Brad Heath Profile picture
21 Nov, 14 tweets, 6 min read
Meanwhile, some Pennsylvania Republicans led by Rep. @MikeKellyPA are asking a state court to declare that the state's entire vote-by-mail system, violates the state constitution and that millions of votes cast this year must now be invalidated.
The lawsuit is marked as having been filed at 4 a.m.
The lawsuit is a challenge to Act 77, which it says is "another illegal attempt to override the limitations on absentee voting" in the state constitution. The act was approved more than a year ago; the lawsuit doesn't say why they waited until after this election to challenge it.
The lawsuit claims that to expand mail-in voting, Pennsylvania would need to amend its constitution, which it didn't do, so the whole thing is illegal.
Here's the portion of the PA Constitution the Republicans think makes mail-in voting illegal. Notably, the state Supreme Court referenced this very section in a case earlier this year in which it construed Act 77 and said not a peep about unconstitutionality.
So Rep. @MikeKellyPA argues, the mail-in part of Pennsylvania's election was actually invalid, the state legislature can swoop in to choose the winner.
The lawsuit filed today by Rep. @MikeKellyPA is explicitly asking a Pennsylvania court to say that 2.5 *million* votes must be thrown out and shouldn't count when the state certifies its election results.
(Or, in the alternative, he's asking a court to tell the General Assembly to pick the winner of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, which means the state would still count the many votes he says were illegal in other races, including his own?)
The lawsuit is here:…

It faces some obvious challenges, not the least of which is why the plaintiffs waited more than a year - until after their preferred candidate lost the election - to bring the challenge.
Here, meanwhile, is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit praising the mail-in voting system he now says is illegal and encouraging people to use it, though now saying that the votes of those who took this advice should not count ->
The plaintiffs in this case have now also moved to intervene in Trump's federal case, alleging that thousands of ballots invalid were "cured" illegally. They want an order directing the state to "only count such ballots as were lawfully cast."…
They included as evidence the results of a telephone survey of some Republican voters who requested absentee ballots that did not end up being counted for various reasons.
The crux of their argument is that Pennsylvania officials went out of their way to help people whose votes otherwise wouldn't have been counted because they made a mistake, and this should basically invalidate the results of the election. It was therefore not a "fair election."
Here's the brief they filed in support of intervention. They promise not to delay the litigation.…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Brad Heath

Brad Heath Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bradheath

23 Nov
Meanwhile, John Solomon has been looking through court cases and claims to have found "a mountain of evidence has been amassed in private lawsuits alleging there was, in fact, significant and widespread voting misconduct."

There isn't. This is profoundly misleading. Image
Here's the link if you're curious,…, though I caution you that reading it will leave you *less* informed.

Solomon claims to have found "a dozen compelling allegations of voting irregularities."

But no.
Item 1 is a Detroit poll worker who claimed thousands of ballots had been backdated or falsified. She did claim that, but Solomon leaves out quite a lot. Image
Read 8 tweets
23 Nov
So the big election-rigging case President Trump wants to tee up for the Supreme Court is actually whether his lawyers should have gotten permission to fix a filing they screwed up.
Best case this strategy means Trump gets to go back to the district court and lose on standing a second time?
President Trump's appeal of a judge's brutal rejection of his efforts to overturn Pennsylvania's election -- the one his lawyers said would get them to the Supreme Court -- is *only* about whether the judge should have given them leave to fix a complaint his lawyers screwed up. Image
Read 22 tweets
22 Nov
For those wondering about the consequences of President Trump's efforts to sow distrust in voting and elections, here's a pretty significant one: It will help states sustain new restrictions on voting if they choose to implement them.
That's so because states don't need to prove they're combating fraud to justify voting restrictions. They don't really need to prove there's fraud at all. It's often enough to show they're addressing the public's fear of fraud and trying to create confidence in elections.
And the president's tactics -- and the utterly delusional conspiracies spreading online and on some of his favored TV channels -- have certainly worked. A third of voters think there was "a lot" of fraud in this election. Nearly all of Trump's supporters do. (From @YouGov.) Image
Read 4 tweets
22 Nov
It is certainly true that losing a case gets you one step closer to appellate review. However /
If you had instead won the case, you would have already won and wouldn't need to appeal, which is the usual strategy in litigation.
Also, if your goal is to tee up a case for appellate review, you don't want to lose like this.

You don't want to have to take up a case that you lost in part because it was incompetently litigated. And you don't want to take up a case you lost for Every Possible Reason.
Read 11 tweets
21 Nov
The judge observes that the Trump campaign is "trying to mix-and-match claims to bypass contrary precedent." Image
The court rules that both the Trump campaign and its two attempted-voter plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case. Image
The voter-plaintiffs lack standing because although they were denied the right to vote (because their ballots were invalid), they sued other counties and the state that did not invalidate their votes, not the counties that did. Image
Read 19 tweets
20 Nov
And the court says that even if Wood could bring this lawsuit (which he can't) and if he hadn't waited too long (which he did), he'd also lose on the merits.
The judge (a Trump appointee), goes out of his way to shoot down Wood's theory of an Equal Protection violation, which is very similar to the arguments Trump's campaign has made in its own lawsuit in Pennsylvania.
The judge said claims that lots of invalid ballots were counted in Georgia is "not supported by the evidence at this stage." The rejection rate for absentee ballots in Georgia in 2020 was the same as it was two years ago.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!