the ruling for foster V love was for WHEN the elections where, not when the results are DUE. The whole argument was for setting one day so that people could not go from state to state and "lay pipe". the argument for the trump campaign is that there was a lot of illegal/unverifiable votes and that they need to be tossed out. that argument has nothing to do with Foster V love
The states in question received ballots/votes after election day. Thus, making them illegal. States receiving ballots at 3am on Nov. 4th is included in the lawsuit.
maybe, however if the ballots where post marked before election day, they would not be relevant to FvL, due to state legislator/law stating that they could arrive after polls close and be counted.
the ruling for foster V love was for WHEN the elections where, not when the results are DUE. The whole argument was for setting one day so that people could not go from state to state and "lay pipe". the argument for the trump campaign is that there was a lot of illegal/unverifiable votes and that they need to be tossed out. that argument has nothing to do with Foster V love
The states in question received ballots/votes after election day. Thus, making them illegal. States receiving ballots at 3am on Nov. 4th is included in the lawsuit.
Foster v Love is relevant here.
maybe, however if the ballots where post marked before election day, they would not be relevant to FvL, due to state legislator/law stating that they could arrive after polls close and be counted.
PA was accepting ballots without even a postmark.
yes due to a judgment, not really a FvL issue, but a bypassing the state legislator issue.