Trump Campaign Files Lawsuit on Pennsylvania Election Result. Does It Have a Case?
The Trump campaign has filed a lengthy complaint in federal court, challenging Pennsylvania’s administration of the 2020 presidential election as a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. This is the theory under which, 20 years ago, the Supreme Court invalidated Florida’s presidential election vote-counting procedures in Bush v. Gore.
The main target of the suit is the 682,479 mail-in and absentee ballots submitted from the Democratic strongholds of Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties (the latter includes Pittsburgh). According to current reported returns, presumptive President-elect Biden defeated President Trump in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by about 46,000 votes.
The 86-page complaint was filed Monday in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which is headquartered in Scranton and has divisions in Harrisburg, Williamsport, and Wilkes-Barre. Though the Middle District encompasses parts of the state that are more Trump-friendly than the Eastern and Western Districts (located in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, respectively), that does not necessarily mean the court will be accommodating. The case has been assigned to District judge Matthew Brann, who was appointed by President Obama in 2012, though he spent years as a Republican Party official while practicing law in the Commonwealth and was a member of the Federalist Society.
The complaint alleges that state election officials and courts established, de facto, “an illegal two-tiered voting system.” In part, this is because of differences in treatment for in-person and mail-in voting. Naturally, those methods cannot be treated exactly same way because they are different in kind. Nevertheless, the complaint stresses that certain differences in treatment are not only arbitrary but counterintuitive because they vitiated precautions necessary to shore up the integrity of mail-in voting, which is the less-secure voting method. --->READ MORE FROM ANDREW C. McCARTHY HERE
An Election Day Bridge Too Far:
No wonder half the public is concerned about irregularities in the 2020 voting.
No wonder they would support Donald Trump’s skepticism, once a reputable legal team quickly, publicly, and transparently presents to the nation justified concerns about constitutional violations in changing state voting laws and documented accounts of computer glitches, inexplicable late arrivals of ballot troves, and systemic efforts to prevent transparency — all at a level that reasonably could question the authenticity of the final vote count or even serve a dire warning of things to come.
Voting sanctity was not just questioned by Trump. It became a recent issue in 2016. Then-Green Party candidate Jill Stein was used as a surrogate by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment — to the chagrin of her own supporters — to sue in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to overturn the 2016 election. The charge was deliberate voting-machine irregularities, for which there was not even much anecdotal evidence.
When that failed, the Left went full Hollywood with a media blitz to convince the American people that the election was a fraud and the electors had to do their “patriotic” duty to overturn the mandates of their own state — and reject Donald Trump.
Within days of that failure, a Democratic narrative appeared that Donald Trump was an illegitimate president due to “Russian collusion.” Soon Hillary Clinton joined the “Resistance,” on the basis that Russians, not the American people, had chosen the president — a charge that eventually sabotaged Donald Trump’s first two years in office, as Robert Mueller’s 22-month, $40-million “Dream Team” failed to prove that a myth, born in efforts to delegitimize an election and a president, was after all a myth. --->READ MORE FROM VICTOR DAVIS HANSON HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either
here or
here. Please follow us on Twitter
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment