Conflict over the Florida election has continued, with Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) attempting to defend his seat against current Governor Rick Scott. Controversy over the mishandling of ballots persists, despite the fact that the midterm elections were held over two weeks ago. Nelson successfully demanded a recount after he appeared to lose narrowly to Scott, but it appears that the Democrats are also trying a new strategy – one that could not only impact this election but future races as well.

The party has filed multiple lawsuits designed to alter the procedure for counting votes; the judgments issued could compel officials to count votes that would typically be rejected under the current guidelines. In essence, Democrats are pushing to change the rules in a way that will benefit their candidates, though their attempts have so far been stymied.

Mismatched Signatures

One point of contention brought forward by Democrats is the issue of signature-matching when it comes to counting, or rejecting, a ballot. Senator Nelson’s campaign claims that tens of thousands of votes were rejected because the signatures did not match the ones on voters’ files.

One lawsuit contends that the requirement of matching signatures should be invalidated for this election. Nelson’s campaign asserts that the evaluation of these ballots was made by “untrained, even though well-intentioned,” election officials.

The campaign also argued that the requirements disproportionately impacted minorities and young voters. Apparently, the senator believes that minorities are less likely to know how to sign a ballot than whites. There’s a word for that type of belief, isn’t there?

If this contention seems familiar, you might recently have been reading about the gubernatorial race in Georgia, where Democrat candidate Stacey Abrams made a similar complaint. While a judge allowed the Georgia ballots to be counted, Abrams eventually conceded defeat to Republican opponent Brian Kemp, saying that “democracy failed,” since she didn’t win.

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, who is presiding over most of the Democrats’ electoral lawsuits in Florida, allowed a concession – although not one as generous as that granted in Georgia – giving staff two additional days to correct the mistakes for mail-in or provisional ballots that were previously rejected due to mismatched signatures.

The judge did not grant the Democrats’ request to completely invalidate the Sunshine State’s signature-matching requirement.

Rewriting the Rules

Another Democrat suit argues that the court should throw out some of the standards used to determine a voter’s intent on ballots that may have been completed in an atypical manner. These particular guidelines are used to assess overvoted and undervoted ballots – situations in which the number of options selected on a ballot is higher or lower than the number permitted. The judge rejected the Democrats’ request, stating that the intent guidelines are constitutional.

A left-leaning organization called VoteVets also filed a lawsuit, requesting that the court throw out state deadlines that invalidate mail-in ballots postmarked before the date of an election, but received after the polls close on Election Day. The group wishes to relax the restrictions and compel election officials to tally ballots received within ten days of the election if they were postmarked before the deadline.

Judge Walker also rejected this request, stating that the rules were designed to allow overseas voters to cast their votes “on equal terms with domestic voters.” He argued that throwing out the standards could “perhaps undermine the electoral process.”

How Democrats Respond When They Lose

It should come as no surprise that Democrats are attempting to use the courts to skew the results of elections in their favor. This is what progressives do when they lose races. Rather than engaging in self-reflection to determine why they lost, they instead push for destruction or alteration of the system that did not work in their favor.

After their devastating loss in 2016, many on the left advocated for abolishing the electoral college, arguing that the popular vote should decide the composition of the American government. Two years later, Democrats have still not recovered enough to rethink their platform and present new policy ideas to an eagerly awaiting public; rather, they insist on trotting out the same tired old complaints.

When the left lost the battle over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, they proposed strategies designed to either limit the power of the highest court in the land or to change it in a way that allows them to retain influence over the judicial branch.

Even when it was accurately predicted before the midterm elections that the GOP would maintain control of the Senate, some on the left promoted the idea that the U.S. should abolish the upper house. Isn’t it odd that none of these ideas gained any traction when the Democrats were in control of the presidency, Supreme Court, and Congress?

While many progressive efforts to change the character of America’s institutions are failing, it is clear that they wish to rig the system behind the backs of the public. If they are allowed to succeed, the fairness of America’s elections could be at stake.