Election Litigation Status

[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.

[canpakes]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday rejected a last-ditch bid from Republicans including Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) to halt the certification of the 2020 election results in the Keystone State.

The court's decision delivered the latest blow for Republicans, President Trump and his campaign to overturn election results in a battleground state that President-elect Joe Biden won by over 1 percentage point.

In an order released on Saturday night, the state supreme court vacated a preliminary order by the Commonwealth Court and dismissed the case.

"Upon consideration of the parties’ filings in Commonwealth Court, we hereby dismiss the petition for review with prejudice based upon Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner," the order read.

The ruling comes after state Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough on Wednesday ordered state officials to halt further steps to certify the state's election results one day after Gov. Tom Wolf (D) certified the Keystone State's results for Biden.

Following McCullough's order, Pennsylvania secretary of commonwealth Kathy Boockvar and Wolf appealed the order to the state supreme court.

The latest order by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reverses McCullough's decision.

[Res Ipsa]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed the Kelly lawsuit, which asked the court to invalidate the election because the no-excuse mail in voter legislation passed last year was unconstitutional. It also asked the court to direct the legislator to pick the presidential electors. The dismissal was based on the equitable doctrine of laches. Basically, if you could have filed your lawsuit before the election but you waited to see what the result was first, courts will not hear your lawsuit on the grounds that you could have resolved the issues before the election. The petitioner's basically had a year to challenge the constitutionality of the law, but waited to see who won the election before they did.

A couple of the judges noted that they had some questions about the act's constitutionality. They would have remanded the case back to the Commonwealth Court for a trial on the constitutionality issues, but still would have dismissed the claims for relief to declare the election invalid and direct the legislature to pick the electors.

ETA: this is the same case that Canpakes just reported.

[Jersey Girl]

RI help me out here. All of these state cases that are being dismissed. What will be the role of the the Supreme Court in hearing these? I think I know the answer but my head is full of true crime and I might be mixing things up with appeals...or are these appeals as well? Correct me if I am wrong. If a crime case goes to an appeals court, the job of the appeals court is to ensure that attorney's and state both did their jobs, right? To make sure the defendant didn't get shafted. Is this the same thing that the the Supreme Court will be sorting out?

Forgive me for my stupidity. I am surely mixing things up.

[canpakes]

ETA: this is the same case that Canpakes just reported.

But you give meaningful details and context, such that legal rookies like myself gain a much better understanding of the process and decisions.

Thank you. : )

[Res Ipsa]

RI help me out here. All of these state cases that are being dismissed. What will be the role of the Supreme Court in hearing these? I think I know the answer but my head is full of true crime and I might be mixing things up with appeals...or are these appeals as well? Correct me if I am wrong. If a crime case goes to an appeals court, the job of the appeals court is to ensure that attorney's and state both did their jobs, right? To make sure the defendant didn't get shafted. Is this the same thing that the Supreme Court will be sorting out?

Forgive me for my stupidity. I am surely mixing things up.

So, on an appeal, the Court is basically looking for two things: whether the court It is viewing made any mistake in the law and, given the law, whether a reasonable finder of fact could have reached the conclusion that it reached.

All of these election cases are being decided on motions, which means there isn’t any fact fact finding. So the appellate courts are looking at whether the court whose decision they are reviewing made any legal errors.

The US Supreme Court can review the decisions of State Supreme courts. However, it generally will do so only if the case involves a question of federal law that the party raised in the state court proceedings. If the state Supreme Court decision involves only state law issues, the US Supreme Court generally will not get involved.

So, for example, in the PA cases that the PA Supreme Court dismissed today, the issue was whether a state law violated the PA Constitution. The Supreme Court generally wouldn’t review that ruling because it’s purely an issue of State law. However, if the plaintiffs had also alleged claims under a federal statute or the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court might review the federal issues.

Regardless of which appellate court is reviewing these election cases, they all will be looking for errors of law.

I hope that answers your question.

[Jersey Girl]

RI...is it kind of like making sure that due process was followed?

[Jersey Girl]

It's late. I can't think. I will read your post again tomorrow. I'm trying to make a connection and not doing such a hot job of it.

[Res Ipsa]

RI...is it kind of like making sure that due process was followed?

Due Process is a right under the US Constitution and might also be a right under your state Constitution. It basically says the state cannot deprive you of your life, your freedom, your property, or any other right without some kind of process where the state has to prove that it is entitled to take that stuff from you by law or regulation.

It’s hard to bring due process claims in election cases because of standing requirements. But due process is one of many different legal issues that an appellate court could review. In voting cases, legal issues could include did the trial court apply the correct state statute? Did it interpret the applicable state statutes correctly? Did it interpret the state constitution correctly? Does the plaintiff have standing to bring to bring the claims alleged in the lawsuit? Did the court use the correct Burden of proof? If reviewing another appellate court, did it apply the correct standard of review? Basically, any question that has to with interpreting and applying the law.

[Res Ipsa]

It's late. I can't think. I will read your post again tomorrow. I'm trying to make a connection and not doing such a hot job of it.

Okay. Pretty late for me, too.