Judge halts Trump campaign's mail-voting lawsuit against Pennsylvania

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Sunday halted the Trump campaign's lawsuit against the state over how it sends and counts mail-in ballots.

Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania, who was appointed by President Trump, ruled Sunday that Trump's lawsuit against the secretary of state and 67 county election boards should be put on hold while state court cases about voting move forward, CNN reported.

"After carefully considering the arguments raised by the parties, the Court finds that the appropriate course is abstention, at least for the time being. In other words, the Court will apply the brakes to this lawsuit, and allow the Pennsylvania state courts to weigh in and interpret the state statutes that undergird Plaintiffs' federal- constitutional claims," Ranjan reportedly wrote Sunday.

The Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and four Pennsylvania Republican members of Congress - Glenn Thompson, Mike Kelly, John Joyce and Guy Reschenthaler - had filed the lawsuit at the end of June.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-halts-trump-campaign-s-mail-voting-lawsuit-against-pennsylvania/ar-BB18hUKK?li=BBnbfcQ&ocid=DELLDHP

[dchill]

1. Letting more gas out of the bag.

[scarletwoman]

2. I'd be a lot happier about it if the judge had just thrown it out.

I don't understand what possible right the federal government has to interfere in how a state runs its elections.

[iluvtennis]

14. ++++ agree. nt

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Sounds like Judge is holding dry powder for maximum timing impact

I don't like this at all ... when have you ever heard of a Federal court waiting for state courts to rule on other litigation?

[BumRushDaShow]

6. I believe they did that with the redistricting cases here & redrawing of the congressional lines

I.e., when the lower state court ruled that the federal legislative districts violated the state constitution and told the state legislature to redraw the maps by a certain date, and the GOP hemmed and hawed and put together crap, while the Governor put together his map (with a group that provided various versions to select from that they felt would meet the constitutional criteria of "compact and contiguous" ) - the court gave them more time, and after more hemming and hawing, rejected both efforts and provided its own map.

And that result went up the court chain while a parallel set of cases were running in the federal courts whining about the state court drawing the lines. And each level of federal court (including the SCOTUS) actually (amazingly) deferred it back to the state courts to make the final decision, which ultimately upheld the court-drawn congressional map. That allowed for the change at the 2018 election from 13 (R) - 5 (D) to 9 (R) - 9 (D).

[euphorb]

8. It's not so "amazing" (as you put it) for federal courts to send a case back to state courts.

When the issue is a matter of state law, federal courts always defer to state courts for interpretation of state law. Federal courts are the final authority for interpretation only of federal law. State courts are the final authority of state law, and federal courts always defer to them in those cases. It's standard practice.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Well yes of course

in "normal" times. But these aren't "normal" times, if you get my drift (and Turtle's court-packing).

But in case there is any fiber of integrity left in the federal courts and they leave us alone, the PA State Supreme Court is most certainly majority (D).

[onetexan]

20. Great to hear! thanks

[rsdsharp]

10. You're confusing the abstention doctrine,

which the Court applied here, with certifying a question to the highest state appellate court to get a specific answer to a novel or unstettled question under state law.

[euphorb]

7. That's standard practice.

Whenever a federal court is deciding issues of state law, it defers to decisions by state courts. In this case, with a novel issue that is currently under review by state courts, it is entirely appropriate for the federal court to wait to see how the state courts interpret the state law at issue.

[turbinetree]

4. This "judge" was appointed by trump and seated with a 80-14 senate vote..........

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Good.

The "no-excuse" (absentee) vote-by-mail law here in PA WAS passed last year by the GOP-led State Assembly! I will tell you honestly that when I had heard it had passed and had gone into effect during this year's primary, I was truly stunned because doing SOMETHING to change our current voter laws in a "positive" way seemed near impossible and never seemed to be high on the legislature's agenda. I had been asking my State Senator at multiple telephone town hall meetings whether anyone in Harrisburg was even considering anything related to making elections easier - notably something like "early voting" like so many other states already have because I figured mail voting was most likely DOA. But surprise surprise. This after our previous GOP governor Corbett had touted the nonsensical "Voter ID" that made PA State House Speaker Mike Turzai infamous -

Of course that crap was summarily thrown out as unconstitutional by the courts and Turzai is history (he resigned this past June 15 before the end of his term).

I have no idea how the state GOP apparatus is dealing with this sudden attack on something they put together and passed - and that was signed by our Democratic governor.

And as a note - the PA State Supreme Court, which is elected, has a majority of Democratic party members. The Court consists of 7 members and 5 are Democrats.

[MyOwnPeace]

12. Just to help fill in the trail.....

Former Speaker Mike Turds Eye is now legal counsel for a gas company (funny how that works, huh?)

[BumRushDaShow]

22. Yup

he buttered their bread (by blocking the Marcellus shale tax) and they treated him to some grape jelly for his efforts.

[riversedge]

15. Thanks much for a some history in this PA lawsuit.

[KS Toronado]

11. Glenn Thompson, Mike Kelly, John Joyce and Guy Reschenthaler, any of these up for reelection?

Signing on to this lawsuit should hurt them, especially tied to dumpie's hip.

[MyOwnPeace]

13. They all should be......

as members of the House.

[riversedge]

16. WHOW- Trumpers said they did not have to provide evidence to win the case!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-mail-ballot-lawwsuit/federal-judge-issues-stay-in-trump-challenge-of-mail-balloting-in-pennsylvania-idUSKBN25J0VO




.......The suit also wants the residency requirement for poll watchers lifted, so that any Pennsylvania voter could serve in that function at any polling location in the state.



The judge, a Trump appointee, said the suit involved state laws and he would defer for now to the state courts.

“The Court will apply the brakes to this lawsuit, and allow the Pennsylvania state courts to weigh in and interpret the state statutes that undergird Plaintiffs’ federal-constitutional claims,” Ranjan said.

The Trump campaign says the ballot drop box invites fraud. The federal judge asked the campaign to provide evidence of actual fraud, but the campaign declined, arguing it did not have to do so in order to win the case.

[Gothmog]

17. Marc Elias wins again

Link to tweet

[Pepsidog]

18. We are witnessing the ground work being laid to steal an election.

Lawsuits like this are why the Republicans haven't abandoned ship, they know that as they did with Gore v Bush if your can't win at the ballot box go to the court.

[Gothmog]

19. Trump Campaign Fails To Produce Evidence Of Voter Fraud In PA Lawsuit

trump failed to provide evidence of voter fraud https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-campaign-lawsuit-pennsylvania-voting

In their response, campaign lawyers declined to do so.

“Neither the original Complaint nor the Amended Complaint contains an allegation that ‘ballot harvesting,’ ‘manipulating and destroying ballots,’ double voting, and/or voter fraud from mail-in and absentee ballots actually occurred during the Primary Election,” the lawyers wrote.

“The claims asserted by the plaintiffs do not hinge on evidence of voter fraud actually occurring,” they added. The campaign argued that though it has no proof that fraud of this type has happened, it could — and that’s grounds enough for barring the boxes.

The campaign then loaded the 524-page document with articles about a handful of cases of voter fraud unrelated to mail-in voting or drop boxes.

U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan asked the Trump campaign to respond last week after the Sierra Club and Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, two intervenor-defendants in the case, argued that the campaign “should not be permitted to raise such spectacular fraud-related claims, particularly in this national climate, and refuse to provide discoverable information to substantiate those claims.”

[cstanleytech]

21. What federal constitutional claims? There are not any regarding mail in voting as that is something

largely left up to the states.