent votes have disenfranchised millions of voters.

You have determined it? I must have missed that part. Ok, so how many duplicate votes were there in the Georgia election?

 

[bripat9643]

A voter purge shortly before a run off election of national importance? Can voter suppression be any more blatant? Do it after.

but they moved???
so why keep them on when they dont live there anymore??

Strawman. No one is arguing voter rolls shouldn’t be kept up to date Or purged. The issue is the timing.

You don’t know for sure if they moved or not, there is usually a process that allows for challenges and reinstatement in plenty of time for an election.

theres never a better time than right before an election,, you do want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

its not like its going to take a lot of time or money,, all they have to do is hit delete,,, the list is already made,,

Purges often include a number of legitimate voters, who will, in this case lack the time to challenge it. That is why it is usually done well before an election. To use your words: you do
want to insure theres no possibility of wrong doing dont you???

before we open up how we vote, do you want to ensure we minimize the potential of wrongdoing?

equal application of principles would be amazing.

From my personal perspective, and based upon statements by those overseeing the elections, and the results of court chal,Engels, we seem to have done so. But it isn’t just minimizing potential of wrongdoing that is involved. There is a counterweight on tbe other end of the plank that must be taken into account and balanced: the voter’s rights.

All voters.

Not just the ones you can squeeze in if you alter the process for one sides benefit.

You use "all voters" to hide behind a lot while you push one sides "rights".

All voters is all voters. You are the one trying to make this partisan.

To what degree are you willing to disenfranchise voters to minimize the potential of wrong doing?

Seems to me the first step in this equation would be to first determine whether or not there is a problem so urgent that the only resolution is to take a highly unusual step and purge the rolls a week before an election.

One poster pointed out that this is necessary to prevent “duplicate votes”. That is an easy problem to quantify. Where there any duplicate votes in the Georgia November election? That would be the place to start in determining whether purging the rolls is Truly needed at this time.

Then name me any source who felt this change helped all voters equally.

Every one I've read says it strongly benefitted the left.

"all voters rights" you hide behind again.

Anything that increases opportunities for fraud benefits the left.