The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (4 Viewers)

[Lapaz]

There is a lot of push-back from Trump on voting by mail, but most states allow it, and 1/3 allow it without any excuse. His rationale is that it will lead to vast fraud, but of course that isn't his real reason. His real reason is that he thinks it will be worse for conservatives, but studies have shown that states that have instituted much broader voting by mail haven't had any statistical changes in party voting.

Stanford study: Mail voting doesn't benefit one party over another

Coronavirus-spurred limits have intensified a push to allow more mail balloting in November.

www.politico.com

Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and other Voting at Home Options

Most states offer at least one method for any eligible voter to cast a ballot before Election Day. While some states provide early in-person voting, this webpage addresses absentee voting and all-mail voting.

www.ncsl.org

Although, normally voting by mail doesn't affect party votes, I bet it might this year if we have another resurgence of Covid, because I think the right is much more apt to discount the virus than the left. I know that is why Trump is against it.

Whether you're left or right wing, expanding mail in votes is the right thing to do to reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus, to expand voter participation, and to make it easier for those that do show up to stay distant. It will also allow any people with susceptibilities to remain safer. I think voting by mail could be made extremely secure by having people vote using traditional postal mail, coupled with requiring a confirmation either by phone, email or text. If done by phone, then voters can provide confirmation that can include confirming their form number. If done by email or text, it can include a picture of their form, and then confirmation that that was their form. Rather than staffers individually calling people, this can be automated by having voters call the number, text the number, or email the address provided to them on their form. A website can even be created with a database of those that have voted, and perhaps a link to allow people to confirm their vote was correctly registered. For people without computers, a site can include a means to access the database over the phone with some confirmation information. These types of systems are used extensively by banks and other sites that need security, so I think they are mature enough to use. We could even use such a site for people to confirm their vote on the day of the election.

 

[insidejob]

So, I read something that said Trump is actually joining (some legal word was used) the TX suit but that if he did that it wouldn't be able to go to the SCOTUS since it'd jo longer be an issue solely between states. Are either of these two points accurate?

 

[superchuck500]

They played a montage of Trump quotes from earlier this year talking about how this election was going to go to SCOTUS and how his lawyers were going to be in precincts all over the country on election night. This in and of itself probably really backfired both by getting people to vote and tipping their hand. I'm so ready for this to be over.

It's not going to be over until after the joint session in January. The college is going to vote next week (12/14) and then the joint session will meet on January 6. Shameless Republicans with no respect for our country or its laws will cast protests of the electoral college vote and each house will go back to debate (two hours max) and vote on the protests. The House will decline its protest and certify the college result. I don't know if Georgia's Senate delegation will even be there on January 6 (the runoff is January 5) but I actually don't think the Senate protest will pass either - it's a fool's errand (b/c it takes both sides of Congress) and I think more than a small handful of Republicans aren't going to support that dangerous nonsense.

Even after that there might be a late plea to the Supreme Court (which will be rejected) and only then will it be over.

 

[TaylorB]

Is it any difference in this?

Supreme Court Procedures

Background Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior...

www.uscourts.gov

Yes. The rule discussed in the instance you cited is for the court to grant a writ of certiorari. I think the decision to hear a case under original jurisdiction takes five votes. It’s a much rarer procedural event. Disclaimer: this isn’t much in my wheelhouse. But I think I’m correct here.

 

[insidejob]

Yes. The rule discussed in the instance you cited is for the court to grant a writ of certiorari. I think the decision to hear a case under original jurisdiction takes five votes. It’s a much rarer procedural event. Disclaimer: this isn’t much in my wheelhouse. But I think I’m correct here.

This is the same as what I read earlier about it taking 5 for original jurisdiction. But I don't even have a wheelhouse.

 

[MT15]

There's really nothing wrong with 'ghost-writing' in law - what matters is that the counsel signing the pleading are admitted and before the court. The attorney's signature attests to the filing, but it doesn't mean the attorney necessarily wrote it. Junior lawyers in firms and organizations write filings all the time that get some more senior lawyer's name on them. Or counsel for parties with a mutual interest may share drafts that ultimately get filed by the other party with little editing.

Certainly a lawyer can get in trouble for ghost-writing pleadings that are adverse to the attorney's interests, that's a definite no-no. But otherwise I don't see a problem.

The lawyers who were saying that the SC wouldn’t like it were saying it was because one of the guys who wrote the original filing also wrote the amicus brief, but then another attorney signed it. They called it sock-puppetry. I thought of it as sort of double dipping. I’m sure you’re right, though.

Oh, I also saw where the guy who ostensibly entered that amicus brief (but didn’t write it) is the same kook who said that Kamala Harris cannot be VP because her parents were immigrants. That doesn’t make her a citizen or something, even though they were here legally and she was born in Oakland.

Say, wasn’t Trump’s mother an immigrant?

 

[TaylorB]

So, I read something that said Trump is actually joining (some legal word was used) the TX suit but that if he did that it wouldn't be able to go to the SCOTUS since it'd jo longer be an issue solely between states. Are either of these two points accurate?

I saw someone on Twitter who appears to know this much better than me making this point. I’ll give it a shot.

First, the intervention filed by Trump is not “of right,” meaning the court can deny their ability to intervene at all. But if it were allowed, the fact of Trump’s intervention would undercut the argument that this is a controversy “between states” which is necessary for invoking original jurisdiction in the first place. So basically, if Trump actually had legal basis / standing to intervene, it’s by definition not a controversy “between states” for purposes of original jurisdiction, so the court couldn’t actually hear the case if they granted to motion to intervene. That’s the gist, as I understand anyway. They can’t have it both ways.

It’s basically a big ole bunch of awful lawyering, which occurs when your side has neither the law, nor the facts, nor the ability. This litigation will end not with a bang, but with a whimper.

 

[wardorican]

This tweet is just actually stupid. It could go in the Tracker thread, but it has to do with the election, so:

I have seen MAGAs say on Twitter that “it‘s Election Day, not Election Week” as if there was a time clock or something. Like, oh, a football or basketball game.

How stupid do you have to be to think that? There’s no “game clock”. The election is over when all the votes have been counted. I learned this year that the counts are then verified, checked by various means, and then certified.

It’s really something that so many people are so cocksure of something they know absolutely nothing about. And it’s immoral that people in the R party refuse to speak up. Sickening.

Ignorance and confidence are found in bulk

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Yes. The rule discussed in the instance you cited is for the court to grant a writ of certiorari. I think the decision to hear a case under original jurisdiction takes five votes. It’s a much rarer procedural event. Disclaimer: this isn’t much in my wheelhouse. But I think I’m correct here.

Merci on the clarification.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

The lawyers who were saying that the SC wouldn’t like it were saying it was because one of the guys who wrote the original filing also wrote the amicus brief, but then another attorney signed it. They called it sock-puppetry. I thought of it as sort of double dipping. I’m sure you’re right, though.

Oh, I also saw where the guy who ostensibly entered that amicus brief (but didn’t write it) is the same kook who said that Kamala Harris cannot be VP because her parents were immigrants. That doesn’t make her a citizen or something, even though they were here legally and she was born in Oakland.

Say, wasn’t Trump’s mother an immigrant?

It isn’t double dipping because amicus briefs can’t request relief on their own - they only advocate in favor of a result for one of the parties. If the amicus brief is basically the same exact argument as the party’s brief, it’s nothing more than redundant (and hence pointless).

They’re doing it to try to say “these other states agree” but if they agree why don’t they join? Just a bunch of junk.

 

[superchuck500]

I saw someone on Twitter who appears to know this much better than me making this point. I’ll give it a shot.

First, the intervention filed by Trump is not “of right,” meaning the court can deny their ability to intervene at all. But if it were allowed, the fact of Trump’s intervention would undercut the argument that this is a controversy “between states” which is necessary for invoking original jurisdiction in the first place. So basically, if Trump actually had legal basis / standing to intervene, it’s by definition not a controversy “between states” for purposes of original jurisdiction, so the court couldn’t actually hear the case if they granted to motion to intervene. That’s the gist, as I understand anyway. They can’t have it both ways.

It’s basically a big ole bunch of awful lawyering, which occurs when your side has neither the law, nor the facts, nor the ability. This litigation will end not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I agree with this - but the upside of Trump intervening is that when he tries to call Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, they can refuse his outreach as an attempt at ex-parte communication by a litigant. You know he’s trying to call them, that dude is so slimy.

 

[Taurus]

I saw someone on Twitter who appears to know this much better than me making this point. I’ll give it a shot.

First, the intervention filed by Trump is not “of right,” meaning the court can deny their ability to intervene at all. But if it were allowed, the fact of Trump’s intervention would undercut the argument that this is a controversy “between states” which is necessary for invoking original jurisdiction in the first place. So basically, if Trump actually had legal basis / standing to intervene, it’s by definition not a controversy “between states” for purposes of original jurisdiction, so the court couldn’t actually hear the case if they granted to motion to intervene. That’s the gist, as I understand anyway. They can’t have it both ways.

It’s basically a big ole bunch of awful lawyering, which occurs when your side has neither the law, nor the facts, nor the ability. This litigation will end not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Or a fart.

 

[superchuck500]

Dude. Why aren’t these mother forkers getting sanctioned?

 

[JRad]

This in and of itself probably really backfired both by getting people to vote and tipping their hand.

Oh they absolutely tipped their hand. People were saying for weeks before the first vote was cast to be ready for this. If Trump had kept his fool mouth shut, he may have had a few more reasonable people say “well let’s look”. Instead, everyone knew it was coming.

 

[bdb13]

Oh they absolutely tipped their hand. People were saying for weeks before the first vote was cast to be ready for this. If Trump had kept his fool mouth shut, he may have had a few more reasonable people say “well let’s look”. Instead, everyone knew it was coming.

And if we weren't talking about a combination of four states here being the difference instead of it just coming down to Pennsylvania or something.. but yeah, they couldn't have more blatantly telegraphed the strategy and thankfully that's probably worked to their detriment.

 

[efil4]

I agree with this - but the upside of Trump intervening is that when he tries to call Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, they can refuse his outreach as an attempt at ex-parte communication by a litigant. You know he’s trying to call them, that dude is so slimy.

He has been reaching out now for a week via news clips of him. The "certain people" he refers to are them.

 

[insidejob]

So Trump did go ahead and as Ted Cruz to perform oral in the TX case - if it gets to oral, of course.

 

[PurpleReign]

Ah yes, a small group of important and courageous people overturning an election result. The backbone of any democracy.