The California Republican Party doubled down on its use of unauthorized ballot dropboxes, in violation of state law, shortly before state officials issued cease-and-desist orders against them in the matter.

On Sunday evening, news outlets including the Orange County Register and CBS Los Angeles reported that local election officials in parts of the state including Orange County, Los Angeles County, and Fresno were investigating reports of Republican officials possibly confusing voters by setting up unofficial dropboxes.
— Business Insider, 10/12/20

Yes, ballot harvesting is a bad thing. Especially when California Democrats rigged the rules so votes can continue to be counted until they get the election result desired.

The rules and laws they passed were quite acceptable as long as it resulted in Democrat victories and Republican losses. Let’s not also forget Democrat hacks have to pay their mortgages and why not get taxpayers to generously subsidize them….

The California agency that oversees elections has signed a $35 million contract with a firm linked to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign to produce advertising to encourage voters to participate in the November election. Under the contract, SKD Knickerbocker, a Washington, D.C.-based public affairs firm, will help run the “Vote Safe California” campaign, which will urge people to vote during the pandemic.

Anita Dunn, the firm’s managing director, is a senior strategist for Biden’s presidential campaign. The firm’s work for Biden is highlighted on its website, with a headline saying the company is “proud to be a part of Team Biden.”
— Washington Post, 8/27/20

The problem is now Republicans adhering to those Democrat rules and laws.

NY Times: California Republican Party Admits It Placed Misleading Ballot Boxes Around State
USA Today: California issues cease-and-desist to GOP, says unofficial ballot drop boxes are illegal
Slate: After Complaining About Voter Fraud, the California GOP Commits Election Fraud
Yahoo: What is ballot harvesting? California GOP claims unofficial ballot drop boxes are part of legal practice
Fox News: California Republicans refuse to remove ballot boxes, slam state’s $35 million ‘Team Biden’ contract

California Republican Senator Melissa Melendez took to Twitter and put things into uncomfortable perspective.

I see the Secretary of State isn’t happy about republicans using the ballot harvesting law that democrats passed. Allow me to clarify what the law allows:

A vote by mail ballot collected by a ballot harvester does NOT have to include the name or signature of the harvester on the identification envelope in order to be valid.

A ballot harvester is NOT required to document the vote by mail ballots chain of custody in any way.

A ballot harvester is NOT required to disclose to a voter who they are working on behalf of or if they are being paid to collect ballots.

A ballot harvester is NOT required to provide any kind of documentation/receipt when collecting a vote by mail ballot.

Election officials are NOT required to obtain any identifying information, including names, of ballot harvesters when they return collected ballots.

Election officials are NOT required to maintain a list of persons who collect and submit collected ballots, regardless of how many ballots they submit.

ANY individual is eligible to harvest ballots, including:
• Non-California residents
• Illegal immigrants
• Foreign nationals

ANY entity may have and compensate its employees to harvest ballots (so long as the compensation is not on a per ballot basis), including:
• Campaigns
• Non-profit organizations
• Businesses, including corporations
• Labor unions
• Churches
• Ballot harvesters may collect an unlimited number of ballots.

It appears Republicans are well within their right to collect ballots in this manner. It’s just that democrats don’t like it.
— Senator Melissa Melendez Tweet, 10/12/20

On face value, these rules appear to be nothing but legalized cheating meant to sway an election. The California majority of Democrats believed it a good thing and passed those rules into law. But as Republicans chose to play by those rules, it’s now a very bad thing.

“Last year, I raised a number of issues with the third-party ballot collection laws in California passed by Democrats. It’s telling that the media and Democrats are suddenly interested in the issue now that churches and Republicans have chosen to facilitate the delivery of ballots under those ballot collection laws.

Are we really supposed to believe it’s fine for paid Democrat operatives to collect ballots from strangers and throw them in a bag, but churches aren’t allowed to collect them for members of their congregation and put them in a box?

Attempts by either the Secretary of State or county election officials to stop churches from collecting ballots under California’s third-party ballot collection laws are an act of voter suppression and possibly a civil rights violation.
— Representative Ken Calvert (CA-42) press release, 10/12/20

Back in 2018, Democrats were all giddy when their ballot harvesting scheme reaped significant gains in their favor.

California Democrats took advantage of seemingly minor changes in a 2016 law to score their stunningly successful midterm election results, providing a target for GOP unhappiness that is tinged with a bit of admiration.

In Orange County alone, where every House seat went Democratic, “the number of Election Day vote-by-mail dropoffs was unprecedented — over 250,000,” Fred Whitaker, chairman of the county Republican Party, said in a note to supporters. “This is a direct result of ballot harvesting allowed under California law for the first time. That directly caused the switch from being ahead on election night to losing two weeks later.”
— Orange County Register, 11/30/18

There’s only one way this can and will be resolved.

Either the rules will remain in place and Democrats will ramp up their efforts to steal the vote in favor of Joe Biden, acknowledging their law is perfectly fine, especially should they lose any legal challenge against Republicans. OR, the rules and law will have to be quickly repealed because Republicans playing by those rules may result in a lot of Democrats actually losing and we can’t have that!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Even though it roughly translates, when it comes to “religion”, that the government can’t create a church, i.e. the Church of the United States. It doesn’t say anything about ignoring religious tenets like the evil “In God We Trust” or the antiquated restrictions found in the “Ten Commandments”. But anytime there’s a conscience issue regarding religious beliefs (Muslims excluded), the left is the first to pounce and remind us there’s to be “separation of church and state” even though that phrase appears nowhere in our founding documents.

So, where did it come from? You guessed it; an old white guy.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?
— Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1794

The whole “separation of church and state” issue was explained later in the belief that only something greater than ourselves provides that moral boundary that could keep our country from descending into chaos.

Back in the late 1700’s, narcissism clearly wasn’t at the epidemic levels we endure today.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
— Thomas Jefferson, reply to Danbury Baptist Association, 1802

To be clear, Jefferson’s intent was that the government can’t create a religion nor can it dictate how religion is conducted.

Tell that to California.

The California State Assembly voted 9-2 to send to the state senate a resolution calling on “religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy.”
— The New American, 7/2/19

While the left relishes any opportunity to recite “separation of church and state” when our sense of morality imposes on their anything-goes stipulations, they happily use government to forces the church into a capitulation-or-else stature.

And again, stealing from sentiments evoked by the term “civil rights”….

ACR 99, Civil rights: lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people.

.

This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders with conviction to counsel on LGBT LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and on upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.

.

WHEREAS, The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming; and

.

WHEREAS, Major professional associations of mental and physical health recognize that being LGBT LGBTQ is part of natural variations that occur in sexual orientation and gender identity, and recommend responsive services that foster self-acceptance and skills to cope with social stigma and discrimination; and

.

WHEREAS, Practices or therapies that attempt to create a change in a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are often referred to as conversion therapy; and

.

WHEREAS, Some family, caregivers, and communities promote conversion therapy when a person is known or thought to be LGBT; LGBTQ; and

.

WHEREAS, California law recognizes that performing conversion therapy on young persons is ineffective, unethical, and harmful; and

.

WHEREAS, Conversion therapy has been rejected as ineffective, unethical, and harmful by leading medical, mental health, and child welfare organizations in the United States; and

.

WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBT LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBT LGBTQ and questioning individuals; and

.

WHEREAS, The State of California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including LGBT LGBTQ youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by family rejection and attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity; and

.

WHEREAS, In a pluralistic society, people differing along spectrums of political and religious perspectives share a common responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of all children and vulnerable communities; now, therefore, be it

.

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance; and be it further

.

Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon religious leaders with conviction to counsel on LGBT LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy; and be it further

.

Resolved, That in addressing the stigma often associated with persons who identify as LGBT, LGBTQ, we call on the people of California–especially its counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators, and legislators–and the institutions of California with great moral influence–especially its churches, universities, colleges, and other schools, counseling centers, activist groups, and religious centers–to model equitable treatment of all people of the state; and be it further

.

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
— ACR-99 Resolution

.

Resolutions are usually non-binding, feel good declarations.

You know what almost always comes next….