Additionally, many of the Trump cases reported by the media are not, in fact, Trump Campaign cases.
That is a misleading interpretation. The cases are being dismissed for procedural reasons, which (depending on the specific case) can amount to "you should have brought your suit sooner" or "your evidence is inadmissible in the court of law" or "even if everything you say is true, you have not demonstrated that you have been harmed." The lawyers aren't being allowed to present evidence because they haven't even managed to demonstrate that they have a reason to present evidence--which is a pretty low bar to clear.
The Texas Attorney General likely has short circuited this process by filing a claim that can only be resolved by a federal court. And now 11 other states (at my last count) have joined on as plaintiffs and the U.S. Supreme Court has placed it on the docket.
Having read the claim, there is no chance that SCOTUS will do anything other than deny it per curiam.
> And now 11 other states (at my last count) have joined on as plaintiffs
They have not joined as plaintiffs. They filed an amici brief. And it's actually 17. And reading the amici brief, they don't even attempt to justify why Texas has standing in the case, which is the biggest reason to dismiss the case.
> and the U.S. Supreme Court has placed it on the docket.
You're aware that means absolutely nothing? To be refused to be docketed is an exceptionally high bar that requires the court to think you a vexatious litigant. Several thousand cases are docketed a year, and yet there's only around 200-ish that are even considered petitions worthy of commentary, and only 70-ish are actually heard.
The actual bar you're looking for is if SCOTUS accepts the petition which, (for a leave to file motion in original jurisdiction) requires 5 justices to agree to hear the case, and will not be decided before the reply brief is filed tomorrow. I suspect it will be discussed at the regular Friday conference, and likely disposed of in the Monday orders list, although the justices may decide it's important enough to release in a Friday orders list.
I've said elsewhere why the case is likely to be go absolutely nowhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25353139.
You are correct, they are not plaintiffs, but a third of U.S. states are now in support of this action.
I would argue that if a U.S. state has made unconstitutional election changes and thus has conducted an unconstitutional election then other U.S. states not in violation of the constitution have standing to dispute the election results with federal implications in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
This is not totally unprecedented, however, as the Election of 1824 resulted in a contingent election where the candidate with the popular vote lost. [0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1824_United_States_presidentia...
The process you are talking about involves the US House of Representatives, not suing the states in SCOTUS.
The legal basis for claiming injury in the face of improper elections is the notion of "vote dilution." However, vote dilution cannot happen in the Electoral College by definition. Texas gets 38 of the 538 votes in the Electoral College, and that is true no matter how tight or loose the voting restrictions are in Pennsylvania. The voting power of Texas residents remains unaltered no matter what the voting power of residents in Pennsylvania is. Texas's brief did not persuade me that it had standing to sue (although it does appeal to vote dilution), and none of the other briefs have attempted to address the issue of standing at all.
That the House has had to decide the election is not unprecedented (it has done so on three occasions, 1800, 1824, and 1876, where it delegated its decision to accept the votes to a separate commission). What is unprecedented is a state asking SCOTUS to overturn the results of another state.
What you are saying is plausible, but I think it’s so silly to argue this when we will find out in a few short days whether the SCOTUS will hear it.
I for one will be surprised if they don’t.
On the basis of an appeal from a state supreme court, itself an appeal from lower courts, challenging the procedure. Which is basically the process that Kelly v PA went through, although SCOTUS declined to hear it yesterday.
I suggest you educate yourself, as you keep saying things that don't comport with reality.
One of them is standing. If I sue Hawaii for not providing trueluk with a beach house, no evidence gets heard. It gets dismissed because I am not trueluk, nor am I a resident of Hawaii, and therefore I don't have standing to bring the suit. The courts are not going to hear cases where party A files suit, claiming that party B damaged party C.
Another is failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. If I sue Nebraska for not granting AnimalMuppet an oceanfront villa, I never get to present evidence. Nebraska has no oceanfront villas to give away, and a court order can't make them have any. (A more typical form for this to take is that some forms of relief are beyond the authority of the court to grant.)
Then there's... I forget the name of it. But the complaint is supposed to give an overview of the evidence. If that claimed evidence, even if true, doesn't give reason for the court to grant the requested relief, then the court isn't going to bother to listen to the evidence.
Most of the Trump (or on behalf of Trump) cases are falling on these hurdles. It's not that the judges are suppressing the evidence. It's that the lawsuits aren't even good enough to make it to the point of presenting evidence.
Note well: IANAL. Some detail and nuance may be missing from this post, but I think it's close to right. Don't take it as legal advice, though, because it's not.
Source?
> Additionally, many of the Trump cases reported by the media are not, in fact, Trump Campaign cases.
That doesn't really matter. The "denominator" is not the most important part. In other words, it's not so much that his campaign won 1/51 cases or if it was really 1/10 cases. I only care about how many his campaign won (1).
And are you being honest, or are you being technically truthful while trying to deceive me? In other words, if a case was brought by Rudy Giuliani or Sidney Powell, but not some legal entity called "The Trump Campaign", then it's all the same to me.
Here's their suit in Georgia:
https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov/app/RegisterO...
2,560 felons voted 66,247 underage voters 2,423 votes from people not registered 1,043 individuals registered at PO boxes 4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state 395 individuals who voted in two states 15,700 votes from people who moved out of state before the election 40,279 votes of people who moved without re-registering in their new county 30,000 - 40,000 absentee ballots lacking proper signature matching and verification
Are the claims you listed actually supported with evidence? I don't know Georgia's laws, so maybe felons are allowed to vote under some circumstances.
How do you even get a ballot for someone who isn't registered? Also, could they have moved after casting their vote legitimately?
Votes from people who moved out of state before the election. When is "the election"? I hope and assume they mean "before mail in ballots could be requested and submitted" and not "before November 3rd".
And what is "proper" signature matching? Signature matching is tricky. Are they getting professionals to analyze the signatures? Probably not. I'm not sure some Joe Schmoe would be able to look at two of my signatures and confirm they match, so I'm not that interested in strict signature matching as a bar to clear.
Rest assured, that if these claims actually are true, I will be happy to see the issues resolved. But seeing as all of the claims so far have come up totally empty, I'm not holding my breath. Remember when Trump said that he had a TON of evidence that Obama wasn't born in this country? Forgive me if I remain skeptical.
> The law also blocks county election officials from rejecting absentee ballots because of mismatched signatures, and when information on a voter registration application doesn't match other government databases, the voter will remain on the rolls. [0]
That didn't age well...
[0]: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/04/709911541/georgia-governor-si...
And what exactly is your claim? It's just not plausible that there was such a large amount of voter fraud in key states (a net of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes for Biden. How many fraud votes for Trump are we willing to allow in this scenario?) and no tangible evidence for any of it. You have claim after claim from "internet sleuths" who think they saw something on video, but so far, it seems that all of these claims have only shown ignorance of the viewer (ballot curing being an example I saw).
And I'm not sure what point you're making with your link. Can you explain?
1. They have approximately no evidence of anything substantive.
2. All of the courts in all of the states where this is happening are conspiring against the President. Including those with Republican-appointed judges.
Can I argue that it must be #1 the same way I can use the laws of physics to argue that a hammer will fall to the ground when I drop it? No. Is it WAY beyond my own reasonable doubt? Yep.