[ad_1]
As battlefield states certify their election results at an accelerating pace, President Donald Trump’s campaign legal team is increasingly focused on the idea that it can overturn certifications by filing a disastrous decision to Pennsylvania to the United States Supreme Court.
Michigan certified President-elect Joe Biden’s victory on Monday, following Georgia on Friday, and Pennsylvania is expected to do so soon as well. A federal judge on Saturday issued a scathing dismissal of a Trump campaign lawsuit seeking to block Pennsylvania’s certification, leading the campaign Monday to urgently seek relief from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, whose cases can be appealed to the US Supreme. Court and its conservative majority 6-3.
Following Michigan’s certification, the Trump campaign issued a statement saying it was “just a procedural step.” In its Pennsylvania appeal brief filed Monday, the campaign also suggested that the “real deadline” for the state’s election results was December 8, when states must select voters to ensure they will be accepted by Congress.
“It would be unacceptable to allow Pennsylvania to certify Biden’s voters and have Trump win the race,” the campaign said in a filing Monday night.
But legal experts say courts that have previously viewed campaign claims with skepticism, if not outright contempt, are likely to view electoral certifications as inviolable. And the more results certified in Biden’s favor, the less likely it is that the Supreme Court, which has discretion over the cases it hears, will get into a controversy that cannot change the outcome of the vote.
‘No chance’
“Saying ‘there is no chance’ overestimates the chances of success,” said Justin Levitt, professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, of the campaign’s third circuit gambits.
In its documents, the campaign seemed to understand that it was unlikely to block Pennsylvania’s certification. He asked for an emergency order blocking “the effects” of “probable certification”. He also filed an expedited appeal of U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann’s ruling on Saturday, specifically his denial of his request to file a second revised complaint in his lawsuit to invalidate the mail-in ballots.
Pennsylvania’s 67 counties are required by law to certify their results by Monday night, although some have always been late. Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat who is a defendant in the trial, could affirm the statewide results soon after counties certified their results.
Brann rejected the idea of blocking certification unless tens of thousands of disputed ballots were rejected, saying the campaign had presented “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.” The Trump campaign has called on the Third Circuit to re-launch its revised complaint and force Brann to hold hearings and vote on his additional claims. The appeals court agreed to accept a campaign brief on Monday afternoon.
Read more: Trump campaign loses Pennsylvania suit called ‘monster’ by judge
A new hearing should take place quickly “to prevent the allocation of Pennsylvania voters for the presidential election on the basis of faulty ballots,” the campaign said in its brief. “Only the winner of the legal ballot – whether President Donald J. Trump or Joseph Biden – should receive voters in Pennsylvania.”
But Biden, who won Pennsylvania by more than 80,000 votes, would still win the presidency if Trump succeeded in overthrowing the state. Trump would need to return several more, but his campaign doesn’t even have ongoing lawsuits in many states that have yet to be certified.
And Pennsylvania reported more bad news to the Trump campaign on Monday, with the state Supreme Court ruling that some 8,000 mail-in ballots that had been disputed as defective were allowed to stand. The campaign had argued that the ballots should be cast because they were not filled out correctly – voters signed them but did not handwrite their names, addresses or dates on the outside of the envelopes. return.
A Philadelphia court previously dismissed the campaign’s request, noting that voters’ names and addresses were already pre-printed on the envelopes and that state election law was ambiguous about what it means to “fill out” ballots. vote.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said voters appeared to have made minor mistakes but there was no “major interest” in invalidating their ballots.
“Here we conclude that if the failure to include a name, address or handwritten date in the voter declaration on the back of the outer envelope, while constituting technical violations of the electoral code, does not justify the total disenfranchisement of thousands of Pennsylvania voters, “the court said in its ruling.
– With the help of Greg Stohr and David Yaffe-Bellany
[ad_2]
Source link