SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,631
edits
Changes
Texas v. Pennsylvania (view source)
Revision as of 00:35, February 9, 2021
, 00:35, February 9, 2021Added to page
* Each state had significantly weakened its security measures against fraud, despite knowing such a large influx of absentee and mail-in ballots heightened the risk of fraud occurring; and
* Each state had significantly weakened its security measures against fraud, despite knowing such a large influx of absentee and mail-in ballots heightened the risk of fraud occurring; and
* The counting of unlawful ballots in each state occurred on a scale greater, perhaps far greater, than the difference in total votes between Donald Trump and [[Joe Biden]].
* The counting of unlawful ballots in each state occurred on a scale greater, perhaps far greater, than the difference in total votes between Donald Trump and [[Joe Biden]].
===Pennsylvania===
According to the plaintiffs, the manipulation of results in Pennsylvania, more so than the other three states, rested heavily on the use of "friendly lawsuits," whereby two parties to a lawsuit, not genuinely in conflict with each other, nonetheless go to court in order to obtain a mutually-favorable outcome via a declarative statement from the judge.
At least one such "friendly lawsuit" involved then-Secretary of State [[Kathy Boockvar]]: ''League of Women Voters of PA v. Boockvar'' (2020), which ended in a declarative judgment that the state of Pennsylvania did not have to segregate mail-in ballots with signature irregularities from those without them, despite the fact at least four state laws expressly defined signature requirements and stipulated the separation of any ballots which violated those requirements. Another "friendly lawsuit," concluded shortly before the presidential election, ended in a 4-3 ruling from the state supreme court to extend the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots until three days after Election Day, and advised state election officials to presume that ballots without a postmark date had been mailed on time. This violated another state law, that all ballots were due by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Boockvar would later claim that only about 10,000 ballots were received after this deadline, but since the state did not segregate ballots, this statement is impossible to verify.
An additional violation of state election law occurred with regard to "poll watchers," which were to be granted access to the opening, counting, and recording of absentee ballots. A considerable amount of video evidence, however, demonstrates that at numerous locations in [[Philadelphia]] and [[Pittsburgh]], election officials (all Democrats) denied poll watchers such access.
The suit goes on to note that Boockvar also urged local election officials to contact--prior to the election--those voters who had mailed defective ballots, so that they could be "cured," or corrected. This violated an additional three state laws:
* That mail-in ballots cannot be canvassed earlier than 7:00 a.m. on Election Day (a so-called "pre-canvass" is possible, but must be announced 48 hours in advance).
* Before being canvassed, mail-in ballots have to remain sealed in locked containers. (This also raises the question of how election officials could know the ballots needed to be cured, if they were in fact still locked away.)
* The manner in which the ballots were canvassed deviated from that laid out by state law.
Because of these violations, the suit concludes, election officials must have illegally unsealed the ballots and followed none of the procedures set out by state election law in doing so.
At this point, the suit turns to the so-called "Ryan Report" issued by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in November 2020, which found that 118,426 mail-in ballots had postmark dates which could not be credited based on their dates of receipt by election officials. 58,221 of those ballots were returned ''before'' the listed date on which they were mailed, and 51,200 were returned ''on'' their mailed date, while most of the remainder had no mailed date at all. It further notes a previous ruling from Justice Alito that ballots with irregularities had to be separated, a ruling that the state of Pennsylvania promptly ignored. The reasoning, it suggests, seems to have been that once the ballots were combined, the Supreme Court wouldn't dare to throw all of them out, since many would have been cast in a legitimate manner.
The case concludes that all of these violations must have been committed with the express purpose of giving an advantage to the Biden presidential campaign: not only are Boockvar and most of the other participants in the "friendly lawsuits" Democrats, but Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, in which poll watchers were blocked from observing the counting of votes, are the major Democratic strongholds in the state, and 70% of requests for mail-in ballots were from registered Democrats. Regardless of intent, though, a variety of established laws on state elections were demonstrably violated, and, constitutionally speaking, the results of the election cannot be certified by the Electoral College or by Congress.
==References==
==References==