the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[zork 629]

Just now, Bullneck said:

I didn't realize the SC actively issues orders. i thought they agreed to hear cases brought to them.  

Just asking questions, for real.  I think Biden has won, but I'm still reading about the continued shitshow till it's ova.

[UpperWestside 6,263]

1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

No one understands and writes better stuff about Trump and Trumpism than David Roth. 

Absolutely. He is the guy you want to read if it has to do with that. He’s just an extremely talented writer overall. I am glad all the old deadspin guys and gals got together to form Defector.

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

Her name is Bergundi.

AFAIK she's innocent of everything except being married to a dbag.

But it's an ultra-white-trash spelling of a white-trash name.  Lordy mercy.

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

59 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

I didn't realize the SC actively issues orders. i thought they agreed to hear cases brought to them.  

(Edit: I see there's a petition). But most of these seem to have died at the state level. 

 

The Supreme Court routinely issues orders.  Mostly staying (temporarily halting) judgments or orders of the lower courts, or denying same, so that those orders do or do not go into effect during Supreme Court review.

They are not orders "on the merits," in that they don't actually decide anything.

In time-sensitive cases, the effect of the orders can be fairly dramatic, so it's often referred to as the "shadow docket."

That particular order is no big deal, I don't think, as the PA SOS had agreed to do so, although there was some question as to whether the SOS's agreement bound county election officials.  The briefing seemed to indicate that most county officials were segregating the vote.

Edited November 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Bullneck 19,454]

 

 

[Bullneck 19,454]

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

Anyone know how many post-election ballots there are in PA?

That Boockvar case worries me.  It would worry me regardless of the composition of the Supreme Court because I think a judicial interpretation of a law that says "due on election day" into "due three days after the election" if postmarked before is just a bridge too far.

The remedy aspect is where partisanship might come into play.  I feel pretty strongly that the interpretation will be reversed, although I'm sure the liberal wing will come up with a semi-coherent reason not to.

But where the rubber hits the road is does that require invalidation of votes cast in good faith.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Those ballots are already being segregated and not counted towards the current count. Even though they will break for Biden, it doesn’t matter, Biden doesn’t need it. 

[C-Man 27,685]

NSIAP

[henrygandorf 29,219]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Anyone know how many post-election ballots there are in PA?

because of pa's backwards ass counting rules, the last counted were actually the first received (early voting and vbm).  the "questionable" ballots (postmark drama, provisional ballots, whatnot) are being segregated, and as i understand it, are a pretty small number, regardless of how they break. 

[atomheartbevo 90,546]

3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Fetterman has been on local Philly radio, too.  If you hear the voice, then see the photos it's a bit jarring.  

This is an interesting one, him talking about the Rudy and Donnie Carnival that showed up.

And bonus, it's Stephanie Ruhle.

https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/pennsylvania-lt-gov-john-fetterman-votes-still-being-counted-will-probably-deliver-biden-victory-95377477505

 

[WBT 20,884]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think a judicial interpretation of a law that says "due on election day" into "due three days after the election" if postmarked before is just a bridge too far.

I agree.  This seems to be the only one that has merit.  I also agree that the margin is going to be big enough without those votes that it won't matter.

[Continental Op 3,934]

This thread seems like as good of a place as any to drop a Lionel Hutz greatest hits video

 

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

15 minutes ago, WBT said:

I agree.  This seems to be the only one that has merit.  I also agree that the margin is going to be big enough without those votes that it won't matter.

As long as that isn't a substantial portion of the votes, then who cares.

It will be kind of interesting how the case comes out from a law geek perspective.

And it should be noted that, while the case may invalidate some votes, it in no way shape or form implicates any sort of vote fraud.

Edited November 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[henrygandorf 29,219]

hoping this bullshit cured ballot situation gets highlighted/fixed before the next meaningful national election season. 

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

hoping this bullshit cured ballot situation gets highlighted/fixed before the next meaningful national election season. 

I think that's always going to be an issue.  People are fucking stupid and are going to fill out and handle mail ballots wrong.  And vote in the wrong precinct, or without proper ID, or whatever.

The only way to deal with it "without controversy" is to just chunk their ballots.  Of course, that itself is controversial.

[workswithseed 2,201]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

hoping this bullshit cured ballot situation gets highlighted/fixed before the next meaningful national election season. 

[workswithseed 2,201]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that's always going to be an issue.  People are fucking stupid and are going to fill out and handle mail ballots wrong.  And vote in the wrong precinct, or without proper ID, or whatever.

The only way to deal with it "without controversy" is to just chunk their ballots.  Of course, that itself is controversial.

It's only mail in ballots here in Oregon, and I'm not a big fan of it. I asked them why that is, and they said it's safer, but it just doesn't feel right to go see the old blue hairs, and get my vote sticker. 

I don't see how it's controversial. You can't keep bringing ballots in forever, you need some hard stop.

[Gatorubet 30,631]

I agree.  This seems to be the only one that has merit.  I also agree that the margin is going to be big enough without those votes that it won't matter.

Dunno. The highest state court’s interpretation of that state’s ‘Fair and Equal elections’ clause - crafting a remedy that is both the narrowest departure from strict compliance and yet remedies the real threat of disenfranchising valid voters from submitting timely ballots prior to election day - given the reality of high numbers of mail ballots requested - and the short trigger receipt deadline - seems sorta reasonable. To me.

[conVINCEd 21,477]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Dunno. The highest state court’s interpretation of that state’s ‘Fair and Equal elections’ clause - crafting a remedy that is both the narrowest departure from strict compliance and yet remedies the real threat of disenfranchising valid voters from submitting timely ballots prior to election day - given the reality of high numbers of mail ballots requested - and the short trigger receipt deadline - seems sorta reasonable. To me.

Do you like beer?

[Upgrayedd 5,861]

14 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

It's only mail in ballots here in Oregon, and I'm not a big fan of it. I asked them why that is, and they said it's safer, but it just doesn't feel right to go see the old blue hairs, and get my vote sticker. 

I don't see how it's controversial. You can't keep bringing ballots in forever, you need some hard stop.

You don’t get a sticker with your mail-in ballot?  What a gyp.

[henrygandorf 29,219]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that's always going to be an issue.  People are fucking stupid and are going to fill out and handle mail ballots wrong.  And vote in the wrong precinct, or without proper ID, or whatever.

The only way to deal with it "without controversy" is to just chunk their ballots.  Of course, that itself is controversial.

agreed with all of this, but i think my main issue is the inconsistency with how they're handling it.  cnn had multiple interviews with people in line in nevada, and i know it's going on in georgia too, because they were looking for volunteers to help out and my sister almost did it. 

setting aside ballots is one thing.  but today we learn that for one woman, they called her and someone even came by her house, which is awesome.  they told her to bring 2 forms of id and something connecting her name to her address, because she wasn't a longtime resident of the state, so she showed up to straighten it out. 

then there was some dude, who only figured it out because he saw someone else talking about it on facebook, and looked up his own status online at 3pm, saw his ballot had been "received but not processed" and found out he had to be in line by 5pm, so he hightailed it down there.

it's great that people are being proactive and engaged, but just wish there was a better remedy for it.  i can only imagine what's going on at some of those ballot counting stations in competitive states.

[workswithseed 2,201]

14 minutes ago, Upgrayedd said:

You don’t get a sticker with your mail-in ballot?  What a gyp.

We do get a pamphlet for local elections, and ballot measures, but no sticker.

[henrygandorf 29,219]

we get a sticker in ca with our ballot.

[Upgrayedd 5,861]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

we get a sticker in ca with our ballot.

Yup

[workswithseed 2,201]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

we get a sticker in ca with our ballot.

California is really on the up and up on things that voters really want. Speaking of which, I'm heading to Vacaville to hangout with a friend, and go to Lake Tahoe tommorow, so I got that going for me.

[Dutchrudder 11,228]

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

 

The only Miss Stokke I know is this one...

[Radical Larry 28,814]

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

7 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Dunno. The highest state court’s interpretation of that state’s ‘Fair and Equal elections’ clause - crafting a remedy that is both the narrowest departure from strict compliance and yet remedies the real threat of disenfranchising valid voters from submitting timely ballots prior to election day - given the reality of high numbers of mail ballots requested - and the short trigger receipt deadline - seems sorta reasonable. To me.

It is but it isn't.  I mean it's reasonable, and it seems necessary, sure.  But at some point, there's a limitation on how far a court can go with a statute.  To quote Learned Hand, it's not a nose of wax.

If there was a provision in the law that said it could be modified by court order or the SOS in an emergency, that would help.  Seems a number of states have that.

This is actually rewriting a statute, not filling in interstices  or resolving ambiguity.

Edited November 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

Alright.  I re-read the PA Supreme Court decision.  https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1589ec07-66e0-485c-b9be-9f7a03e99643-1.pdf

There's more wiggle room than I thought.  The statute says this:

Quote

(a) General rule.--At any time after receiving an official mail-in ballot, but on or before eight o’clock P.M. the day of the primary or election, the mailin elector shall, in secret, proceed to mark the ballot only in black lead pencil, indelible pencil or blue, black or blue-black ink, in fountain pen or ball point pen, and then fold the ballot, enclose and securely seal the same in the envelope on which is printed, stamped or endorsed “Official Election Ballot.” This envelope shall then be placed in the second one, on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector, and the address of the elector’s county board of election and the local election district of the elector. The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope. Such envelope shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, or deliver it in person to said county board of election. 25 P.S. § 3150.16(a). 

So my prior characterization of the statute was inaccurate.

There is an ambiguity and I think applying a mailbox rule to it is a proper judicial response.

Now we shall see what fuckery ensues.

[Bullneck 19,454]

8 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

hoping this bullshit cured ballot situation of not voting from your home computer the same way you buy shit on Amazon gets highlighted/fixed before the next meaningful national election season. 

 

[CooterBrown 18,272]

 

Yep. We can register as a trusted traveller online. The security technology is there. I guess the key is simplifying it for the average voter. You know, morons.

We also need to get rid of voter registration. No other country has it and they handle down ballot elections just fine.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

How come I feel like this Trump lawyer press conference will say something asinine like “we are going to put the system on trial”

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Alright.  I re-read the PA Supreme Court decision.  https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1589ec07-66e0-485c-b9be-9f7a03e99643-1.pdf

There's more wiggle room than I thought.  The statute says this:

So my prior characterization of the statute was inaccurate.

There is an ambiguity and I think applying a mailbox rule to it is a proper judicial response.

Now we shall see what fuckery ensues.

Well, fuck me.  I knew I didn't read that wrong the first time.  There is the above-quote section, which leaves some ambiguity about when the actual ballot must be received, and then there is this additional portion:

Quote

(c)  Except as provided under 25 Pa.C.S. § 3511 (relating to receipt of voted ballot [this explicitly applies a mailbox rule to overseas/military ballots]), a completed absentee ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.

Even the PA SC concedes there is no ambiguity there.

I'm sorry.  I'm all about equity and doing the right thing, but that is a legally unjustifiable re-write of an unambiguous statute.

I don't usually adhere to nonsense like "legislating from the bench," but this is about as clear a case of it as one could hope to find.

Edited November 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[pacman 7,490]

Trump: Republicans had no access to monitor counting the ballots in Philadelphia.

Trump's lawyers in court: Yes, your honor, there were up to 19 Republican representatives watching the vote count.

 

Dumbasses.

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

3 minutes ago, pacman said:

Trump: Republicans had no access to monitor counting the ballots in Philadelphia.

Trump's lawyers in court: Yes, your honor, there were up to 19 Republican representatives watching the vote count.

 

Dumbasses.

But they were 10 feet away!!!!

And every praying or armed dipshit wasn't allowed in the polling places!

Edited November 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[kevwun 16,269]

They wouldn’t let us get close enough to interfere in the counting process is not a winning argument.

[Gatorubet 30,631]

Even the PA SC concedes there is no ambiguity there.
I'm sorry.  I'm all about equity and doing the right thing, but that is a legally unjustifiable re-write of an unambiguous statute.
I don't usually adhere to nonsense like "legislating from the bench," but this is about as clear a case of it as one could hope to find.

I hear you and agree to a large extent, statutory interpretation wise. But I think you leave it to the Supreme Court of that state to balance the election law verbiage with the Pennsylvania Constitution’s free and equal elections clause mandate - paper vs rock wise.

If there is precedent for a broad-ish departure from adherence to the letter of election law to effectuate that State Constitutional mandate, then I’d defer to Pennsylvania’s interest as interpreted by its highest court.

I agree that is a great hook to grant cert and nullify those votes. But Handsome Joe has enough votes despite that, no? I hope he takes Georgia, Nevada and Arizona and moots the ruling.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

Ironically, it wasn't the electronic voting that beat Trump, it was the paper ballot.  I can't help but at least consider this accusation as yet another confession.  But by all means, take a very close look and please expose anything that reveals that voting machine code/function on any scale was altered willfully or by accident.  Couldn't be happier to see all future voting occur by verifiable paper ballot with a sufficient window of time to cast it to ensure no one is excluded due to their lack of access to polling places with a sufficient number of working voting machines.

[SilasCoade 2,622]

15 hours ago, workswithseed said:

It's only mail in ballots here in Oregon, and I'm not a big fan of it. I asked them why that is, and they said it's safer, but it just doesn't feel right to go see the old blue hairs, and get my vote sticker. 

I don't see how it's controversial. You can't keep bringing ballots in forever, you need some hard stop.

But you can't change the rule after the votes are count. I mean, these voters were told, get it postmarked by election day. They did that. Now you want to disenfranchise them? Nonsense. (I know not YOU, the generic you.)

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I hear you and agree to a large extent, statutory interpretation wise. But I think you leave it to the Supreme Court of that state to balance the election law verbiage with the Pennsylvania Constitution’s free and equal elections clause mandate - paper vs rock wise.

If there is precedent for a broad-ish departure from adherence to the letter of election law to effectuate that State Constitutional mandate, then I’d defer to Pennsylvania’s interest as interpreted by its highest court.

I agree that is a great hook to grant cert and nullify those votes. But Handsome Joe has enough votes despite that, no? I hope he takes Georgia, Nevada and Arizona and moots the ruling.

Yes I think it's totally moot.  He's got the votes, nothing gonna change it.

My first read of the PA opinion was for some precedent under their Free and Fair Election clause that enabled that.  But I didn't really find it.  The language itself is no help:

        Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or
     military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free
     exercise of the right of suffrage.

I don't tend to get all doctrinaire about what courts, or the Supreme Court, do and don't do and why.  To a certain extent it's all outcome-based and the reasoning is a clever disguise.  But on occasion, the righties have a point about fabricating things from the whole cloth.  As nice and pleasant and desireable as the outcome may be, it doesn't pass legal scrutiny.

If their election law were hoary and old, that might provide another basis.  But it was amended in 2019 and 2020 specifically to make voting by mail easier and the deadline was liberalized from the Friday before the election.

Now, the further game is that the US Supreme Court has no roving mandate to correct even wildly unprincipled interpretations of Pennsylvania law, unless PA's interpretation is unconstitutional.  In the election context, that would be if it violated the Equal Protection Clause or the mandates of Article II.  The former has some teeth, the latter is more speculative.  The EPC is violated if the interpretation disenfranchises anyone, which seems to me to be a stretch here, even under Bush v. Gore, which relied on a post-election judicial decision, not a pre-election one  I don't know what might happen under the Article II analysis.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Underdog 29,101]

Think the Dems are good unless the case comes in front of this guy...

Then I might be a bit worried. 

[Huckleberry 34,407]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes I think it's totally moot.  He's got the votes, nothing gonna change it.

My first read of the PA opinion was for some precedent under their Free and Fair Election clause that enabled that.  But I didn't really find it.  The language itself is no help:

        Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or
     military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free
     exercise of the right of suffrage.

I don't tend to get all doctrinaire about what courts, or the Supreme Court, do and don't do and why.  To a certain extent it's all outcome-based and the reasoning is a clever disguise.  But on occasion, the righties have a point about fabricating things from the whole cloth.  As nice and pleasant and desireable as the outcome may be, it doesn't pass legal scrutiny.

If their election law were hoary and old, that might provide another basis.  But it was amended in 2019 and 2020 specifically to make voting by mail easier and the deadline was liberalized from the Friday before the election.

Now, the further game is that the US Supreme Court has no roving mandate to correct even wildly unprincipled interpretations of Pennsylvania law, unless PA's interpretation is unconstitutional.  In the election context, that would be if it violated the Equal Protection Clause or the mandates of Article II.  The former has some teeth, the latter is more speculative.  The EPC is violated if the interpretation disenfranchises anyone, which seems to me to be a stretch here, even under Bush v. Gore, which relied on a post-election judicial decision, not a pre-election one  I don't know what might happen under the Article II analysis.

 

 

Is the USPS a civil power in this context? Because the USPS was intentionally slowed down and that potentially interfered in the free exercise of the right of suffrage.

[Parliament 14,559]

Whatever voting mistakes, screwups, shenanigans, etc. that may be going on, they aren't near enough to change the election.  Biden won.  But there's nothing wrong with seeing the court challenges.  Either they find and fix some things, or it's proven that voting was on the up and up.  Either way that's good, and it proves the system works.  I don't like Biden, didn't vote for Biden, and I'm very happy about how this week is going,  

[Eastwood 4,394]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Now, the further game is that the US Supreme Court has no roving mandate to correct even wildly unprincipled interpretations of Pennsylvania law, unless PA's interpretation is unconstitutional.  In the election context, that would be if it violated the Equal Protection Clause or the mandates of Article II.  The former has some teeth, the latter is more speculative.  The EPC is violated if the interpretation disenfranchises anyone, which seems to me to be a stretch here, even under Bush v. Gore, which relied on a post-election judicial decision, not a pre-election one  I don't know what might happen under the Article II analysis.

I think SCOTUS is holding out on granting cert until AZ and NV are wrapped up. If AZ and NV go for Biden, it renders the PA decision moot so it doesn't matter how they rule. SCOTUS has until 11/25 to answer.

[Gil Bang 26,176]

16 hours ago, workswithseed said:

California is really on the up and up on things that voters really want. Speaking of which, I'm heading to Vacaville to hangout with a friend, and go to Lake Tahoe tommorow, so I got that going for me.

is your friend in prison?

[Neonmoon 38,130]

These lawsuits are just sad 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Is the USPS a civil power in this context? Because the USPS was intentionally slowed down and that potentially interfered in the free exercise of the right of suffrage.

Could be.  The court didn't cite it as such.  It sort of quoted the Free and Fair Clause as a roving mandate do  stuff in support of an election.  It did cite a lower PA court decision In re General Election-1985, 531 A.2d 836, 838-39 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) in support of it's ability to do extraordinary things, but I can't find it to read.

And it relied pretty extensively on information from the USPS indicating that it would not meet the delivery schedule between the last day to request a ballot and election day.  So USPS wasn't cited as an "adversary" or wrongdoer.

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

24 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

These lawsuits are just sad 

 

That one's actually a little troubling.  It has actual evidence that seems to indicate that poll workers used a tabulator to render ballots invalid.

I'm sure there's more to the story, and strictly by the evidence offered would seem to affect only a relative handful of votes, and likely equally on both sides.

One thing we have to bear in mind is that there are probably a shit ton of glitches in an election that wind up disenfranchising people.  They're random, unintentional, and basically statistical noise.

Edited November 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn