BREAKING in Harris Co, TX. The judge rules plaintiffs don't have standing in drive-thru voting case.

[pnwmom]

Which means over 100K votes do NOT get thrown out. However, CNBC says an appeal is expected. OTOH, the State Supreme Court has already ruled against a lawsuit like this, and the SCOTUS could decide to let the State's decision prevail.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/trump-vs-biden-judge-rules-on-harris-county-texas-drive-thru-voting.html

A federal judge on Monday rejected an effort by Republicans to invalidate more than 100,000 ballots cast at drive-thru voting locations in Democratic-leaning Harris County, Texas, in a case that has been closely watched because of its potential to affect the presidential race.

SNIP

So far, about 127,000 votes have been cast at those locations, contributing to the record of 1.4 million early votes cast in the entire county so far this election.

Hanen made the ruling after conducting a hearing that was broadcast over Zoom. Hanen was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush.

His ruling is expected to be appealed.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
2m
BREAKING: Judge Hanen holds the plaintiffs don't have standing in Texas drive-thru voting case.

GOP challengers lose.


Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
14s
Judge Hanen: "I'm not happy with that finding. But the way I look at it, the law requires it."



Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Replying to
@KlasfeldReports

Hanen also finds that the GOP-led challenge was not timely.

Drive-thru voting was announced and approved this summer, and the lawsuit was filed quite recently.

[DrToast]

1. Curious if the judge would consider someone else to have standing

[brush]

3. Does it matter now? He ruled in our favor and the election is tomorrow.

It's too late for the repugs to regroup and come up with another dirty trick.

[DrToast]

7. Probably doesn't matter for this case

But it could in future ones.

[Nevilledog]

2. WTF does he mean he's not happy with the ruling? What a dick.

[Blaukraut]

5. Probably showing that he can rule fairly despite being a partisan hack? n/t

[ananda]

6. He's a Reep. Nuff said.

At least he followed the law.

[RainCaster]

11. He is known to be a very conservative judge

But his opinion is good. Not only don't they have a dog in this hunt, but it's not timely. So while somebody else might be able to file a motion, it's too late. They should have done it this summer.

[Nevilledog]

12. Judge also said if they did have standing he would stop drive thru voting tomorrow.

[Susan Calvin]

17. That's a signal

For the repugs next appeal.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. Exactly what I thought.

[lagomorph777]

28. That's why we need to reform the courts before the next election.

[Cheezoholic]

21. That's what happened in MN

The Trump appointed Fed. Judge overturned the State court who ruled the plaintiffs didn't have standing (2 of the plaintiffs were Republican electors). The Fed. Judge ruled the 2 electors did have standing by vaguely interpreting the MN Constitution stating that they were "candidates" in a few but not all references thereby giving them standing.
In most of these suits, if the state legislatures were not involved in these vote changes, even if the state legislatures granted the Sec. of State the right to make adjustments under certain circumstances without the legislature, those suits are having an uphill battle when it hits Fed court. PA. for example changed their voting procedures w legislative approval so it gets more difficult to rule against when it gets to Fed. court.

[Nevilledog]

22. Fun fact: One of those judges was rated unqualified by the ABA

[Cheezoholic]

31. And RatF$%k lol n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. "stopping drive through driving tomorrow" (The Judge's preference if the law allowed him to)...

would be a bad ruling with bad consequences RE: public health, but not the total abomination that throwing out 127,000 already cast ballos would be. I hope I am "reading" him correctly, and he isn't instead saying that he would throw out those ballots if he believed the Republicans had legal standing in this case.

[Susan Calvin]

14. The way I heard

The judge was quibbling over the definition of a building. What an idiot.

[Nevilledog]

15. He said a tent is not a structure.

[Susan Calvin]

18. Well that's even stupider then.

Of course a tent is a structure.

[brush]

16. Exactly. Tents were used in parking lots to facilitate cars driving...

Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2020, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

through. He's for some reason upset that there were tents and not buildings involved in the process. What doesn't he get that there's a pandemic out there and the state was trying to social distance voting by allowing voters to stay in their cars and vote. Easy peasy and safe.

The judge is just being a d_ck head. At least he got it right, reluctantly.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

23. Oddly enough, the hearing was on Zoom.

Not in person.

[brush]

26. Heehee! The judge doesn't get irony.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

4. YAY!

[Johnny2X2X]

8. Will they appeal?

Of course they will. 127,000 people being disenfranchised would be a major deal.

[Lonestarblue]

13. I suspect they will appeal.

The down ballot races are scaring the hell out of Republicans here. And many of those Harris County votes will be for Democrats. Republicans don’t care as much about Trump losing as they do Democrats picking up the nine state House seats they need for the majority and a seat at the redistricting table. Without a Democratic majority, Republicans would once again be free to gerrymander the hell out of the state, ensuring that few Democrats can be elected to the US House or to the state House and ensuring their own power for years to come.

[Statistical]

20. Exactly. If Biden wins Texas it will only be a cherry on the landslide.

There is really no realistic scenario where TX decides the Presidential election. If Biden wins it then it likely moves him from 400 EV to 439 EV. Even if they can cheat him out of that going from 439 to 400 EV is still a landslide win.

However those down ticket races ... a lot more they can lose there.

[Jim__]

9. Good news!

[Chainfire]

10. The Republicans are taking a licking in the courts today

I suppose it will all be cannon fodder for appeals if the lose tomorrow. I am not a lawyer, but I have read two Grisham books.

[gratuitous]

19. "I'm not happy with that finding"

Failure of imagination on Hanen's part. Take a page from Justice Boof's template and just pretend the law doesn't say what it says, make up examples of things that don't exist to support your unsupportable finding, and then rule however it suits you. But then again, Justice Boof only has to answer to Justice Boof; Judge Hanen has to answer to a judicial fitness commission when he makes lawless rulings.

[Brainfodder]

24. KEEP LOOKING GUILTY ASSHOLES!

OPTICS count!

OPTICS get you investigated!

Proceed assholes!

I know you will!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

27. Is it possible for those who voted drive-thru to cast a provisional vote tomorrow.

Of course, 11th hour, and we might only get 10 votes back, but curious.

[TwilightZone]

30. The votes are valid.

He found that the plaintiffs (the GOP) had no standing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. Right...but they will appeal. If I voted in drive thru I'd for

sure be trying to protect my vote. Think part of their plan. To create such doubt that people try and vote twice....to validate their right. And remember he told people to vote twice. I envision him saying people voted twice. And no one will really know the party affiliation. Just that X # voted twice.

[CaptainTruth]

32. Everybody seems to miss: Last week, 3 SCOTUS election decisions for States.

All 3 decisions basically reaffirmed that States are in charge of elections & Federal courts/judges can't tell them how to run their elections (barring Constitutional/Federal issues of course).

Basic principle that should apply in this case too.

[pnwmom]

34. If they are consistent that will be true. But this Federal judge could still have thrown a wrench

into the monkey-works.

Now we'll see if this gets appealed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. Good point!

[Cheezoholic]

33. One thing I've noticed with these GOP crackpot judges

is none of them seem to mind breaking the "unwritten" rule to not hear these cases so close into an election, if you want us to hear the suit bring it after the people have spoken. Oh, wait, that was when we had a non-partisan judicial system with some integrity and honor.

[BobTheSubgenius]

35. It does seem rather like a states-rights issue.

There are all kinds of different nuances across the Republic, and I can easily see SCOTUS refusing to hear an appeal. I thought the GOP was bullish on state's rights.

[Blue Owl]

36. K&R

[ChoppinBroccoli]

39. Hanen Is One Of The Most Partisan Judges On The Entire Federal Bench

And if he ruled against Trump, then it's very unlikely that anyone else will reverse him. Despite all these Republican judges on the bench, I think they're starting to see the writing on the wall. Like almost every other Republican officeholder, I think they're starting to distance themselves from Trump because they know he's going down hard.