BTC Donations: 15UdQzkFiDhHeWZqk4oPCLMPZv21o6mmyk
ETH Donations: 0x2AA71324DA81E705AB3DE6ead6e48f4841496391
The State of Texas challenges the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.
"Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.
"This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution."
Election Lawsuit Tracker
When discussing election-related lawsuits. the mainstream media narrative seems to focus only on the lawsuits filed by President Trump. It is less known that Joe Biden's campaign has filed 60 lawsuits just since August, 2020, in multiple US states. These lawsuits were made to change the "rules of the game" in the 2020 elections. These are last-minute changes to get rid of deadlines and security measures to the voting process. Some of these lawsuits are not yet settled, and may anull election results in some states (including PA) since ballots received after election day would be considered inadmissible under Constitutional court decisions.
The tracker is below, last updated Nov 12th, 2020. Degoogled version here: https://gofile.io/d/AUy2AO (4th page).
New: Trump Legal Team Releases Kraken, Media Ignores
345k votes switched to Biden in 2 states in a single second
Poll workers trained to add Biden and delete Trump.
Soros office space rented to 2 Dominion offices that disappeared overnight.
Votes tabulated outside the U.S by a voting system that disrupted elections in Venezuela and Cuba.
Trump only has 3 lawsuits -- all the rest of the lawsuits are from private citizens and other parties. Contrary to media claims: ALL of Trump's lawsuits are still in play.
New: Sworn Statements Attesting To Election Fraud
Michigan GOP state senators are requesting a full audit of the 2020 General Election, lists all techniques used for the #MassiveVoterFraud.
A Dominion Voting employee's sworn affidavit of her witnessing fraud for hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of votes.
Former police captain's testimony of massive ballot harvesting scheme.
Rudy discusses three affidavits filed in Michigan, one from a long-time city worker, one from a Dominion Voting Systems employee performing IT service, and one from a Republican credentialed poll watcher. These affidavits, which Rudy claims are 3 among nearly 100, detail several forms of explicit fraud taking place systematically at the TCF Center in Detroit, including:
- Poll workers instructed to count mail-in ballots without validating the postmark, the signature, or any other voter ID information;
- Poll workers instructed not to request any form of voter ID for in-person voters;
- Poll workers instructing voters to vote straight-Democrat and watching them vote;
- Poll workers accepting in-person votes from people who had already been sent absentee ballots, without requiring them to produce the unused absentee ballot;
- Poll workers running ballots through tabulators 5-10 times to count them repeatedly;
- Approximately 100,000 ballots arriving in unsealed cardboard boxes at 4:30am, after most poll watchers had gone home, which were 100% for Joe Biden, and did not even have down-ballot choices marked;
- Systematic efforts to prevent Republican poll watchers from witnessing, let alone validating, the process by which mail-in ballots were verified and counted
No unGoogled link since you need to give Rudy's YouTube channel some love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd-5Xm5PFmg
Election Rule Changes Requested by Democrats in Pennsylvania
(Or, why a large portion of the Pennsylvania ballots might be illegal.)
The timeline so far:
- Constitution says State Legislature gets to make the election rules
Key here: the standing election law in PA says that ballots had to be received by Nov 3rd to count.
- Governor in PA went to legislature to allow ballots from after election day
Around the summer, the (D) Gov of PA tried to pressure the (R) PA state legislature to change the rules, to allow ballots to be counted that were *postmarked* by Nov 3rd but not actually received until Friday.
- Legislature refused the request
The (R) legislature refused to change the state election laws, so the standing election law in PA still says they must be actually received by Nov 3rd to count.
- Governor goes to PA Supreme Court instead to get a court order
The gov requested the PA supreme court (strongly Democrat controlled) to issue a court order that ballots received late will still count, and the court gave the order.
- In principle, the court order itself is illegal, and in violation of state election law, as well as in violation of the US Constitution
But by this very same court order, the precincts in PA have been counting late-received ballots for the last few days.
- Anticipating all this, there were guidelines to segregatee ballots received after election day. Basically they needed to be counted separately, and not included in the vote totals -- as any such votes are very likely the target of legal action which might invalidate them
Precincts in PA ignored the guidance, didn't segregate the ballots received after election day, and reported the totals along with the normal votes
- US Supreme Court just issued them an order that they are LEGALLY BOUND to comply with the "guidance", they MUST segregate those votes and remove them from the counted totals
So, the legal battle will be over whether it is legal for a court order to overrule the election laws set by the state legislature. And on this front the constitution is exceptionally clear: the state legislature gets to make the state's election laws, nobody else.
- Those votes received after election day will almost certainly end up the subject of a lawsuit that goes to the US Supreme Court.
There is a good chance that it will overturn the PA supreme court's order, in which case the ballots received after Nov 3rd will need to be thrown out, as per the state's election laws.
What's worse, PA is not the only state with an ongoing election lawsuit.
Unfurl the section below if you'd like to know the details of Democrat lawsuits in multiple states.
Democrat Lawsuits in Wisconsin, Indiana, NC, Minnesota, Michigan, PA, Iowa, Alabama
The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ made a decision to stay (or stop from going into effect) the order of a federal district court judge appointed by then-President Barack Obama that “extended the deadline for the receipt of mailed ballots from Nov. 3 (Election Day) to Nov. 9, provided that the ballots [had been] postmarked on or before Nov. 3 … .”
In doing so, the court of appeals chastised the district court judge, reminding him that “the Supreme Court has insisted that federal courts not change electoral rules close to an election date” and that “the design of adjustments during a pandemic” is not a “judicial task.”
On Oct. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, rejecting the Democratic National Committee’s request for a stay of the 7th Circuit’s order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence explaining his rationale for why this decision differed from the high court’s decision in the Pennsylvania case (more on that in a moment), and Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence emphasizing that “[t]he Constitution provides that state legislatures—not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials—bear primary responsibility for setting election rules … [a]nd the Constitution provides a second layer of protection, too. If state rules need revision, Congress is free to alter them.”
Unfortunately, the 7th Circuit’s election-related work didn’t end with Wisconsin’s case. The same court had to repeat itself only five days later when it stayed and “summarily reversed” an Indiana-based federal judge’s order “requiring the state [of Indiana] to count all absentee ballots received by November 13, 2020, ten days after Election Day.”
The court relied on the same rationale as in its previous cases and in some instances even said “[s]ubstitute ‘Indiana’ for ‘Wisconsin’ and the essential point remains.”
An important point to keep in mind that too many seem to forget or want to ignore is that, as the 7th Circuit said, “as long as the state allows voting in person, there is no constitutional right to vote by mail.”
The fact that there is a pandemic is still “not a good reason for the federal judiciary to assume tasks that belong to politically responsible officials.”
In other words, it is up to state officials, not judges, to decide what the rules are applying to voting and the receipt of absentee ballots.
3) North Carolina
Shifting gears, some plaintiffs have pursued their election-related claims in state courts and then entered into settlement agreements or consent decrees with state officials who refuse to defend their state laws as they are obligated to do.
That’s known as collusive litigation, in which state election officials use lawsuits filed by their friends and political allies to subvert laws implemented by state legislatures that they don’t like or that were passed by their political opposition.
Even more problematic, these consent decrees in turn often spawn their own rounds of federal litigation by state legislators and others who object to state laws being undefended and summarily changed through settlement agreements.
That’s what happened in North Carolina, where the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay a six-day extension—from three days after the election to nine—during which mail-in ballots could be received and counted by election officials so long as the ballots were mailed on or before Election Day.
This extension was the result of a state court consent decree entered into between the state court plaintiffs and the North Carolina Board of Elections, which is controlled by Democrats, while both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly are controlled by Republicans.
A lower court judge found that the board had “secretly” negotiated the settlement without consulting the legislature and “showed little or no interest” in defending state law against the lawsuit.
Judge James A. Wynn, another Obama appointee, wrote the opinion for the entire 4th Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and G. Steven Agee, with whom Judge Paul Niemeyer joined.
The central dispute between the majority and the dissent centered on what constituted the “status quo” when applying the Purcell principle, established by the Supreme Court in 2006. That’s the idea that federal courts generally should not interfere with a state’s election-related decisions close to an election.
Wynn and the majority said, “The state court issued an order approving the Consent Judgment on October 2. This October 2 order established the relevant status quo for Purcell purposes. Under this status quo, all absentee votes cast by Election Day and received by November 12 would be counted.”
The dissenters countered that “we are faced with nonrepresentative entities changing election law immediately preceding or during a federal election. In making those changes, they have undone the work of the elected state legislatures, to which the Constitution clearly and explicitly delegates the power” to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections.
As the dissenters pointed out, “The Constitution does not assign these powers holistically to the state governments, but rather pinpoints a particular branch of state government—‘the Legislatures thereof.’”
Foreshadowing Gorsuch’s concurrence in the Wisconsin case, they went on to say, “Whether it is a federal court … or a state election board—as it is here—does not matter; both are unaccountable entities stripping power from the legislatures. They are changing the rules of the game in the middle of an election—exactly what Purcell … counsels against.”
In fact, Niemeyer noted, the 4th Circuit majority was changing the rules when “well over 1,000,000” North Carolinians had already voted.
The court’s action “disrespects the Supreme Court’s repeated and clear command not to interfere so late in the day. This pernicious pattern is making the courts appear partisan, destabilizing federal elections, and undermining the power of the people to choose representatives to set election rules.”
Emergency appeals have already been filed with the Supreme Court by both the Trump campaign and North Carolina state legislators, no doubt encouraged by Wilkinson and Agee saying that they “are likely to succeed on their appeal.”
A federal district court in Minnesota recently confronted a similar issue with another collusive lawsuit. There—as in North Carolina—Steve Simon, the Minnesota secretary of state, a former Democratic state legislator, entered into a consent decree with certain groups, as a result of a state court lawsuit, agreeing “not to enforce Minnesota’s statutorily mandated absentee-ballot receipt deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.”
“Instead, the [state] court ordered [Minnesota officials, consistent with the consent decree] to count ballots that are postmarked by November 3, so long as election officials receive them within a week of Election Day.”
As a result, two Republican Party presidential electors brought suit in federal court challenging the collusive consent decree and the court order approving it as unconstitutional. Specifically, they argued the actions violated the “Electors Clause” in Article II of the Constitution, which grants state legislatures the authority to determine how to select presidential electors, and Congress’ power under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 to set the “[t]ime of [choosing] the Electors.”
However, the court never reached the merits of this case because it found that the electors did not have standing, or the ability to pursue these claims in federal court, because they had not been injured by the change in election procedures. But this seems like an odd result, given that it is presidential electors who are elected by voters when they cast ballots, not the presidential candidates themselves.
The Michigan Court of Appeals, that state’s intermediate appellate court, ruled on Oct. 16 that a lower Michigan court had incorrectly required the state to accept mail-in ballots up to 14 days after Election Day and that it had improperly prohibited the state from enforcing its laws relating to who, other than the voter, can handle and deliver his or her ballot.
It made clear that “designing adjustments to our election integrity laws is the responsibility of our elected policymakers, not the judiciary.”
In fact, the court said:
Our legislature has addressed the expected increase in [absentee] voter ballots by empowering clerks to begin processing [absentee] voter ballots earlier in an effort to provide a final vote tally after polls close for the 2020 election … . While plaintiffs may view these efforts as inadequate first steps, there is no reason to believe that these specific efforts are constitutionally required, even in the midst of a pandemic. Instead, they reflect the proper ‘exercise of discretion, the marshaling and allocation of resources, and the confrontation of thorny policy issues’ that the people have reserved exclusively for our Legislative and Executive branches to exercise.
The court also acknowledged that “[i]mposing limits on whether third parties can possess or collect ballots simply reflects a policy decision by a duly elected legislature, where the Constitution places responsibility to regulate and preserve the purity of elections.”
Interestingly, one of the plaintiffs in this case is the Phillip Randolph Institute. This is the same radical organization that lost a 2018 Supreme Court decision, Husted v. Phillip Randolph Institute, in which it tried to prevent the state of Ohio from maintaining the accuracy of its voter-registration list by removing individuals who had died or moved out of the state.
On Oct. 19, an evenly divided Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and thus left in place a ruling by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that would require—according to that court’s interpretation of state law—state officials to count absentee ballots received up to three days after the election even if they don’t have a postmark showing they had been mailed by Election Day.
In a surprising move, it was Roberts who joined with the court’s liberals to refuse Supreme Court review of the state court’s decision.
Roberts didn’t explain his vote in this case. However, he did write a short concurrence in the later case out of Wisconsin in which he agreed to stop the extension of the absentee ballot deadline to try to explain why he voted differently in each case.
He claimed that because “the Pennsylvania applications implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations,” that case was different than “the federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes” in Wisconsin.
According to Roberts, because “different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations,” the circumstances require “that we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania, but not Wisconsin.”
The fallacy of that argument is that the U.S. Constitution delegates authority over election rules to state legislatures, not state courts.
On Oct. 24, however, perhaps in anticipation of possibly getting a better decision with the empty seat on the Supreme Court filled, the state’s Republican Party went back to the Supreme Court and asked it to decide the case on the merits, rather than simply asking it to stop the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order from taking effect while the litigation proceeds.
The outcome of that request remains to be seen.
The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court also ruled on Oct. 23 that election officials could not reject absentee ballots because the signature on the ballot does not match the signature of the voter on file, throwing out one of the most basic security protocols in place for mail-in ballots.
On Oct. 14, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a lower state court abused its discretion when it issued an Oct. 5 stay preventing the Iowa secretary of state from requiring that county officials distribute “only the blank Official State of Iowa Absentee Ballot Request Form … .”
While the decision turns largely on state law, the court said, “Clearly, reasonable people can disagree on whether sending out blank or prepopulated absentee-ballot request forms is better policy … [but m]ore importantly, it is not the role of the court system to evaluate the wisdom or fairness of policy choices made by other branches of governments.”
Contrary to the court’s comment about “reasonable people,” knowledgeable election officials understand that sending out absentee-ballot request forms that are already populated with a voter’s registration information—rather than requiring the voter to provide that information—cuts out one of the safety protocols for authenticating absentee-ballot requests.
And finally, we turn to Alabama. We previously discussed the 11th Circuit’s rulings that have repeatedly stayed a recalcitrant federal district judge’s order prohibiting Alabama from enforcing its witness and photo-ID requirements for absentee ballots, and the fact that this same decision did not stay the district court’s order telling Alabama state officials they could not stop local officials from providing curbside voting, something not authorized under state law.
As we noted before, federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa—who was rumored to have been one of two finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy that ultimately went to appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett—would also have stayed the district court’s order with regard to curbside voting.
Well, Lagoa was right. Alabama officials sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which it granted—meaning Alabama officials can run their elections as they see fit (within constitutional bounds, of course) and once again prohibit curbside voting.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, which Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined, that makes it clear that they would have no hesitation in substituting their “expert” judgment on how to deal with the health issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic for that of state and local officials.
All told, an avalanche of election-related litigation has been filed in courts across the country. The common objective in all of these cases seems to be to get rid of the deadlines and security measures in place for absentee or mail-in ballots by overriding the rules set by state legislatures to govern the election.
The quantity and complexity of these lawsuits so close to an election—after many votes have already been cast—emphasizes the importance of the Supreme Court’s Purcell principle that federal courts should not intervene at the last minute, upsetting expectations and creating even more chaos in the process.