McElroy’s Ruling Undermines Election Confidence

gavel

The ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy changing election-security laws shortly before Rhode Islanders vote is a warning sign that Americans should think twice before trusting the results that follow.

Rhode Islanders’ elected officials in the General Assembly considered a bill to remove the requirement for mail ballots to be either witnessed by two people or stamped by a notary public… and decided not to change the law.  Our governor, who has presumed to give herself power over minute details of our lives, including how many members of our families can meet in our own backyards, declined to issue an executive order.  But here comes the judge, in company with administrative agencies:

The lawsuit asked the court to block, for this election cycle only, the requirement that Rhode Islanders seeking to vote by mail have two adult witnesses or a notary sign their ballot envelope.

On Monday, the plaintiffs and the defendants, who include Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea and the members of the state Board of Elections, made public the proposed consent decree.

Under the settlement, state election officials would agree “not to enforce the two-witness requirement for the September 8, 2020 primary and November 3, 2020 general elections.”

Who gave these government agencies the authority to “agree” not to enforce laws that we elected people to pass?  Why, Judge McElroy did.  And who is she?  Here’s a paragraph about her family from a 2016 Katherine Gregg article about the state Department of Labor & Training’s hiring of her sister, Kathleen McElroy, as a fraud investigator:

McElroy’s father is the retired leader of the American Federation of Teachers. Her sister Mary McElroy is Rhode Island’s public defender and President Obama’s stalled nominee to replace U.S. District Judge Mary M. Lisi. Another sister, Elizabeth, works for the AFL-CIO in Washington, and her brother, Steven McElroy, works at the New York Times.

If you have concerns that the Iron Triangle of labor unions, partisan Democrats, and progressive ideologues are working to ensure that mail ballots allow them to fix the November election, it’s all there.  Recall, for one thing, that the AFT was among the groups with which Governor Raimondo assembled an anti-Trump PAC that pledged to do “whatever is needed” to oust President Trump.

Add to that the Obama connection, he being the president who weaponized the IRS against conservative groups before the 2012 election and (it is increasingly clear) weaponized our intelligence agencies before the 2016 election to thwart and undermine his successor.

We even get a connection to the country’s former newspaper of record, which played a role in perpetuating that anti-Trump coup attempt, helped set up this season’s racial discord with its exercise in falsified history, the 1619 Project, and recently forced out an editor for daring to publish an op-ed by a U.S. Senator (expressing a view of a majority of Americans) because radical progressives disagreed with it.

With judges like this sweeping away election laws (and you can be sure this is a national effort), how can Americans trust that the vote count accurately reflects the will of the legitimately voting public?  We can’t.



  • Lou

    …”laws that we elected people to pass? ” When did you vote on mail-in voting regulations?

    Do you really think the “Iron Triangle ” needs to “fix” the election in order to defeat Trump in RI? I think the “massive voter fraud” alleged by Ken Block would be enough…again.

    Who appoints Federal judges, anyway?

    • ShannonEntropy

      When did you vote on mail-in voting regulations?

      It’s hard to explain but I’ll try…

      There used to be this thing called “Separation of Powers”. The GA would make the Laws — like our Election Laws — and the executive branch, like the BoE and SecState, would enforce them

      Courts used to be mainly for settling disputes between individual citizens & / or the other two branches

      Major stuff like amending the Constitution took a referendum of the voters; otherwise we are not really a ‘democracy’ but a ‘republic’
      [ Google those terms for more details ]

      But things are different now. The executive branches can just go to the courts and together they can write new laws or amend the ones already in existence. The governor can amend the Constitution on her own via Executive Orders, much like she EO’ed our entire economy to shut down [ Nero would be jealous of the sweeping reach of her powers ]

      Almost all of the citizens except for the Karens amongst us hate this new system, but nobody seems to want to do anything about it

      My excuse is I’m really old and won’t have to suffer under this new regime for decades like the youngsters will; and their excuse is Orange Man Bad!!!

      • Lou

        Appreciate the diversion, but you really didn’t answer the question: When did the public vote on mail-in voting regulations?

        That’s the entire premise of Justin’s post and it’s not accurate.

        For that matter you seem to think mail-in voting regulations are in the Constitution. Can you point out where that is for us?

        • ShannonEntropy

          You got the “entire premise” wrong, Lou

          Justin specifically stated:

          Rhode Islanders’ elected officials in the General Assembly considered a bill to remove the requirement for mail ballots to be either witnessed by two people or stamped by a notary public… and decided not to change the law.

          How did you twist that into him meaning a voter referendum ??

          As for Gina & our Constitution, sorry for the confusion but I was referring to her amending the State’s name, not the election laws

          There’s an old axiom, prolly not written by Voltaire, that goes:

          Never attribute to maliciousness that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

          If it wasn’t for that, I would have guessed you were being deliberately obtuse just to annoy us

  • Mario

    What surprises me is that the Rhode Island GOP would support the current system, under which we’ll see a massive mail ballot contingent one way or another, when they don’t have the structure or competence to engage in the kind of ballot harvesting that it would require to run it successfully. I guarantee that the Democratic party would be sending notaries and witnesses to every house they want more votes from, probably more than once, and I’d be surprised if you could get the RIGOP to help even if you called and asked. The result of the changes would almost certainly be more votes and a greater proportion of votes for Republicans than they would get by leaving the unnecessary hurdles in place, but I suspect that maligning an election that they haven’t even lost yet has become and end of its own.

    • Rhett Hardwick

      What matters is who counts the votes.

    • Justin Katz

      I don’t agree with what I understand to be your premise. The fact that Democrats are better able to overcome the obstacles to vote harvesting under the current system does not mean that they won’t also be better able to take advantage of a looser system. I don’t have much by way of evidence for this claim, but my gut says their advantage would be exponential. That is, if a generic Democrat is able to harvest 100 votes to a Republican’s 10 under the current system, loosening things up might get the Republican to 50, but it would get the Democrat to 5,000.