Lost in the 313
@whatupdoe313.bsky.social
'The slow blade penetrates the shield" E/E Engineer, Delta Green, Esham, MUFON, AFSOC veteran, Aging Gym Rat, Drexciya Disciple Real Detroit shxt: https://youtu.be/wUJ7qErI7ME?si=78S1y4gUKTd_Sw47
Classic... 1967 Chevrolet Camaro RS source: @bringatrailer.bsky.social bringatrailer.com/listing/1967...
First in WaPo this morning: @votevets.org is launching a new campaign to mobilize veterans against Trump's planned triumphal arch. Trump officials are planning 20/hr per day of construction to build 250-ft-tall arch near Arlington National Cemetery.
This was just taken down from TikTok. It was getting a lot of comments and traffic beforehand. I get videos taken down daily that don't violate the TOS, but the deck is stacked against us. Check your registration, then VOTE Nov 3rd! #ProudBlue #FuckJDVance #FuckPeterThiel #FDT #FuckTikTok
IT: I have another proceeding at 11 o'clock, going to wind things down. You'll file someting by 3pm with details DOJ: Yes y'honor
PL2: It does't have the state-by-state geographic concerns that Defendants cite to in CASA.
PL1: They're saying, "use our citizens as guinea pigs, it's fine." Does not accord with equity in any way. IT: We're running low on time. PL2: Push back on the idea that the Court could only rule on the plaintiff states. Point to 5 USC 705 under the APA allowing an interim stay.
PL1: … the intervenor states have no interest here. They're saying, "we don't trust our own processes. The ballots that we send out need to be double-checked."
IT: Please correct me if I'm wrong. State/muni is coming up with a barcode. Make sure barcode is on both the envelope and the return envelope. If using an automatic stuffer, needs a 1:1 correlation.
S: If the court grants, USPS can make the portal live, state officials can comply and upload information. IT: You're using the word "comply with the rule." If I said you're not precluded from uploading voter data, is that what you're asking? S: I suppose…would still be helpful…matching barcodes
IT: I don't understand why we want election integrity in your state decided by your state? S: We're not asking you to do something, we're asking you to not do something.
IT: I don't understand the timeline…I suppose it could be more expensive…if at the end of the day using ballots to track things, doesn't seem in and of itself a problem. You're saying, using ballots to track things. I understand you're saying, "we want to use these good barcodes." Okay!
IT: What do you envision? Harris Country employee goes to post office w/ 10,000. They put them through, turns out a bad barcode. S: Then Harris County would have to correct the batch. IT: Take the 10,000 envelops back and correct it. If they don't do it in time, 9,999 people won't be able to vote?
S: We think there's no risk of disenfranchising IT: If no risk, what i'm going to do would have no risk if that's what I did. S: That's not disenfranchising, Harris county could fix the mistake and the ballots be sent out
IT: The way the TRO was envisioned, if you wanted to use the ballot envelopes with the tracking,you can. S: we appreciate IT: what you couldn't do is, when usps wants to scan these, they could can and block. You want the voters in your states to be disenfrenchised? I'm not understanding the interst
IT: You want me to authorize the federal government to override… S: USPS is already [prepared?] to override election officials The only question is whether the court should block IT: Maybe I'm just not following what you're asking.
IT: How does USPS holding up the ballots help you? S: The more that intervenor states can comply, the better. Say, Travis County, Austin TX, does not agree w/ the state as a whole on policy. If Intervenor States are given more latitude, would be helpful.
IT: Why not have USPS tell us which ballots would not be compliant, but send them out anyway? For your experiment? S: (clarify?) IT: Let's say 10,000 from Harris county, you don't want them to come in. Wouldn't it be solved…you will know if the return envelope doesn't match?
IT: You have no idea how USPS will do this S: Flips the burden IT: You told me there is no risk. But you're saying they haven't _proven_ a risk S: That's a fair reframing.
IT: You want me to say, well, let's see how that works out? (people in the gallery are sounding a bit surprised)
IT: We're not playing an intellectual puzzle game. I hear your right that they have no right to come ask, but let's assuming I disagree and they have standing to challenge. Not because of anything bad the officials want to do, but because of the logistics of the mail.
S: But allowing that would be appropriate. Would give the Court real-world evidence of how the rule would operate in pracice. IT: So do a test run on this electoin? S: In some states.
IT: Let's assume I find they have standing. Because of the risk they're not going to get the ballots. If I'm concerned about the rejection. If you want to get your ballots approved, they want.
IT: Want to ask, early, defendant intervenors do X but not Y. What did you want? S: Limit to plaintiff states IT: Standing S: 2 points. If only plaintiff states, the court must limit. Even if they do, the court should as a matter of equitable jurisdiction. Give other states the option to comply.
IT: I am going to try to get out my decision as oon as possible. You have until I get the decision out — let's say this afternoon — by 3, you're welcome to supplement the record. What does the certication say? I'm going to assume if you can't give me details, they're not finalized.
IT: You can't tell me that the Government has a program ready to go? DOJ: We would like to implement the regulation as predicted.
IT: Does the portal go live? DOJ: I can't make representation. DOJ: (inaudible) I can't make representations outside the record. IT: So I have nothing in the record to show that. *looks at ceiling, scratches chin* You've all been working really hard for a week?
IT: It requires the designated official certify the ballot… DOJ: If it's not in the final rule… (inaudible)