Election Litigation Status

[subgenius]

House of Representatives [Pennsylvania]
Session of 2019 - 2020 Regular Session
MEMORANDUM
Posted: November 27, 2020 12:50 PM
From: Representative Russ Diamond and Rep. Eric R. Nelson, Rep. Paul Schemel, Rep. Greg Rothman, Rep. Francis X. Ryan, Rep. Dawn with. Keefer, Rep. Mike Jones, Rep. David H. Rowe, Rep. Michael J. Puskaric, Rep. Barbara Gleim, Rep. Bud Cook, Rep. Cris Dush, Rep. Stephanie Borowicz, Rep. David H. Zimmerman, Rep. Daryl D. Metcalfe, Rep. David M. Maloney, Sr., Rep. Dan Moul, Rep. Brad Roae, Rep. Kathy L. Rapp, Rep. Jim Cox, Rep. Rob with. Kauffman
To: All House members
Subject: RESOLUTION Disputing the 2020 General Election Statewide Contest Results

In the immediate future, we will be introducing the following resolution:

**********

A RESOLUTION

Declaring the results of statewide electoral contests in the 2020 General Election to be in dispute.

WHEREAS, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution empowers state legislatures, including the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of conducting elections; and

WHEREAS, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution empowers state legislatures, including the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to direct the manner of appointing electors for President and Vice President of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has exercised its authority to establish election administration procedures for the Commonwealth, known as the Pennsylvania Election Code; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code requires all mail-in ballots to be received by eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the election; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code requires election officials at polling places to authenticate the signatures of in-person voters; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code requires that county boards of elections shall not meet to conduct a pre-canvass of all absentee and mail-in ballots until seven o’clock A.M. on Election Day, during which time defects on mail-in ballots would be identified; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code prohibits the counting of defective absentee or mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code authorizes “watchers,” selected by candidates and political parties, to observe the process of canvassing absentee and mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth conducted an election on November 3, 2020 for federal offices, including selecting electors for President and Vice President of the United States; and

WHEREAS, officials in the Executive and Judicial Branches of the Commonwealth infringed upon the General Assembly’s authority under the United States Constitution by unlawfully changing the rules governing the November 3, 2020 election in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, less than seven weeks before the November 3, 2020 election, the partisan majority on the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania unlawfully and unilaterally extended the deadline for mail-in ballots to be received, mandated that ballots mailed without a postmark would be presumed to be received timely, and could be accepted without a verified voter signature; and

WHEREAS, on October 23, 2020, less than two weeks before the November 3, 2020 election and upon a petition from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ruled that mail-in ballots need not authenticate signatures for mail-in ballots, thereby treating in-person and mail-in voters dissimilarly and eliminating a critical safeguard against potential election crime; and

WHEREAS, on November 2, 2020, the night before the November 3, 2020 election and prior to the prescribed time for pre-canvassing mail-in ballots, the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth encouraged certain counties to notify party and candidate representatives of mail-in voters whose ballots contained defects; and

WHEREAS, heavily Democrat counties permitted mail-in voters to cure ballot defects while heavily Republican counties followed the law and invalidated defective ballots; and

WHEREAS, in certain counties in the Commonwealth, watchers were not allowed to meaningfully observe the pre-canvassing and canvassing activities relating to absentee and mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, in other parts of the Commonwealth, watchers observed irregularities concerning the pre-canvassing and canvassing of absentee and mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, postal employees in Pennsylvania have reported anomalies relating to mail-in ballots, including multiple ballots delivered to a single address with unfamiliar addressees, ballots mailed to vacant homes, empty lots, and addresses that did not exist; and

WHEREAS, witnesses testifying before the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee on November 25, 2020 have provided additional compelling information regarding the questionable nature of the administration of the 2020 General Election; and

WHEREAS, there remains ongoing litigation concerning the administration of the November 3, 2020 election in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, in 2016, Pennsylvania’s general election results were certified on December 12, 2016, and on November 24, 2020, the Secretary of the Commonwealth unilaterally and prematurely certified results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors despite ongoing litigation; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately;

THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED that the Pennsylvania House of Representatives—

1. Recognizes substantial irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing during the November 3, 2020 election; and

2. Disapproves of the infringement on the General Assembly’s authority pursuant to the United States Constitution to regulate elections; and

3. Disapproves of and disagrees with the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s premature certification of the results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors; and

4. Declares that the selection of presidential electors and other statewide electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute; and

5. Urges the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Governor to withdraw or vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 General Election; and

6. Urges the United States Congress to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.

[canpakes]

5. Urges ...

6. Urges ...

That’s nice. ; )

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, RI can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the ultimate goals of all these filings is to buy time with state legislators in order to convince them to somehow not certify the results (as seen above). Barring that, a hail mary to get an appeal in front of the Supreme Court who will then somehow put the transition on hold until they make a ruling? I’m trying to figure out the Trump team’s pie in the sky intent here. I think there are probably three things that drive home the Reality Bites angle here - again I’d ask RI or some other legal eagle to correct me if I’m off:

1) You can't introduce new evidence in appeals. Appeals are not about finding new facts. They are about evaluating if a Judge acted properly. So, all the Trump cultists who see an appeal who think a case is getting multiple looks are wrong.

2) Ghouliani only appealed the motion to dismiss in PA (PA, right?). If he wins, at any level, the case gets sent back to district court (where it fails again, because self-didliani never appealed all the other stuff and no longer can.)

3) And here’s the dick flattening moment for Trumpists, losing in court, over and over again, doesn’t establish facts for cases down the road. It does the opposite - it establishes precedent. Losing cases over and over again to get to the appeal stage is like eating crap to get a head start on brushing your teeth.

So, they keep getting buried under their own BS, but that’s not the point. The point is to create so many unsubstantiated accusations they manage to compel a state legislature to somehow flip the election results. That’s my best guess, anyway.

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

Looks like one judge sided with Trump:

https://davidharrisjr.com/eric/pennsylv ... e-elector/

[subgenius]

3) And here’s the dick flattening moment for Trumpists, losing in court, over and over again, doesn’t establish facts for cases down the road. It does the opposite - it establishes precedent.
...

Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough filed a Memorandum of Opinion on Friday stating the Pennsylvania preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld.
- Commonwealth barred from taking ANY further steps to certify results
- Issues raised found to be of "statewide and National concern"
- McCullough adds , “Additionally, petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed.”

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

To get an idea where subjenius gets this stuff from just google "Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough filed a Memorandum of Opinion on Friday stating the Pennsylvania preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld. - Commonwealth barred from taking ANY further steps to certify results - Issues raised found to be of "statewide and National concern" - McCullough adds , “Additionally, petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed.”

From Bloomberg:

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf and other state officials assailed a Pittsburgh judge for issuing what they described as an unprecedented order halting additional steps in the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory.

“Since the birth of our nation nearly 250 years ago, no court has ever issued an order purporting to interfere with a state’s ascertainment of its presidential electors -- until today,” state officials said in an appeal filed shortly after Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough’s Wednesday ruling in a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania Republicans. “There is no conceivable justification for the lower court’s issuance of such an order in this case.”

The order, again from Bloomberg, is an attempt to do this:

It’s unclear exactly what further steps in the process can be delayed, but the plaintiffs suggested there were several including the assembly of electors. The Electoral College vote doesn’t take place until Dec. 14.

So, I think the strategy I was musing about is probably what the GOP is going for.

- Doc

[Moksha]

Trump has a singing sensation and a choir nailed down for his Coronation. Or course, the Choir will The Choir at Temple Square (formerly the Mormons, now under new management). The singing sensation comes with a high recommendation from Vladimir Putin, who made this whole Trump thing possible.

To be appearing on stage with Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY

[Res Ipsa]

So, RI can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the ultimate goals of all these filings is to buy time with state legislators in order to convince them to somehow not certify the results (as seen above). Barring that, a hail mary to get an appeal in front of Supreme Court who will then somehow put the transition on hold until they make a ruling? I’m trying to figure out the Trump team’s pie in the sky intent here. I think there are probably three things that drive home the Reality Bites angle here - again I’d ask RI or some other legal eagle to correct me if I’m off:

1) You can't introduce new evidence in appeals. Appeals are not about finding new facts. They are about evaluating if a Judge acted properly. So, all the Trump cultists who see an appeal who think a case is getting multiple looks are wrong.

2) Ghouliani only appealed the motion to dismiss in PA (PA, right?). If he wins, at any level, the case gets sent back to district court (where it fails again, because self-didliani never appealed all the other stuff and no longer can.)

3) And here’s the dick flattening moment for Trumpists, losing in court, over and over again, doesn’t establish facts for cases down the road. It does the opposite - it establishes precedent. Losing cases over and over again to get to the appeal stage is like eating crap to get a head start on brushing your teeth.

So, they keep getting buried under their own crap, but that’s not the point. The point is to create so many unsubstantiated accusations they manage to compel a state legislature to somehow flip the election results. That’s my best guess, anyway.

- Doc

Just one small correction, Doc. Cases at the trial court level often don’t set precedent. And even appellate courts can label their decisions as not to be cited for precedent.

I think the current tactic is to persuade legislators to send slates of Trump electors in states that Biden won to Congress for consideration on Jan 6. Faced with two sets of electors, and with the houses split between the parties, which slate of electors to pick is decided by the House, but with only one vote per state. That would make Trump President.

[Chap]

I think the current tactic is to persuade legislators to send slates of Trump electors in states that Biden won to Congress for consideration on Jan 6. Faced with two sets of electors, and with the houses split between the parties, which slate of electors to pick is decided by the House, but with only one vote per state. That would make Trump President.

How many states would they have to persuade to ignore their voters in order to get Trump back in the White House?

[Res Ipsa]

I think the current tactic is to persuade legislators to send slates of Trump electors in states that Biden won to Congress for consideration on Jan 6. Faced with two sets of electors, and with the houses split between the parties, which slate of electors to pick is decided by the House, but with only one vote per state. That would make Trump President.

How many states would they have to persuade to ignore their voters in order to get Trump back in the White House?

Three. For example, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. I listed the possible combinations upthread. It could work and probably doesn't require any court action. It just requires the Republican legislatures in those three states (or swap Georgia in for Michigan or Wisconsin) to vote to appoint Trump's electors as the official electors and to have the Republicans in the House go along with the scheme. Republicans are pretty notorious lately for trying to maintain power any way they can. I think that McConnell and the House minority leader are staying very quiet, leaving their options open in case the state legislatures decide to try. In this context, the targets of the current batch of lawsuits is the public and the state legislatures.

Of course, winning a presidential election by throwing out a bunch of legitimate votes by mostly black folks may not go over very well nationally. It's Jim Crow on steroids.