4 ms·

This is not true. There were 60+ cases involved here across five (I think) state jurisdictions and federal courts, and variants of this evidence was submitted

This is not true. There were 60+ cases involved here across five (I think) state jurisdictions and federal courts, and variants of this evidence was submitted and ruled on in quite a few. It is also true that most of these were tossed for things like standing. But the idea that courts "refused to hear the evidence" is exactly the kind of fake news / Big Lie argumentation that spawned the cases to begin with. Court cases contesting elections are routine and normal. We deal with them in every close election. These failed because they were bad cases, not because of any technical machination or deep conspiracy.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> It is also true that most of these were tossed for things like standing. In the ones I’ve read that were tossed for standing or laches, most of them (possibly all, I don’t remember a specific counterexample) were also tossed for failure to state a claim, because while the plaintiffs did usually recite the textbook elements of a cause of action, they either failed to allege specific factual claims that would establish each of those elements, or the evidence that they proferred to support those specific fact claims was insufficient to make a prima facie case. Such a dismissal, while “procedural” in a sense, is also a decision on the merits – it is literally exactly a finding that if the plaintiff proved everything the evidence they claim to have could support regarding the claims they made, and the other party just let it all pass without challenge or counterevidence or presenting their own case, then the plaintiff would still lose on the merits.
- mindslight 6y ago
  The doctrine of laches sounds overly technical or dryly procedural, but its purpose is avoiding exactly what happened here. Election rules could have been litigated any time before the election (and many were, both successfully and unsuccessfully). But waiting until after the election has been run, when your requested remedy can only be to invalidate the entire outcome, is completely unworkable.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> It is also true that most of these were tossed for things like standing. In the ones I’ve read that were tossed for standing or laches, most of them (possibly all, I don’t remember a specific counterexample) were also tossed for failure to state a claim, because while the plaintiffs did usually recite the textbook elements of a cause of action, they either failed to allege specific factual claims that would establish each of those elements, or the evidence that they proferred to support those specific fact claims was insufficient to make a prima facie case. Such a dismissal, while “procedural” in a sense, is also a decision on the merits – it is literally exactly a finding that if the plaintiff proved everything the evidence they claim to have could support regarding the claims they made, and the other party just let it all pass without challenge or counterevidence or presenting their own case, then the plaintiff would still lose on the merits.

mindslight 6y ago
The doctrine of laches sounds overly technical or dryly procedural, but its purpose is avoiding exactly what happened here. Election rules could have been litigated any time before the election (and many were, both successfully and unsuccessfully). But waiting until after the election has been run, when your requested remedy can only be to invalidate the entire outcome, is completely unworkable.