> "Is there any evidence that me abiding by the speed limit would have been any safer?" is not a good defence [sic] to accusations of "you broke the speed limit".

Yet another comfortable sounding yet simplistically false untruth. Depending on the jurisdiction, of course.

If you'd indulge me, which part of the supposed untruth was blatantly false?

Although I am not sure how fruitful an engagement this will be, given the pedantry[1] you've displayed against users of British English.

[1] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/defence-defense/

There are states where the posted number isn't actually a hard limit but rather a recommendation of what's considered safe. And so arguing that you were still driving safely despite exceeding the posted limit can be a worthwhile defense. For example: https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexiv/ch...

(I added sic because I don't like propagating misspellings. But I didn't know "defence" was British spelling! Sorry, TIL)

I am sure there are places like that, but I don't think you'd be charged with "exceeding the speed limit" in those places, correct? You would be charged with unsafe driving or something similar, in which case you could make the argument that driving slower would not necessarily have been safer. I believe that is splitting hairs and I am sure you understand the basis of my argument when it comes to election workers following the laws set in place by the legislature.

> Sorry, TIL

Apology accepted and apologies for assuming you were being pedantic about it.

Well charges would simply be the legal citation numbers, and if you look at that link it's indeed titled "speed limits".

I get your abstract argument, but you don't see to be applying it to a specific situation. Is there an actual case that's raising this argument? I've yet to see any cases with arguments that make me worry, so it would be something new.

In general I can't see a signature "verification" law as anything but an attempt at disenfranchisement. Many people have repeatable signatures, and many do not. A signature is not a method of technical verification, but rather legal authorization with a possibility to argue authenticity based on stroke angles etc. If I usually make a half-attempt at writing my name, but sign my ballot with an X, that's legit. The best way to prevent a person from filling out multiple ballots is to make sure everyone votes so there are few unused ballots to steal in the first place.

> Is there an actual case that's raising this argument?

There are several cases, but off the top of my head I can give you Trump v. Raffensperger [1] filed in the superior court of Fulton County, state of Georgia. Beginning around paragraph 139 of the petition, you can see arguments that the Trump legal team have brought which talk about various violations of state mandates regarding signatures.

> I can't see a signature "verification" law as anything but an attempt at disenfranchisement

You may argue that these laws or mandates could disenfranchise some voters, but I think it's unfair to suggest that it's their sole (or even primary) purpose.

> make sure everyone votes

Even in countries where voting is mandatory you do not get full voter turnout. There would certainly be enough left over to turn the tide of many elections.

[1] https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/...

If I'm reading it correctly, the actual argument put forth there seems to be that three people were checking each signature, rather than a single one (due to a previous consent decree over disenfranchisement). State law certainly doesn't mandate that each registrar has to personally review every ballot themselves. And so just as a registrar can deputize a single employee to do the job, I would think they have the power to deputize multiple people to do the job collaboratively.

I think you may have read from where I linked and then into the following complaint. The complaint supported by paragraphs 139 - 141 is "RESPONDENTS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH GEORGIA LAW PROVISIONS FOR MATCHING SIGNATURES AND CONFIRMING VOTER IDENTITY FOR ELECTORS SEEKING TO VOTE ABSENTEE".

The following paragraphs talk about a different issue (which also happens to relate to signature verification).

By my reading, 139-141 just factually cite Georgia law. I don't see where it is alleged how the law was specifically not followed, apart from continuing to read into the next complaint.

I'm not a legal expert. The petition alleges that "RESPONDENTS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH GEORGIA LAW PROVISIONS MATCHING SIGNATURES" but I believe the arguments to support this would need to be presented in the courts.

You asked me if there was an actual case which raises the arguments that state laws were not followed and I believe that I have provided you with one.

You can also probably look at the recent motion filed by AG Paxton in Texas[1], which similarly makes claims that election officials were processing ballots in an unlawful way.

Whether or not the arguments make you worry doesn't change the fact that both of these cases allege that election laws were broken.

[1] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...

I'm not a legal expert either. My understanding is that the heading of each complaint is a summary, and the sections form a progression of supporting allegations.

For example if you read into the next complaint, 142 is strictly factual (which can still be rebutted, but probably won't be), while 145/149 argue why those (factual) actions were unlawful, in support of the complaint's title (the rest are somewhere in the middle, or more handwavey). If you read 142-149, you come away seeing a coherent argument backing up the claim.

But for the previous complaint - it's a claim the law was violated, a citation of the law, and then no supporting argument or evidence detailing how or why the law has been violated. I'm guessing it can be amended or argued verbally, but as it stands it's an unsupported claim.

Also, for the record, I have not downvoted any of your comments. I think it's totally fair for people to discuss the merits of these cases.