Court Greenlights Fraud

PUBLISHED: 6:59 PM 22 Oct 2020

Appeals Court Rules On Voter Deadline ‘Extension’ In North Carolina

This is simply a way to ensure that the election will be chaotic, with no clear winner.

(Source: WNCT TV 9 YouTube Screenshot)

A federal appeals court has ruled that North Carolina democrats can keep counting ‘absentee’ ballots that are postmarked up to a week AFTER the election.

WRAL reported:

North Carolina can accept absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day for more than a week afterward, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block an extension for accepting the ballots that was announced in late September. The State Board of Elections decided then that absentee ballots could be accepted until Nov. 12 as long as they were mailed by Election Day, lengthening the timeframe from three to nine days. The change was made as part of a legal settlement with voting rights advocates.

State and national Republican leaders went to court to fight the deadline extension.

The court’s majority opinion notes that ballots must still be postmarked by Election Day to be counted. The opinion says that “everyone must submit their ballot by the same date. The extension merely allows more lawfully cast ballots to be counted, in the event there are any delays precipitated by an avalanche of mail-in ballots.”

[Wait… What the…?]

The opinion also noted that if the court forced the state to shorten the deadline, it would violate a legal principle that limits how federal courts intervene in ballot rules close to an election.

The ruling was decided 12-3. All 15 of the court’s active judges participated, rather than a smaller panel, in a sign of the case’s importance.

Berger, R-Rockingham, said in a statement that a three-judge panel of the appellate court appeared to have blocked the extension before the lone dissenting judge called for an en banc hearing of the full 4th Circuit court.

“We actually won our appeal until one judge on the panel pursued a procedurally suspect scheme to overturn our victory before it could be become public. The veteran judges who dissented are right to question whether the court undermines its legitimacy with such antics,” Berger said.