THREAD: Just a small sampling of the times that judges (many of them appointed by Trump) rejected claims of election integrity issues, and not just on technical grounds.
There are more examples so I may add to this thread later. But the notion (espoused by Cruz, Loeffler, Hawley, etc.) that there hasn't been a "fair hearing" of the allegations of voter fraud is just plain nonsense 5/ (end for now)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Usually no one pays attention to Jan. 6 after a presidential election. But today the world is watching. Follow along, if you dare, as we watch Congress. We know the outcome: Joe Biden's win will be official. But it could be bumpy. 1/
What normally happens? A fairly boring, routine joint meeting of the Senate and House in which they open the electoral college votes from each state, in alphabetical order. Senators and House members can object, but it's usually not drawn out. 2/
The vice president presides as the the president of the Senate. There are two "tellers" from each House. The process goes through all 50 states and DC, and the winner is announced. All routine. Even Al Gore presided to announce his own loss in Jan 2001. 3/
THREAD: It's Electoral College day! The Electoral College meets today--but not all together! The 538 members who will vote for president will meet in each state. The process is almost as arcane as its manner of representation to select the president. Some details... 1/
In 33 states (and D.C.), electors are required to vote for whoever won their state. The Supreme Court upheld these "faithless elector" laws earlier this year. In 17 states, electors can vote for whoever, though no one will change their votes this year. 2/ fairvote.org/faithless_elec…
🚨This is shocking: Trump apparently "reached out" to the two Republican Wayne County Commissioners. The next day, they signed an affidavit saying they want to rescind their votes to certify the results.
Channeling @BrendanNyhan, what you say if you saw this in another country.
Justice Alito writes for himself, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Barrett did not participate.
Alito starts off ominously: he fears "serious post-election problems" with PA Supreme Court decision. 2/
Alito makes uses some odd phrasing in his statement.
-He notes that PA Supreme Court was 4-3. So what?
-He uses “natural disaster,” in quotes as explaining the justification the PA Supreme Court gave for its ruling.
The contempt for the state supreme court just oozes out. 3/
The basic gist here is that not requiring masks at the polls disproportionately harm minority voters because they are at greater risk of COVID-19--so they are less likely to feel comfortable voting.
Texas is one of only 5 states that won't let anyone vote by mail cause of COVID concerns. So these voters face the choice of going to the polls with a higher risk or not voting. Court finds the effect of the mask mandate violates the VRA.
THREAD: Have Trump-appointed judges impacted 2020 election litigation and therefore how we run the election? Let us count the ways.
(Spoiler: they have. A lot). 1/
There have been at least 25 cases in federal courts, brought by plaintiffs seeking to ease voting rules (especially during a pandemic), that have produced appeals.
Voting rights plaintiffs are 4 for 25 overall. For you baseball fans, that means they are batting .160. 2/
In 2 of those 4 cases, state had agreed to the voting change (RI and NC). NC case is still on appeal. A 3rd was about whether to run the election at all after a candidate died (MN).
BUT in the 21 cases, district courts granted relief in 18 of them, only to see reversal. 3/