Mike already did a good thread on two of the three opinions out of the PA Supreme Court today. You should read his thread for the highlights (the court agreed, 7-0, that there was no basis to toss out any of the ballots or delay certification). I'll cover the concurrence
For my non-lawyer friends who don't know, a concurrence is basically a judge writing separately to say "I agree with the decision reached by the court, but want to give a different or additional explanation for why".
Judge Wecht's concurrence is actually really important, because it explains why the "PA legislature can just 'take back' the whole 'election' thing and directly appoint the electors" argument from Rudy, Jenna, and the rest of the clown crew is DOA. With that intro, here we go
The opinion is here. pacourts.us/assets/files/s… It starts by agreeing with the Court's ruling that the entire suit is barred by laches (which is a doctrine that says "if you wait too long to bring your claim, and the delay causes harm, the court won't hear your case")
Before he gets to his additional points, he spends a little time reinforcing that yeah, these plaintiffs are definitely barred by laches. Not only did you know about this law for a year before you suddenly decided to challenge it, but you participated in primaries under it
Basically, laches is sometimes a hard, fact-intensive call. When is delay *too much* delay? When does it cause harm? When would a plaintiff who was really paying attention have brought the claim?
Applying laches in this case? Here's what it looks like
This isn't a remotely close call, and anyone trying to tell you it shouldn't have been killed based on the delay has an agenda. The plaintiffs knew everything they needed to know to bring suit for more than a year before suing. In the interim, millions of people relied on the law
to vote by mail, exercising a fundamental right. If the law actually *was* unconstitutional, then the decision to wait until after the election would - if plaintiffs got the relief they wanted - be directly responsible for harming millions of people by invalidating their votes
There really isn't a clearer case for applying the "sorry, you waited too long to speak up" doctrine than this one.
Now to the reason he wrote separately. Judge Wecht, it seems, is concerned by the raft of cases that are expressly asking courts to invalidate people's votes and toss out the election. Plaintiffs are acting like this is routine. It's not, and he wants to be clear about that
First of all, he explains, we don't just cancel election results for anything. Basically, if you want election results voided, you need to show two things: (1) That there was fraud; and (2) that the fraud impacted the results.
These plaintiffs aren't even claiming fraud
By the way, do you think Trump is please by how many courts are quoting Rudy's "this is not a fraud case" line? Rudy forgot the cardinal rule of litigation: the battle is not the war.
Rudy wanted to avoid the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9 - and he won that battle. But he did it by expressly disclaiming fraud, and proving fraud was the only way Trump could have won the war. Tactically sound, strategically oblivious.
And with that, we get to the real meat of the opinion, and something that @questauthority, @greg_doucette and I (and others) have been saying for weeks now: there is NO way - none - for a state legislature to just ignore the election results
Start with what the Constitution says, which Wecht quotes: States appoint Presidential Electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct".
Pennsylvania chose "by elections" and its legislature passed a law saying so.
Pennsylvania's law does not have a "But the Legislature [which PA calls the "General Assembly"] can step back in if it wants to" trap door. So if the Legislature wanted to do that, it would have to pass a new law allowing it to - one that Governor Wolf would promptly veto
And since that veto would mean any attempt by PA's legislature to appoint electors would violate PA law ... it's not going to happen.
But wait, there's more! Because even if it somehow passed and wasn't vetoed, it STILL wouldn't change anything. Why?
Because the Constitution says that CONGRESS (not the state legislatures) get to determine the TIME at which Presidential electors are appointed. And Congress chose Election Day - which has now come and gone. So PA is limited to appointing electors by the manner in place that day
Which, again, was by popular election, without any role for the legislature. PA can change its law for future elections, if it wants.
But the General Assembly can do nothing - nothing at all - to impact the one that just happened. Nothing.
And with that, Wecht wraps up by driving home how dangerous, illegitimate, and ultimately useless Rudy and Jenna's call for a "legislative putsch" is. It can't work, guys. The law and Constitution don't allow it. Even if you're shameless enough to try.
A short opinion - but a more important one, I think, than the main decision of the Court.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hey, squid litigation fans, some news: The DNC has filed a motion to intervene in Powell's GA case - basically "look, we weren't sued in this case but our interests are impacted, so let us participate as a Defendant" - along with a proposed motion to dismiss
Folks, you may be wondering about what looks like weirdness coming out of the Sidney Powell case down in Georgia. The court issued an order barring the defendants from erasing data from voting machines, and then rescinded that order very promptly afterward. Nothing unusual here
First, a little background. Sydney's squid lawsuit (lol no I'm not calling that disaster the "kraken") alleged that voting machine data in Georgia would show evidence of a massive fraud. and she asked the court for an emergency order preventing Georgia from deleting that data
Now there are a couple of general rules about litigation. One of the Baseline rules is you cannot delete documents or data that is at issue in the litigation. That applies to every litigation in every Court in the country, from to neighbors battling about a fence line all the way
The Third Circuit has obliterated Trump's Pennsylvania lawsuit. For obvious reasons, the opinion was written by the *Trump appointed* judge on the panel, Stephanos Bibas.
Gonna break down the opinion shortly. But an important note, first:
People NEED to stop assuming that judges appointed by Republicans are unqualified hacks. Are there some? Yes. Some of the nominees have been egregiously bad. But for the most part, Trump judges are judges. Committed to the law, & doing their best to follow it. Internalize that.
Start here, with the opening. Some basic points being made:
1) You can't just show up in court and say "I was robbed." You need to allege specific facts from which a jury could *find* you were robbed. This is the civil procedure rule known as Twiqbal
Does anybody actually know what the "illegal consent judgment" in Georgia is that Trump and his leagle weasels keep complaining about?
Would you like to? Because the detail is in that latest Georgia complaint, and it's stupider than even I expected
Here's what Georgia law required - signatures on absentee ballots were to be checked against an electronic signature file and if the signature wasn't a close enough match the ballot had to be rejected. Now here's what the consent judgment said:
"when you think a signature doesn't match, have two other people check your work. If both of them overrule you, keep the ballot. If one of them agreed with you, reject it"
Jenna Ellis now specifically arguing that the PA state legislature has authority to throw out the results of the PA state election and just appoint whoever they want.
That's simply not the law, and it would be both illegal and unconstitutional (as @MatthewStiegler ably noted)
Giuliani now: "We would ask you not to certify, and just to certify the correct votes"
The PA Legislature has exactly zero role in PA certifying its elections, and PA has already certified
Hallelujah, one of the senators just pointed out "no, we passed a statute saying we appoint electors via elections, and our lawyers say we can't just appoint electors. What are you talking about"
Jenna: "No, you can take that power back at any time"
Folks, if you're not following a whole bunch of lawyers on here you're probably not seeing the way the collective legal community is in shock at how bad Trump's lawyers are. Even if you are, it's probably hard to grasp the detail of how truly bad it is.
So here's an analogy:
Imagine you moved to a new town and are going to see a new doctor for the first time. And when he walks in, he has his stethoscope dangling out of his ass. And then he pulls it out and says "OK, I want to take your temperature now" and moves to place it on your forehead.
That's the net effect of what we're watching the Giuliani clown crew do. Everything they are doing is wrong in literally every procedural and substantive way any of us could have imagined - and also in ways none of us could have invented if we'd tried to predict it in advance