Trump has thousands of attorneys ready for post-election legal fight

[Aratus]

i admit.... CASTOR had his moments. the team of four did a classic
DELTA HOUSE defense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKS0GVvoE9I

[jmdrake]

"Once again it has been proven that in some counties there were more registered voters than eligible voters."

No, it hasn't. Never has.

Yes it has.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...-registration/
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a September 2020 study revealed that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters. The study found eight states showing state-wide registration rates exceeding 100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The September 2020 study collected the most recent registration data posted online by the states themselves. This data was then compared to the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018. ACS surveys are sent to 3.5 million addresses each month, and its five-year estimates are considered to be the most reliable estimates outside of the decennial census.

Judicial Watch’s latest study is necessarily limited to 37 states that post regular updates to their registration data. Certain state voter registration lists may also be even larger than reported, because they may have excluded “inactive voters” from their data. Inactive voters, who may have moved elsewhere, are still registered voters and may show up and vote on election day and/or request mail-in ballots.

Judicial Watch relies on its voter registration studies to warn states that they are failing to comply with the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires states to make reasonable efforts to clean their voter rolls. Judicial Watch can and has sued to enforce compliance with federal law.

Earlier this month, Judicial Watch sued Colorado over its failure to comply with the National Voter Registration Act. In Judicial Watch’s new study, 42 Colorado counties—or two thirds of the state’s counties—had registration rates exceeding 100%. Particular data from the state confirms this general picture. As the complaint explains, a month-by-month comparison of the ACS’s five-year survey period with Colorado’s own registration numbers for the exact same months shows that large proportions of Colorado’s counties have registration rates exceeding 100%. Earlier this year, Judicial Watch sued Pennsylvaniaand North Carolina for failing to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from their rolls as required by federal law. The lawsuits allege that the two states have nearly 2 million inactive names on their voter registration rolls. Judicial Watch also sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.

“The new study shows 1.8 million excess, or ‘ghost’ voters in 353 counties across 29 states,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The data highlights the recklessness of mailing blindly ballots and ballot applications to voter registration lists. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections.”

Judicial Watch’s study updates the results of a similar study from last year. In August 2019, Judicial Watch analyzed registration data that states reported to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in response to a survey conducted every two years on how states maintain their voter rolls. That registration data was compared to the then-most-recent ACS five-year survey from 2013 through 2017. The study showed that 378 U.S. counties had registration rates exceeding 100%.

Judicial Watch is a national leader for cleaner elections.

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-roll cleanup program that resulted from a Judicial Watch settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio. California settled a NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch and last year began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Kentucky also began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last year after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In September 2020, Judicial Watch sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.

Judicial Watch Attorney Robert Popper is the director of Judicial Watch’s clean elections initiative.



You and @Swordsmyth are lying mirror images of each other.

[Invisible Man]

The study found eight states showing state-wide registration rates exceeding 100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

I would like to see Judicial Watch's sources for its numbers. It looks to me like this claim is wrong.

Here's a handy table that has all the numbers we would want for all 50 states except (unfortunately) for number of registered voters. However, I checked that for Colorado, and the number of active registered voters there as of Feb. 1, 2021, is over 3.7 million (out of a voting eligible population of over 4.3 million). With inactive registered voters included, it's still less than the total voting eligible population. So the claim is definitely false with respect to Colorado.

I suspect that it is also false for all of the states listed, and probably for all of the 353 counties about which they made that claim. But proving whether or not that's the case would require getting into the details for each one. Most likely, Judicial Watch mixed together recent data for some numbers with outdated data for others. That is what I've found most of the time when I've seen similar claims to the above made about the 2020 election.

[jmdrake]

I would like to see Judicial Watch's sources for its numbers. It looks to me like this claim is wrong.

Here's a handy table that has all the numbers we would want for all 50 states except (unfortunately) for number of registered voters. However, I checked that for Colorado, and the number of active registered voters there as of Feb. 1, 2021, is over 3.7 million (out of a voting eligible population of over 4.3 million). With inactive registered voters included, it's still less than the total voting eligible population. So the claim is definitely false with respect to Colorado.

I suspect that it is also false for all of the states listed, and probably for all of the 353 counties about which they made that claim. But proving whether or not that's the case would require getting into the details for each one. Most likely, Judicial Watch mixed together recent data for some numbers with outdated data for others. That is what I've found most of the time when I've seen similar claims to the above made about the 2020 election.

Ummmmm.....no. Your table has nothing to do with the Judicial Watch study. That's a table of turnout. There point was not that there were more people who turned out to vote than were eligible voters but rather there were more registered voters than eligible voters.

[Invisible Man]

Ummmmm.....no. Your table has nothing to do with the Judicial Watch study. That's a table of turnout. There point was not that there were more people who turned out to vote than were eligible voters but rather there were more registered voters than eligible voters.

One of the columns on the table is the number of eligible voters for each state. You probably have to scroll right to see that column on the website. The only other number we need is the number of registered voters, which I think we need to get from each state's SOS website, in order to get up to date numbers, which is what my second link is for Colorado.

Those two numbers (registered voters and eligible voters) are the numbers Judicial Watch claims to be comparing.

At least in the case of Colorado, their claim is false. Colorado does not have more registered voters than eligible voters.

[Sammy]

I already miss president Trump.

[jmdrake]

One of the columns on the table is the number of eligible voters for each state. You probably have to scroll right to see that column on the website. The only other number we need is the number of registered voters, which I think we need to get from each state's SOS website, in order to get up to date numbers, which is what my second link is for Colorado.

Those two numbers (registered voters and eligible voters) are the numbers Judicial Watch claims to be comparing.

At least in the case of Colorado, their claim is false. Colorado does not have more registered voters than eligible voters.

Okay. But that Judicial Watch study was a county by county comparison. Your table is looking at eligible voters per STATE. Apples and oranges.

Edit: And why are you jumping through hoops to try to disprove the study rather than simply click through the study are reading the data that's right there in front of your face?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...Oct-2020-1.pdf

There are the numbers with the sources for the numbers.

[Invisible Man]

Okay. But that Judicial Watch study was a county by county comparison. Your table is looking at eligible voters per STATE. Apples and oranges.

Edit: And why are you jumping through hoops to try to disprove the study rather than simply click through the study are reading the data that's right there in front of your face?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...Oct-2020-1.pdf

There are the numbers with the sources for the numbers.

The individual sources that study uses for number of registered voters is the individual state SOS websites, the same as mine.

Where that study differed was in its data for number of eligible voters, which it says is based on "the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018."

I suspect that the reason they used that was because in order to get down to county-level numbers there's nothing more recent.

But when we compare the numbers gotten from that same source at the state level with more recent estimates of state populations as of July 1, 2020, we see that the differences are enough to matter with respect to the claims Judicial Watch made.

Again, taking Colorado as a test case, for the whole state, the 2014-2018 ACS voting age population is 4,271,322 (available here). But the July 1, 2020 estimate is 4,557,684 (available here). An estimate for number of eligible voters can be made from that voting age population, as was done in the first link I gave. This shows that the claim Judicial Watch makes about the state of Colorado as a state is based on comparing recent numbers for number of registered voters with outdated numbers for number of eligible voters, as I suspected.

I can't say for sure if their county-level numbers are also wrong. But this does highlight the weakness of the data they rely on (admittedly in the apparent absence of anything better).

Edit: However, once the 2020 US Census data comes out we will have better county numbers to use. Hopefully Judicial Watch updates their study to take those into account.

[jmdrake]

The individual sources that study uses for number of registered voters is the individual state SOS websites, the same as mine.

Where that study differed was in its data for number of eligible voters, which it says is based on "the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018."

I suspect that the reason they used that was because in order to get down to county-level numbers there's nothing more recent.

But when we compare the numbers gotten from that same source at the state level with more recent estimates of state populations as of July 1, 2020, we see that the differences are enough to matter with respect to the claims Judicial Watch made.

Again, taking Colorado as a test case, for the whole state, the 2014-2018 ACS voting age population is 4,271,322 (available here). But the July 1, 2020 estimate is 4,557,684 (available here). An estimate for number of eligible voters can be made from that voting age population, as was done in the first link I gave. This shows that the claim Judicial Watch makes about the state of Colorado as a state is based on comparing recent numbers for number of registered voters with outdated numbers for number of eligible voters, as I suspected.

I can't say for sure if their county-level numbers are also wrong. But this does highlight the weakness of the data they rely on (admittedly in the apparent absence of anything better).

Edit: However, once the 2020 US Census data comes out we will have better county numbers to use. Hopefully Judicial Watch updates their study to take those into account.

No. It does not show a weakness in their data. It shows a weakness in your interpretation of the data. This is really simple. If there are more registered voters in county A then there are probably voters that need to be purged in county A. The fact that there may be an overabundance of registered voters in county B which evens it out on a statewide level doesn't fix the problem in county A. It's really simple.

[Invisible Man]

No. It does not show a weakness in their data. It shows a weakness in your interpretation of the data. This is really simple. If there are more registered voters in county A then there are probably voters that need to be purged in county A. The fact that there may be an overabundance of registered voters in county B which evens it out on a statewide level doesn't fix the problem in county A. It's really simple.

But the claim that there is an overabundance of voters in any counties at all is suspect.

What the Judicial Watch data shows is that there were more registered voters in certain counties in November of 2020 using state SOS numbers than there were eligible voters in 2014-2018 using ACS numbers. In order to say that there are more registered voters than eligible voters in November of 2020, they would need to compare numbers that are all for that timeframe.

In addition to making the claim that certain counties had more registered voters than eligible voters, that same study by Judicial Watch also makes that claim about certain states, one of which is Colorado. But in the case of that claim about Colorado, they are incorrect, precisely because their outdated data source results in an underestimate of the state's current voting age population.

Granted, it's possible that they will turn out to be right in their claims about some of those counties. But in order to substantiate that claim, they would need to use accurate and up-to-date data about the voting age populations of those counties.

Since their use of outdated data can be proven to make a difference when it comes to the claim they make about the whole state of Colorado, I don't see why you're so confident that the same data source is reliable and up-to-date when used for county-level numbers.

[jmdrake]

One of the columns on the table is the number of eligible voters for each state. You probably have to scroll right to see that column on the website. The only other number we need is the number of registered voters, which I think we need to get from each state's SOS website, in order to get up to date numbers, which is what my second link is for Colorado.

Those two numbers (registered voters and eligible voters) are the numbers Judicial Watch claims to be comparing.

At least in the case of Colorado, their claim is false. Colorado does not have more registered voters than eligible voters.

Okay. Looking at the again you are zeroing in on the 8 states where statewide there were according to the Judicial Watch study more registered voters than eligible voters. Let's take ONE example. Alaska. According to Judicial Watch's numbers there were 530,385 eligible voters at the time of their study and 590,422 registered voters. According to your source there were 525,568. So your source makes the numbers WORSE but only by about 5,000 eligible voters. Judicial Watch got it's voting registration numbers from the state registrar websites. For Alaska its: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/sta....htm#STATEWIDE

Go to the bottom of that page from Alaska.Gov and you will find:

Total: 590422.

So the Judicial Watch numbers are accurate and @PRB is full of crap.

[PRB]

Okay. Looking at the again you are zeroing in on the 8 states where statewide there were according to the Judicial Watch study more registered voters than eligible voters. Let's take ONE example. Alaska. According to Judicial Watch's numbers there were 530,385 eligible voters at the time of their study and 590,422 registered voters. According to your source there were 525,568. So your source makes the numbers WORSE but only by about 5,000 eligible voters. Judicial Watch got it's voting registration numbers from the state registrar websites. For Alaska its: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/sta....htm#STATEWIDE

Go to the bottom of that page from Alaska.Gov and you will find:

Total: 590422.

So the Judicial Watch numbers are accurate and @PRB is full of crap.

"According to Judicial Watch's numbers"

Exactly why it's not proven.

[Invisible Man]

Okay. Looking at the again you are zeroing in on the 8 states where statewide there were according to the Judicial Watch study more registered voters than eligible voters. Let's take ONE example. Alaska. According to Judicial Watch's numbers there were 530,385 eligible voters at the time of their study and 590,422 registered voters. According to your source there were 525,568. So your source makes the numbers WORSE but only by about 5,000 eligible voters. Judicial Watch got it's voting registration numbers from the state registrar websites. For Alaska its: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/sta....htm#STATEWIDE

Go to the bottom of that page from Alaska.Gov and you will find:

Total: 590422.

So the Judicial Watch numbers are accurate and @PRB is full of crap.

Thank you. That is a good example of one Judicial Watch got right. I hadn't checked Alaska.

From a little googling I see that this has been a known problem in Alaska for a while.

[PRB]

Okay. But that Judicial Watch study was a county by county comparison.

Ummm, because people move across counties sometimes, and you can often vote outside of your own precincts. While counties conduct the elections, it's state level that matters in electoral college. So, constantly changing the subject isn't helping your argument.

Whether on a nationwide or state by state level, there's no evidence that there's more votes than voters, that alone is your biggest burden of proof you can't deliver.

[acptulsa]

"According to Judicial Watch's numbers"

Exactly why it's not proven.

And your numbers make the problem more egregious. And the other side of the equation which does not equate comes straight from the horse's mouth--the government of the state.

You wouldn't know proof if it bit you.

[Firestarter]

Yes it has.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...-registration/
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a September 2020 study revealed that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters. The study found eight states showing state-wide registration rates exceeding 100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

For what it's worth, according to the "reputable" Snopes this claim is "unproven"...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gh...-in-29-states/

[jmdrake]

"According to Judicial Watch's numbers"

Exactly why it's not proven.

You are stupid. When I took the other numbers it made the fraud even WORSE! I take that back. You aren't stupid. You're just being a pathological liar. Once again the judicial watch numbers were 530,385 eligible voters. The other source said only 525,568 eligible voters. The Alaska government website said 590,422 registered voters. @pcosmar told the truth and you are lying. There were more registered voters than eligible voters in Alaska.

[jmdrake]

For what it's worth, according to the "reputable" Snopes this claim is "unproven"...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gh...-in-29-states/

Snopes is lying.

Let's take ONE example. Alaska. According to Judicial Watch's numbers there were 530,385 eligible voters at the time of their study and 590,422 registered voters. According to your source there were 525,568. So your source makes the numbers WORSE but only by about 5,000 eligible voters. Judicial Watch got it's voting registration numbers from the state registrar websites. For Alaska its: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/sta....htm#STATEWIDE

Go to the bottom of that page from Alaska.Gov and you will find:

Total: 590422.

So the Judicial Watch numbers are accurate and @PRB is full of crap.

[jmdrake]

Thank you. That is a good example of one Judicial Watch got right. I hadn't checked Alaska.

From a little googling I see that this has been a known problem in Alaska for a while.

You're welcome. And thank you for an open an honest discussion. @PRB can't admit when he's been proven wrong.

[Ender]

You're welcome. And thank you for an open an honest discussion.

And thank both of you for having open and honest discussions, whether you agree or not. That's one thing that's been hard to have on the forum these past 4-5 years.

We all don't have to exactly agree with each other- we are NOT robots- and we can actually learn something from another's POV.

[Invisible Man]

Here's an MSM source on the state of the matter in Alaska as of 2018. It doesn't look like there was any debate about it being a fact that they had more registered voters than eligible voters at that time.
https://www.juneauempire.com/news/al...ble-residents/

I think it's natural that the purging of registered voter rolls will never keep up perfectly with people dying and moving out of state. That's not to say that it isn't a problem that they should do their best with.

But it seems to me that the best way to handle this particular problem is with voter ID laws, so that the filtering out of people who live in other states or are dead would happen when they get the ID and/or use it to vote. If this is done well, then having voter rolls that don't get purged effectively enough could be moot.

[PRB]

Once again the judicial watch numbers were 530,385 eligible voters. The other source said only 525,568 eligible voters.

and they can both be wrong. and either way, none of that has to do with votes. Actual number of votes was 360,000 far below any of these numbers.

[PRB]

@PRB can't admit when he's been proven wrong.

still here, still waiting for evidence that pcosmar's claim "more votes than voters"

[PRB]

And your numbers make the problem more egregious.

my numbers?

[PRB]

But the claim that there is an overabundance of voters in any counties at all is suspect.

What the Judicial Watch data shows is that there were more registered voters in certain counties in November of 2020 using state SOS numbers than there were eligible voters in 2014-2018 using ACS numbers. In order to say that there are more registered voters than eligible voters in November of 2020, they would need to compare numbers that are all for that timeframe.

In addition to making the claim that certain counties had more registered voters than eligible voters, that same study by Judicial Watch also makes that claim about certain states, one of which is Colorado. But in the case of that claim about Colorado, they are incorrect, precisely because their outdated data source results in an underestimate of the state's current voting age population.

Granted, it's possible that they will turn out to be right in their claims about some of those counties. But in order to substantiate that claim, they would need to use accurate and up-to-date data about the voting age populations of those counties.

Since their use of outdated data can be proven to make a difference when it comes to the claim they make about the whole state of Colorado, I don't see why you're so confident that the same data source is reliable and up-to-date when used for county-level numbers.

all of which are irrelevant, because there's not a single state that there's more votes than voters. NONE.

[jmdrake]

still here, still waiting for evidence that pcosmar's claim "more votes than voters"

Are you ready to admit that in some states there were more registered voters than eligible voters? Because that's been proven.

[Invisible Man]

all of which are irrelevant, because there's not a single state that there's more votes than voters. NONE.

How does that fact make it irrelevant?

[TheTexan]

Trump can still win this

[PRB]

How does that fact make it irrelevant?

because a presidential election is an election of 50 states.

[PRB]

Are you ready to admit that in some states there were more registered voters than eligible voters? Because that's been proven.

No, because it's not proven.