The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a state law that required absentee ballots to have a witness signature, as well as for absentee voters to sign a certificate saying they've met voter eligibility requirements. This is a win for securing our elections, which means Democrats are mad about it.

Democracy Docket says requiring an absentee ballot to have a witness signature is a "restrictive condition."

No, it's common sense. 6,000 ballots were thrown out in 2022 because they were missing witness signatures. That's a good thing.

What they mean is it's a loss for them and their ability to cheat.

It's a loss for the fraudulent voters the Democrats need to win elections.

Recommended
So, That's Why This Lib Editor Doesn't Want Us to Say Abdul El-Sayed's Full Name Matt Vespa Abdul El-Sayed Sure Killed a Lot of Dogs When He Ran Detroit's Animal Control Agency Jeff Charles

They do not care how many legitimate ballots are canceled out, just so long as they win.

The Minnesota Supreme Court absolutely got this one correct.

There is no reason why it's a loss for voters to require a witness to sign the ballot, or that the absentee voter attest that they are legally required to vote in the state. Democrats swear up and down we don't need new election laws because it's already illegal to fraudulently vote.

Then they complain about measures that make it illegal to fraudulently vote.