Judge: Republicans Will Likely Win Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit

[Tortoise]

The judge also made mention that while the plaintiffs have a credible claim that the state may have went around the laws, the courts are aware that any judgment could infringe on the voting rights of the people of PA. So basically, it's a sticky situation. Should the voters be punished and have their right to vote thrown out because the state made an operational blunder? That punishes the voters, not the state. It will be interesting to see what follows, but I have to imagine it to not be very realistic that they would discard the will of millions of voters because of this.

What you seem to have forgotten to mention is the fact that if the state of PA indeed violated election law by bypassing its state legislature and that resulted in its popular vote going to Biden instead of Trump, then effectively the PA residents who voted for Trump had their voting rights infringed. It would be their will that was effectively discarded.

So the disenfranchisement argument here applies to both Biden and Trump voters, not just the Biden voters. If the state of PA violated its election law, then anything other than a complete do-over vote under the previous unmodified PA election law would effectively be disenfranchising a very large group of PA voters.

I view it as similar to a "too big to fail" situation. Some people argue that failing to bail out the large entity will harm many people. But other people can argue that bailing out the large entity harms a different group of people in a different way.

[pmward]

The judge also made mention that while the plaintiffs have a credible claim that the state may have went around the laws, the courts are aware that any judgment could infringe on the voting rights of the people of PA. So basically, it's a sticky situation. Should the voters be punished and have their right to vote thrown out because the state made an operational blunder? That punishes the voters, not the state. It will be interesting to see what follows, but I have to imagine it to not be very realistic that they would discard the will of millions of voters because of this.

What you seem to have forgotten to mention is the fact that if the state of PA indeed violated election law by bypassing its state legislature and that resulted in its popular vote going to Biden instead of Trump, then effectively the PA residents who voted for Trump had their voting rights infringed. It would be their will that was effectively discarded.

So the disenfranchisement argument here applies to both Biden and Trump voters, not just the Biden voters. If the state of PA violated its election law, then anything other than a complete do-over vote under the previous unmodified PA election law would effectively be disenfranchising a very large group of PA voters.

A do-over would be an interesting possibility. But they are not asking for that. They are asking for all the mail-in votes to be invalidated. We have to look at the ask and the commentary at hand, you have to go read the 13 page legal document (I highly recommend lots of caffeine haha). That was what the judges commentary in Tech's court document was referring to, that if they awarded the ask of throwing the votes out it would infringe upon those voters rights to vote. It's also important to note that there are no claims here of fraud or of illegal unregistered voters voting. So the conclusion you're drawing about how this "skewed" towards Biden is a stretch. There are no legal accusations at this point that any of these votes are by anybody other than legal registered voters. And even if they can eventually prove that, it would likely only be the illegal unregistered voters votes that would be thrown out, not the whole thing.

[glennds]

Ok so I read the document. Its document granting a stay on certification "pending the results of the evidentiary hearing". So there is nothing at all damning about this. They basically said that since the electoral college doesn't vote until Dec 14, there is no reason to rush, and no harm to be done to anyone by postponing certification a couple of weeks. I agree with this.

Also, the "evidential hearing" they are referring to is a hearing regarding whether the vote by mail was against PA state law. There are no allegations of fraud here. It is trying to get votes made by legally registered voters tossed out after the fact. I'm not sure that the courts would do that. Doesn't seem very realistic to me. The judge also made mention that while the plaintiffs have a credible claim that the state may have went around the laws, the courts are aware that any judgment could infringe on the voting rights of the people of PA. So basically, it's a sticky situation. Should the voters be punished and have their right to vote thrown out because the state made an operational blunder? That punishes the voters, not the state. It will be interesting to see what follows, but I have to imagine it to not be very realistic that they would discard the will of millions of voters because of this.

I read it the same way as you do.
Maybe the State of PA violated its own law. But granting the relief requested opens up potentially bigger violations.
BTW, this case was already appealed to the PA Supreme Court after the initial ruling on Wednesday. I think all the judge was doing here was elaborating on her earlier decision in advance of the state Supreme Court hearing the case.

[pmward]

Ok so I read the document. Its document granting a stay on certification "pending the results of the evidentiary hearing". So there is nothing at all damning about this. They basically said that since the electoral college doesn't vote until Dec 14, there is no reason to rush, and no harm to be done to anyone by postponing certification a couple of weeks. I agree with this.

Also, the "evidential hearing" they are referring to is a hearing regarding whether the vote by mail was against PA state law. There are no allegations of fraud here. It is trying to get votes made by legally registered voters tossed out after the fact. I'm not sure that the courts would do that. Doesn't seem very realistic to me. The judge also made mention that while the plaintiffs have a credible claim that the state may have went around the laws, the courts are aware that any judgment could infringe on the voting rights of the people of PA. So basically, it's a sticky situation. Should the voters be punished and have their right to vote thrown out because the state made an operational blunder? That punishes the voters, not the state. It will be interesting to see what follows, but I have to imagine it to not be very realistic that they would discard the will of millions of voters because of this.

I read it the same way as you do.
Maybe the State of PA violated its own law. But granting the relief requested opens up potentially bigger violations.
BTW, this case was already appealed to the PA Supreme Court after the initial ruling on Wednesday. I think all the judge was doing here was elaborating on her earlier decision in advance of the state Supreme Court hearing the case.

Right, you have a violation and a requested resolution. Is the requested resolution fair compensation for the violation? Or are they asking for more than is fair? Is the requested resolution (throwing out votes of legal registered voters) even legal? Is violating the federal right to vote a greater offense than breaking a state law about not allowing mail in ballots? Especially since so many other states do not have laws against mail in ballots. Do the courts even have the power to do that? I'm not sure. I'm very curious to see what comes of it.

[glennds]

I read it the same way as you do.
Maybe the State of PA violated its own law. But granting the relief requested opens up potentially bigger violations.
BTW, this case was already appealed to the PA Supreme Court after the initial ruling on Wednesday. I think all the judge was doing here was elaborating on her earlier decision in advance of the state Supreme Court hearing the case.

Right, you have a violation and a requested resolution. Is the requested resolution fair compensation for the violation? Or are they asking for more than is fair? Is the requested resolution (throwing out votes of legal registered voters) even legal? Is violating the federal right to vote a greater offense than breaking a state law about not allowing mail in ballots? Especially since so many other states do not have laws against mail in ballots. Do the courts even have the power to do that? I'm not sure. I'm very curious to see what comes of it.

It looks like the case was dismissed by the PA Supreme Court a short while ago: https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11 ... l-request/

And for those that can stomach CNN : https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/28/politics ... index.html

From what I can see, they dismissed it on technical grounds, but the upshot is that the vote certification can proceed. By technical grounds I *think* the issue is that absentee mail in voting procedures have been established in PA for over a year, and the deadline for objecting to them has passed, not to mention that millions of people have voted using these procedures.

Maybe Maddy knows the answer, but I think the Plaintiff's next path would be to see if SCOTUS will hear it, now that the case has been rejected at the state level. Here is the Court's Order: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/set ... ?cb=1f7217

[pmward]

I read it the same way as you do.
Maybe the State of PA violated its own law. But granting the relief requested opens up potentially bigger violations.
BTW, this case was already appealed to the PA Supreme Court after the initial ruling on Wednesday. I think all the judge was doing here was elaborating on her earlier decision in advance of the state Supreme Court hearing the case.

Right, you have a violation and a requested resolution. Is the requested resolution fair compensation for the violation? Or are they asking for more than is fair? Is the requested resolution (throwing out votes of legal registered voters) even legal? Is violating the federal right to vote a greater offense than breaking a state law about not allowing mail in ballots? Especially since so many other states do not have laws against mail in ballots. Do the courts even have the power to do that? I'm not sure. I'm very curious to see what comes of it.

It looks like the case was dismissed by the PA Supreme Court a short while ago: https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11 ... l-request/

And for those that can stomach CNN : https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/28/politics ... index.html

From what I can see, they dismissed it on technical grounds, but the upshot is that the vote certification can proceed. By technical grounds I *think* the issue is that absentee mail in voting procedures have been established in PA for over a year, and the deadline for objecting to them has passed, not to mention that millions of people have voted using these procedures.

Maybe Maddy knows the answer, but I think the Plaintiff's next path would be to see if SCOTUS will hear it, now that the case has been rejected at the state level. Here is the Court's Order: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/set ... ?cb=1f7217

Well, that was sure fast. I guess so much for the "Republicans will likely win PA election lawsuit" title. This is why looking at the actual court documents is so important, and why I've been hammering people that post articles from low-quality sources. These media outlets quote these things out of context to make it sound like something it isn't. Tech got all excited for a big nothingburger. If we actually take the time to go to and read the source material we actually get to the truth.

[Maddy]

It is trying to get votes made by legally registered voters tossed out after the fact. I'm not sure that the courts would do that. Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

The only time this issue could have been heard by a court is "after the fact." Prior to the election, the case would most certainly have been dismissed for lack of standing. In order to have standing to sue, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate actual injury.

[pmward]

It is trying to get votes made by legally registered voters tossed out after the fact. I'm not sure that the courts would do that. Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

The only time this issue could have been heard by a court is "after the fact." Prior to the election, the case would most certainly have been dismissed for lack of standing. In order to have standing to sue, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate actual injury.

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that if they gave this award to them it would invalidate the right to vote of millions of PA residents "after the fact", which would be a pretty egregious ruling that would promote "actual injury" to all those voters. Obviously this is all moot, since the ruling came down last night that it was shot down for other reasons. Legally, it doesn't look like Trump currently has much left to stand on. Unless he brings some new suits in the future for actual fraud, it's pretty cut and dry at this point. There are no more suits left at present that could change enough votes to turn any single state over to him, much less the multiple states he would need. So I see no potential that he could stop Biden from being inaugurated on Jan 20.