The election litigation thread

There's a witness who complained that the envelopes with the addresses and signatures were separated from the ballots. This means you can't tell how people voted, which is, of course, the point of a secret ballot.

Which is why party oversight of the signature matching process is so important. It's not possible to separate out the votes that were tallied that should not have been.
 
The latest suit filed in Arizona:


More to come.

Yes and this important fact was in the link:

It is the latest legal move by GOP figures backing President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated claims of election fraud though, like almost all of the others, it has little promise of success.
 
Yes and this important fact was in the link:

The facts in the article related to the filing of the suit. The rest was meaningless opinion.
 
What's this? A Pennsylvania judge has blocked any further steps towards certification of the vote in that state:

Which has already been certified.
 
The facts in the article related to the filing of the suit. The rest was meaningless opinion.

Where have all the lawsuits already filed and been heard in Court gone to?? To You evidence or Lack of it is "Meaningless". OIC, the logic!!:rolleyes:
 
The latest suit filed in Arizona:


More to come.

S.

 
Pennsylvania election fraud hearing before legislature is currently streaming live:


S

 
Which is why party oversight of the signature matching process is so important. It's not possible to separate out the votes that were tallied that should not have been.

S

 
Which is why party oversight of the signature matching process is so important. It's not possible to separate out the votes that were tallied that should not have been.

Which, even if true -- there is a lot of doubt that there wasn't oversight -- still doesn't help with what they want to have happen.
"It is possible that fraud may have been committed, therefore assume it did and declare my side the winner" doesn't fly.
 
Here's another Georgia suit:

Not sure if Powell is counsel on this, or the suit she said would be filed is still outstanding.

How badly is it written? Is it full of mistakes and typos? If so, Powell filed it.
 
Don't worry - all indications are her legal reasoning is as bad or worse than her copy editing.

Her reasoning is quite straightforward to understand. She is contending that the vote counts reported are not reliable due to the security vulnerabilities of the voting equipment and software that was used. She is advancing circumstantial and opinion evidence in support of her claim, which is exactly the kind of evidence that could possibly be available to her at this point.

Really, it comes down to whether her evidence is credible, and whether it provides a reasonable foundation to defer certification of the election until full investigation and audit can take place. The documents and information necessary to such an audit are, necessarily, not in the possession of the plaintiffs at this time.

If the courts are persuaded by this circumstantial evidence, they have 2 remedies available to them. They could exclude all of the votes that were tallied that are subject to these problems (in some states, that might be all of the votes, in others, just some of them). If that remedy would benefit her client, I'm not surprised that she would ask for it. However, I think the more likely remedy is to order an audit and investigation of all these suspect election procedures, whether that's signature matching, vote tallying at individual voting machines, or the reporting and consolidation of individual machine tallies as a precondition to completing the process of certifying the election results and appointing electors.

Each state has another remedy available. They can declare the results of the election to be unreliable and call a special election "do-over".

Not that complicated at all.
 
Last edited:
If lawsuits were decided based on spelling, that would be quite an astute observation. Spelling mistakes in hastily drafted emergency motions are quite commonplace.

You are quite correct. Lawsuits are decided based on evidence and so far multiple courts and judges, both GOP and Dem, have held that there has been no evidence.
 
Her reasoning is quite straightforward to understand. She is contending that the vote counts reported are not reliable due to the security vulnerabilities of the voting equipment and software that was used. She is advancing circumstantial and opinion evidence in support of her claim, which is exactly the kind of evidence that could possibly be available to her at this point.

You must re referring to the security vulnerability created by Hugo Chavez. Speculation about vulnerability is not evidence of vulnerability or anything else.