5 ms·

I don’t think their argument was particularly strong, and even if it was, disenfranchising 6 million voters who voted in good faith per their individual US Cons

I don’t think their argument was particularly strong, and even if it was, disenfranchising 6 million voters who voted in good faith per their individual US Constitutional right would never be a sensical remedy for an error in procedure by officials.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> I don’t think their argument was particularly strong The lower court seemed to indicate they were going to win on it before it was dismissed on procedure. > disenfranchising 6 million voters who voted in good faith per their individual US Constitutional right would never be a sensical remedy for an error in procedure by officials. The problem is that once the election has been conducted in violation of the law, that has already happened. The total you have is inaccurate and you don't actually know who won, so choosing anyone based on it is disenfranchising anybody who voted for someone else. Now, I think at one point they were asking to just throw out all of the mail in ballots, which is ridiculous. Some kind of sensible remedy might have been to hold the election again or have the state legislature decide. But then when they started asking for that, people were calling it a coup attempt, as if voting for electors who then vote for President is perfectly democratic and reasonable, but voting for legislators who vote for electors who vote for President according to the constitutional procedure is some kind of seditious tyranny. And what's the alternative? State officials can violate election procedures with impunity because there is no remedy? Surely you can see how that could be abused for partisan advantage by whoever is in control of the state government.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  The alternative is, sue before the election, so that the election is held with the correct procedure. You had months. Don't sue after the election. And don't ask for state legislators to pick the winner, either. Voters weren't voting for presidential electors when they voted for state legislators. And don't say "you don't actually know who won". Yes, we do in fact know perfectly well who won. What you perhaps mean is "we don't know who would have won under what the rules should have been." Well, perhaps, but we know who won under what the rules were. You don't want that set of rules? Sue before the election. You had months.
  - simonh 6y ago
    They had four years to do something about this apparently pressing, urgent, critical threat to democracy.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Not four years, no. IIRC, the changes to the rules were made ~6 months before the election. But they didn't file suit then. They only filed after the election. A real cynic might think that they knew before and said nothing, just to keep open the grounds for a lawsuit in case they lost. Laches is a perfect response to that kind of game.
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  The Pennylvania case wasn't dismissed solely on procedure; it was dismissed on lack of merit. The claim that Trump's team made was that because some counties allowed voters to "cure" mail-in ballots if they were going to be thrown out and some didn't, that was unlawful. Multiple courts up the chain kept saying "no, this is not actually a thing." The Third Circuit's 3-0 ruling against them said, in these words, "The Campaign cannot win this lawsuit" because they "had to plead plausible facts, not just conclusory allegations". They went on to note that the number of mail-in ballots actually affected by the claims were "far smaller" than Biden's margin of victory. > The problem is that once the election has been conducted in violation of the law, that has already happened. The total you have is inaccurate and you don't actually know who won. If votes are cast in good faith by citizens following the voting laws as they are communicated and there is no evidence either of material fraud or of a material number of voters being disenfranchised, then you very likely do have an accurate total, right? If the election is a violation of the law because it disenfranchised enough voters to make a material difference in the outcome, that would be a different matter, but that was never actually in question here. Even if all the mail-in votes that had been "cured" had been thrown out, Biden would have still won the state. This is why Trump's team asked to have all mail-in votes thrown out: a more reasonable restitution wouldn't have achieved the outcome they wanted, e.g., Trump being awarded the state's electoral college votes regardless of the popular vote tally. (And, AnimalMuppet is also right: every state that changed election laws in 2020 changed them, by definition, before the election. Raising objections to those laws after the election because your guy didn't win -- and only in those states -- is, well, suspect.)
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  The decision itself is worth reading. It is not reflective of your characterization, either on the merits or on the appropriateness of the proposed remedy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-opinion-federal-judge-dismisses-trump-campaign-lawsuit-in-pennsylvania/2afd3821-220b-4596-b172-aaa1d3ab63a5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-opinion-fede...

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> I don’t think their argument was particularly strong The lower court seemed to indicate they were going to win on it before it was dismissed on procedure. > disenfranchising 6 million voters who voted in good faith per their individual US Constitutional right would never be a sensical remedy for an error in procedure by officials. The problem is that once the election has been conducted in violation of the law, that has already happened. The total you have is inaccurate and you don't actually know who won, so choosing anyone based on it is disenfranchising anybody who voted for someone else. Now, I think at one point they were asking to just throw out all of the mail in ballots, which is ridiculous. Some kind of sensible remedy might have been to hold the election again or have the state legislature decide. But then when they started asking for that, people were calling it a coup attempt, as if voting for electors who then vote for President is perfectly democratic and reasonable, but voting for legislators who vote for electors who vote for President according to the constitutional procedure is some kind of seditious tyranny. And what's the alternative? State officials can violate election procedures with impunity because there is no remedy? Surely you can see how that could be abused for partisan advantage by whoever is in control of the state government.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
The alternative is, sue before the election, so that the election is held with the correct procedure. You had months. Don't sue after the election. And don't ask for state legislators to pick the winner, either. Voters weren't voting for presidential electors when they voted for state legislators. And don't say "you don't actually know who won". Yes, we do in fact know perfectly well who won. What you perhaps mean is "we don't know who would have won under what the rules should have been." Well, perhaps, but we know who won under what the rules were. You don't want that set of rules? Sue before the election. You had months.
- simonh 6y ago
  They had four years to do something about this apparently pressing, urgent, critical threat to democracy.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Not four years, no. IIRC, the changes to the rules were made ~6 months before the election. But they didn't file suit then. They only filed after the election. A real cynic might think that they knew before and said nothing, just to keep open the grounds for a lawsuit in case they lost. Laches is a perfect response to that kind of game.
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
The Pennylvania case wasn't dismissed solely on procedure; it was dismissed on lack of merit. The claim that Trump's team made was that because some counties allowed voters to "cure" mail-in ballots if they were going to be thrown out and some didn't, that was unlawful. Multiple courts up the chain kept saying "no, this is not actually a thing." The Third Circuit's 3-0 ruling against them said, in these words, "The Campaign cannot win this lawsuit" because they "had to plead plausible facts, not just conclusory allegations". They went on to note that the number of mail-in ballots actually affected by the claims were "far smaller" than Biden's margin of victory. > The problem is that once the election has been conducted in violation of the law, that has already happened. The total you have is inaccurate and you don't actually know who won. If votes are cast in good faith by citizens following the voting laws as they are communicated and there is no evidence either of material fraud or of a material number of voters being disenfranchised, then you very likely do have an accurate total, right? If the election is a violation of the law because it disenfranchised enough voters to make a material difference in the outcome, that would be a different matter, but that was never actually in question here. Even if all the mail-in votes that had been "cured" had been thrown out, Biden would have still won the state. This is why Trump's team asked to have all mail-in votes thrown out: a more reasonable restitution wouldn't have achieved the outcome they wanted, e.g., Trump being awarded the state's electoral college votes regardless of the popular vote tally. (And, AnimalMuppet is also right: every state that changed election laws in 2020 changed them, by definition, before the election. Raising objections to those laws after the election because your guy didn't win -- and only in those states -- is, well, suspect.)
dodobirdlord 6y ago
The decision itself is worth reading. It is not reflective of your characterization, either on the merits or on the appropriateness of the proposed remedy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-opinion-federal-judge-dismisses-trump-campaign-lawsuit-in-pennsylvania/2afd3821-220b-4596-b172-aaa1d3ab63a5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-opinion-fede...