#judicial watch claimed election fraud in 2020

[codesquire]

There's so much about this which amuses me...

#gop non-profit mailer 2023 #gop mailer Kentucky gubernatorial race 2023 #judicial watch claimed election fraud in 2020 #they've been namedropped by our former president #what a bunch of maroons

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 17, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

NOV 18, 2023

In an NPR piece yesterday, Bill Chappell noted that “the war between Israel and Hamas is being fought, in part, through disinformation and competing claims.” 

Khalil al-Hayya, a member of Hamas’s leadership team currently in Qatar, told Ben Hubbard and Maria Abi-Habib of the New York Times that Hamas’s goal in their attack of October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists crossed from Gaza into Israel and tortured and killed about 1,200 people, taking another 240 hostage, was to make sure the region did not settle into a status quo that excluded the Palestinians. 

In 2020 the Palestinians were excluded from discussions about the Abraham Accords negotiated by then-president Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner that normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain (and later Morocco). More recently, Saudi Arabia and Israel were in talks with the United States about normalizing relations.   

Al-Hayya told the reporters that in order to “change the entire equation and not just have a clash,” Hamas leaders intended to commit “a great act” that Israel would respond to with fury. “[W]ithout a doubt, it was known that the reaction to this great act would be big,” al-Hayya said, but “[w]e had to tell people that the Palestinian cause would not die.” 

“Hamas’s goal is not to run Gaza and to bring it water and electricity and such,” al-Hayya said. “This battle was not because we wanted fuel or laborers,” he added. “It did not seek to improve the situation in Gaza. This battle is to completely overthrow the situation.”

Hamas media adviser Taher El-Nounou told the reporters: “I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders, and that the Arab world will stand with us.”

Hamas could be pretty certain that Israel would retaliate with a heavy hand. The governing coalition that took power at the end of 2022 is a far-right coalition, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to hold that coalition together to stay in power, not least because he faces charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.   

Once it took power, Netanyahu’s government announced that expanding Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank was a priority, vowing to annex the occupied territory. It also endorsed discrimination against LGBTQ people and called for generous payments to ultra-Orthodox men so they could engage in religious study rather than work. It also tried to push through changes to the judicial system to give far more power to the government. 

From January 7 until October 7, 2023, protesters turned out in the streets in huge numbers. With the attack, Israelis have come together until the crisis is resolved.

Netanyahu’s ability to stay in power depended in large part on his promises that he would keep Israelis safe. The events of October 7 on his watch—the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust—shattered that guarantee. Polls show that Israelis blame his government, and three quarters of them think he should resign. Sixty-four percent think the country should hold an election immediately after the war. 

Immediately after the attack, on October 7, Netanyahu vowed “mighty vengeance” against Hamas, and Israeli airstrikes began to pound Gaza. On October 8, Israel formally declared war. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said the country’s retaliation would “change the reality on the ground in Gaza for the next 50 years,” and on October 9 he announced “a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed…. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

Israel and the U.S. have strong historic and economic ties: as Nicole Narea points out in Vox in a review of their history together, the U.S. has also traditionally seen Israel as an important strategic ally as it stabilizes the Middle East, helping to maintain the supply of Middle Eastern oil that the global economy needs. That strategic importance has only grown as the U.S. seeks to normalize ties around the region to form a united front against Iran.

For Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and other envoys, then, it appeared the first priority after the October 7 attack was to keep the conflict from spreading. Biden made it very clear that the U.S. would stand behind Israel should Iran, which backs Hamas, be considering moving in. He warned: “[T]o any country, any organization, anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation, I have one word: Don’t.”

The movement of two U.S. carrier groups to the region appears so far to be helping to achieve that goal. While Iran-backed Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon and Yemen’s Houthis have fired missiles and drones at Israel since October 7, Iran’s leaders have said they will not join Hamas’s fight and are hoping only to use the conflict as leverage against the U.S.

Militias have fired at least 55 rocket and drone strikes at U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria since October 7 without killing any U.S. soldiers. In retaliation, the U.S. has launched three airstrikes against militia installations in Syria, killing up to seven men (the military assesses there were not women or children in the vicinity) in the third strike on Sunday. The U.S. keeps roughly 900 troops in Syria and 2,500 troops in Iraq to work with local forces to prevent the resurgence of the Islamic State.

At the same time that Biden emphasized Israel’s right to respond to Hamas’s attack and demanded the return of the hostages, he also called for humanitarian aid to Gaza through Egypt and warned Netanyahu to stay within the laws of war.

Rounds of diplomacy by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who flew to Israel and Jordan initially on October 11 and has gone back repeatedly, as well as by Biden, who has both visited the region—his second trip to a war zone—and constantly worked the phones, and other envoys, started humanitarian convoys moving into Gaza with a single 20-truck convoy on October 21. By early November, over 100 trucks a day were entering Gaza, the number the United Nations says is the minimum needed. Yesterday the Israeli war cabinet agreed to allow two tankers of fuel a day into Gaza after the U.N. said it couldn’t deliver aid because it had run out of fuel. 

The U.S. has insisted from the start that Israel’s military decisions must not go beyond the laws of war. Israeli officials say they are staying within the law, yet an estimated 11,000 civilians and Hamas fighters (the numbers are not separated out) have died. Gaza has been crushed into rubble by airstrikes, and more than a million people are homeless. That carnage has sparked protests around the world along with calls for a cease-fire, which Israel rejects. 

It has also sparked extreme Islamophobia and antisemitism exacerbated by social media. In the immediate aftermath of October 7, Islamophobia inspired a Chicago man to stab a 6-year-old Palestinian American boy to death; more recently, antisemitism has jumped more than 900% on X (formerly Twitter). On Wednesday, Elon Musk agreed with a virulently antisemitic post on X. White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded: “We condemn this abhorrent promotion of Antisemitic and racist hate in the strongest terms, which runs against our core values as Americans.” Advertisers, including IBM and Apple, announced they would no longer advertise on Musk’s platform.

While calling for humanitarian pauses in the fighting, the Biden administration has continued to focus on getting the hostages out and has rejected calls for a cease-fire, saying such a break would only allow Hamas to regroup. In The Atlantic on November 14, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who negotiated a 2012 cease-fire between Hamas and Israel only to see Hamas violate that agreement two years later, explained that cease-fires have only kicked the can down the road. “Israel’s policy since 2009 of containing rather than destroying Hamas has failed,” she said.  

Clinton called for the destruction of Hamas on the one hand and “a new strategy and new leadership” for Israel on the other. “Instead of the current ultra-right-wing government, it will need a government of national unity that’s rooted in the center of Israeli politics and can make the hard choices ahead,” she wrote. 

Central to those choices is the long-neglected two-state solution that would establish a Palestinian state. Biden and Blinken and a number of Arab governments have backed the idea, but to many observers it seems impossible to pull off. Still, at the same time Clinton’s article appeared, King Abdullah II of Jordan published his own op-ed in the Washington Post  titled: “A two-state solution would be a victory for our common humanity.”

“[L]et’s start with some basic reality,” he wrote. “The fact is that the thousands of victims across Israel, Gaza and the West Bank have been overwhelmingly civilians…. Leaders everywhere have the responsibility to face the full reality of this crisis, as ugly as it is. Only by anchoring ourselves to the concrete facts that have brought us to this point will we be able to change the increasingly dangerous direction of our world…. 

“If the status quo continues, the days ahead will be driven by an ongoing war of narratives over who is entitled to hate more and kill more. Sinister political agendas and ideologies will attempt to exploit religion. Extremism, vengeance and persecution will deepen not only in the region but also around the world…. It is up to responsible leaders to deliver results, starting now.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters from An American #Heather Cox Richardson #Israel #HAMAS #Israel-Hamas war #war #history #diplomacy #war of disinformation #islamaphobia #anti-semitism

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The congressional Committee investigating January 6 on Thursday revealed new evidence that Donald Trump had a preexisting plan to falsely declare victory on election night in 2020—part of a plot to use made-up voting fraud claims in an attempt to retain power.

For the second time, the Committee played leaked audio first reported by Mother Jones in which Trump adviser Steve Bannon, during an October 31, 2020, meeting, said that Trump had a “strategy” to prematurely assert he had won on Election Day. Explaining the so-called “red mirage,” in which Trump would show early leads in key states before mail-in ballots favoring Joe Biden were counted, Bannon said: “Trump’s going to take advantage of it. That’s our strategy. He’s gonna declare himself a winner.”

“He’s gonna declare victory,” Bannon said. “But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”

On November 1, 2020, before Election Day, Axios first reported Trump’s plan. But Trump denied it at the time. And he and his supporters have since claimed that he was not lying when he announced—just hours after the polls had closed—that he had won. He legitimately believed election fraud cost him victory, they claim.

The Committee, however, presented new evidence Thursday that Trump actually knew he had lost—he admitted it to aides—and that his victory declaration was part of plan to rally his supporters to help him stay in office anyway.

“This Big Lie—President Trump’s effort to convince Americans that he had won the 2020 election—began before the election results even came in,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said during Thursday’s hearing. “It was intentional. It was premeditated. It was not based on election results, or any evidence of actual fraud affecting the results, or any actual problems with voting machines. It was a plan concocted in advance, to convince his supporters that he won. And the people who seemingly knew about that plan in advance would ultimately play a significant role in the events of January 6.”

The Committee on Thursday played video, shot by a Danish documentarian, in which longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone told Trump supporters on November 1, 2020, that the election would likely remain too close to call on election night. “The key thing to do is to claim victory,” Stone added. “Possession is nine-tenths of the law.”

The Committee also revealed a pre-election memo that Tom Fitton, an occasional Trump adviser who runs of the right-wing nonprofit Judicial Watch, emailed to White House aides on October 31, 2020. In it, Fitton proposed victory remarks for Trump. “We had an election today—and I won,” Fitton’s suggested remarks said. Fitton resent the memo on Nov. 3, 2020—Election Day—and said that he had discussed it with Trump.

Thursday’s hearing also included newly aired testimony from Greg Jacob, who was Vice President Mike Pence’s counsel. Jacob said that he learned days before Election Day from Pence’s Chief of Staff, Marc Short, that Trump planned to prematurely announce that he had won. Short and Jacob reacted by working to distance Pence from Trump’s declaration.

“It is essential that the Vice President not be perceived by the public as having decided questions concerning disputed electoral votes prior to the full development of all relevant facts,” Jacob wrote in a November 3, 2020, memo to Short, which Lofgren said the panel had obtained from the National Archives.

Bannon, Stone, Short, Fitton, and others were all talking around this time about Trump’s plan to falsely declare victory because, it seems clear, Trump had recently informed aides that he was firmly committed to that course of action.

CBS News reporter Robert Costa tweeted Thursday he had seen “texts from that night from some aides” indicating that they realized “declaring victory was Trump’s plan” and that White House lawyers were alarmed.

This is important because it shows that Trump was not simply deluded about the election results. He executed a strategy to lie to Americans about the outcome, to motivate his supporters to help him subvert democracy. The January 6 attack was the culmination of that effort.

#us politics #news #mother jones #2022 #donald trump #trump administration #house select committee #captiol riot investigation #Steve Bannon #video #youtube #Rep. Zoe Lofgren #axios #roger stone #judicial watch #Tom Fitton #Greg Jacob #marc short #mike pence #national archives and records administration #2020 election

[ridenwithbiden]

ANOTHER TWITLER...

LOSER !!!

#KariLake #DonTheCOn #ElectionDeniers #LOSERS

[bllsbailey]

Trump Supports Effort To Televise His D.C. Election Subversion Trial

Donald Trump is supporting a move by news outlets to broadcast his federal trial where he faces charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

GAB.Com

In a legal filing submitted on Friday to the judge who is set to begin the trial in March, Trump’s legal team claimed he is a target of political persecution by the Biden administration and argued for the use of television to highlight the alleged unfairness of the proceedings.

“The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness. President Trump calls for sunlight,” defense attorneys John Lauro and Todd Blanche wrote. “Every person in America, and beyond, should have the opportunity to study this case firsthand and watch as, if there is a trial, President Trump exonerates himself of these baseless and politically motivated charges.”

The five-page document submitted to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the United States District Court does not mention a long-standing federal court rule that forbids broadcasting criminal court proceedings.

Last week, prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s team cited this rule when opposing requests from various news outlets, including POLITICO, to broadcast video and audio coverage of the historic trial involving a former or current president facing criminal charges. Smith’s team also expressed concerns that TV coverage could pose risks to the trial, such as potentially intimidating witnesses and jurors.

In August, a federal grand jury indictment charged Trump with attempting to defraud the federal government and obstruct Congress by knowingly spreading false claims of election fraud. This allegedly incited his supporters to attack the Capitol on January 6, 2021, with accusations that Trump deliberately allowed the violence to unfold.

Last month, news organizations formally requested Chutkan’s permission for live coverage of the trial, highlighting the unusual public interest and the challenges of accommodating spectators near Capitol Hill.

Democratic lawmakers and news outlets urged the Judicial Conference to make an exception for televising the Trump D.C. trial. However, at a recent meeting, a committee stated it lacked the authority to grant an exception, and changing the rule would take years.

Trump’s recent filing criticizes Smith’s team and Chutkan, accusing them of repeatedly violating his rights and intentionally disrupting his reelection bid for the White House next year. Despite leading in GOP nomination opinion polls, Trump alleges interference from both parties.

“There is a high risk that proceeding behind closed doors under these circumstances would serve to further undermine confidence in the United States justice system, while continuing to prejudice President Trump’s rights,” Lauro and Blanche wrote.

Trump’s attorneys said he favors TV coverage of the Washington trial in part because it will allow the public to “hear all the evidence regarding an election that President Trump believes was rigged and stolen.”

Trump’s filing appears to acknowledge a mutually beneficial relationship between him and the mainstream news media. The coverage of the controversial former president undeniably enhances the ratings and readership of major TV networks, newspapers, and online news outlets.

Although Trump supports the initiative by these media sources to broadcast the trial live, his legal team also subtly criticizes certain members of the press.

They argue that not allowing such coverage would compel the public to depend on  “biased, secondhand accounts coming from the Biden Administration and its media allies.”

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

[political-fluffle]

The flourishing domestic demand for disinformation in the U.S. attracts far-right groups from across the Atlantic

A trans-national network of Telegram channels spreading disinformation about the 2020 U.S. elections is connected to a U.K.-based digital media project known for its white nationalist and antisemitic content, a DFRLab investigation has found.

TRR Media created several channels on the encrypted messaging platform during the week of the elections that served as repositories and aggregators of disinformation about the integrity of the electoral process. The effort assisted viral claims of voter fraud made by right-wing social media personalities, fringe conspiratorial communities, and U.S. President Donald Trump. The posts spread to millions of people and resulted in thousands of new followers to TRR Media’s social media accounts. (...)

During election week, the TRR Media network pivoted from amplifying extremist white nationalist and antisemitic content to promoting viral falsehoods targeting the U.S. elections. (...)

In line with this approach, the moderators regularly cross-posted content derived from social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, Parler), online messaging boards (4chan, 8kun), as well as video and livestreaming platforms (YouTube, DLive). They also merged links from right-wing news outlets and fringe sites, including Gateway Pundit, Judicial Watch, Fox News, and The Federalist, among others, effectively blurring the distinction between the various forms of media. (...)

[statetalks]

How Many Federal Judges Are Republicans

Vote Along Party Lines

How Republicans are packing federal courts with conservative extremists

Wednesdays approval came on a nearly party-line vote of 52-48. Maine Senator Susan Collins was the only Republican to vote against Wilson.;

Wilson will join the 5th Circuit court, which hears cases from Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The court is considered one of the most conservative appeals courts in the nation.;

Even with all the outrage and protests happening across America against systemic racism, Senate Republicans still want to confirm anti-civil rights judicial nominee Cory Wilson. For a lifetime seat.

This is so out of touch with what the people are demanding.

Appointments By Circuit Court And Party

Following are the number of federal circuit court judges serving as of September 4, 2021, organized by circuit and the party of the president who appointed them.

Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Democrat appointed: 7

Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Democrat appointed: 1

Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Democrat appointed: 5

Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Democrat appointed: 8

Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Democrat appointed: 5

Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Democrat appointed: 4 Democrat appointed: 7 Democrat appointed: 16 Democrat appointed: 5

Circuit Vacancies Filled Faster Than District Vacancies

The administration and the Senate took more time to propose nominees to fill district court vacancies than court of appeals vacancies, and more time to approve district court nominees than to approve circuit nominees. As in previous administrations, delay in submitting nominees was greater in states with opposite-party senators, but the greater delay in confirming such nominees is a departure from practice under previous administrations.

Recommended Reading: What Do Republicans Stand For Today

Republican And Democratic Judges Have Turned On Trumpand Not Just When It Comes To The Election

Steve Friess PoliticsDonald Trump2020 ElectionLawsuitJudges

With the Trump campaign scoring just one victory so far out of the more than 30 lawsuits it has filed in six states, it wasn’t exactly a surprise when a Philadelphia appeals court last week became the latest to reject a challenge by the president to the results of the election. What was noteworthy was the scathing nature of the decision written by a Trump-appointed judge, who dismissed the case as having “no merit.” Also significant but largely unnoticed as electoral drama consumed the nation: The string of legal losses and dismissals suffered by the campaign is just one of several major defeats the courts have handed Donald Trump this fall on a wide variety of issuesand that, despite the large number of judges the president has appointed while in office, such defeats have been a common occurrence for his administration.

What’s more, the rulings, in both the election-related suits and the non-election matters, have come from judges across the political spectrumconservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, some of whom were appointed by Trump himself.

Indeed, in an era when Congress has rarely pushed back against expansions of presidential authority and when no amount of media scrutiny has cowed the president’s persistent efforts to demolish norms, one bedrock institution has stood alone in saying noand saying it repeatedlyto Donald Trump: the courts.

No Partisan Divide

“A Mixed Record,” Overall

Median Days Nomination To Confirmation

Table 6b, though, reveals a new twist. At least for Obama district nominees submitted by late January 2012, median time to confirmation was about the same regardless of the make-up of the states Senate delegation: 195 days for nominees in states with two Democratic senators, and only slightly longer in states with one or two Republican senators.

For Trump district nominees, though, a clearer blue-state/red-state difference appears. The Senate moved nominees in states with two Republican senators to confirmation in 217 median days. It took 412 days for nominees in two-Democratic-senator states.

Table 6b: Median Days from Nomination to District Judge ConfirmationThrough late January, Fourth Year

; 161-273

Furthermore, it does not appear that the delay in confirming the district nominees from Democratic senator districts was because those nominees were particularly unpopular, at least as measured by Senate votes. Table 7 shows the distribution of negative votes for district nominees based on the make-up of the respective districts Senate delegations.

Table 7: No votes for Trumps Confirmed District Judges

No votes

Read Also: How Do Republicans Really Feel About Trump

Trump Says Barrett One Of ‘nations’ Brilliant Legal Scholars’ In Confirmation Speech

On Friday, McConnell teed up a new round of votes on judicial nominees. The Senate is slated to vote Monday on Thomas Kirsch, a 46-year-old U.S. attorney, to fill the seat vacated by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom Republicans confirmed to the Supreme Court the week before the 2020 election.

The move embodies the McConnell-era Senate often a dead zone for legislative activity, but a well-oiled machine for confirming conservative judges, with Democrats all but powerless to stop it.

Democratic leaders say the GOP is using the courts to advance an activist right-wing agenda.

Senate Republicans know their agenda is so radical and unpopular that they can only achieve it in courts, said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Us Judiciary Shaped By Trump Thwarts His Election Challenges

5 Min Read

– U.S. President Donald Trumps reshaping of the federal judiciary has done little to help him win lawsuits challenging the election outcome, with Trump appointees rebuffing him and the U.S. Supreme Court showing little interest in getting involved.

An appeals court judge appointed by Trump, a Republican, on Friday ruled against his campaigns effort to overturn President-elect Joe Bidens win in Pennsylvania based on unsupported allegations of voter fraud.

Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy, Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote on behalf of a unanimous U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals panel. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.

Two judges appointed by President George W. Bush, also a Republican, signed onto Bibas decision.

Bibas is one of 53 judges Trump has appointed to the federal appeals courts since 2016. By comparison, President Barack Obama appointed 55 in eight years. Trump has appointed roughly a quarter of all trial-level federal judges.

The Trump administration has been so efficient at confirming judges, but its a real mistake to think that just because you appointed someone they will rule in your favor in an election case, said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Ultimately, Trumps biggest problem is his arguments are so shaky that it is hard to find a sympathetic judge, Levinson said.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Grant McCool

Don’t Miss: Who Were The Republicans That Voted For Obamacare

Democrats Can Thank Themselves For Paving The Way Towards This Milestone

Democrats changed rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold , unintentionally clearing the way for the onslaught of conservative judges following the election of Mr. Trump. The day of the 2013 showdown, Mr. McConnell warned Democrats they would regret the move someday soon. Watching Judge Walker step one rung below the Supreme Court, many Democrats probably now concede that Mr. McConnell was right.

Sen. Chuck Schumer lamented Tuesday the Democrats move to diminish the number of senators needed to confirm Cabinet picks from 60 votes to 51, because the new rule now hurts his party.

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET :n 2013, out of desperation, I came to this floor and voted to change the rules I have said on this floor before that that is the worst vote I have taken as a Senator I share some of the responsibility for where we find ourselves today. The majority leader said at that time: Youre going to come to regret this decision. And I will say this about him: He was right.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR :I wouldve liked to see 60 votes, no matter what the judge is. I dont think we shouldve made that change, when we look back at it.

Judicial Appointment History For United States Federal Courts

How Trump is winning the race to reshape the nation’s courts

The appointment of federal judges for United States federal courts has come to be viewed as a political process in the last several decades. The tables below provide the composition of all Article III courts which include the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals at the end of each four year presidential term, as well as the current compositions of the District Courts and the Court of International Trade, categorizing the judges by the presidential term during which they were first appointed to their seats.

Don’t Miss: How Many Republicans Are In The House Of Representatives 2012

Appointments And Percentage Of Seats Filled

Trumps and his supporters claim of a record number of judicial appointments is largely true. Table 1 displays his numbers against those of predecessors back to the Kennedy-Johnson administration, as of late January of the fourth year of each presidencys first term. Trump has appointed more court of appeals judges than any predecessor, although Carter comes close, and more judges overall than anyone but Carter, although Clinton comes close.

In how he compares himself to his predecessors, however, Trump doesnt stop with raw numbers. He also claims that percentage-wise, I blow everybody away except one person . . . George Washington. Translation: Ive filled a greater percentage of statutory judgeships than all my predecessors except the one who filled all the judgeships created by the first Congress. Not so: Table 1 shows that at this point, the 21% of statutory judgeships he has filled ranks behind Kennedy-Johnson and Nixon, Carter, and Clinton.

Table 1: Judicial Appointments, Late January, Fourth Year of First Term*

Court of Appeals

45% 1%

When Trump took office, Republican-appointed circuit judges occupied 40% of the 179 statutory judgeships. Today they occupy 54%.

How Republicans Have Packed The Courts For Years

Jackie CalmesTimesDissent: The Radicalization of the Republican Party and Its Capture of the Court

While Republicans lately have been attacking Democrats for plotting to pack the federal courts with like-minded judges, their party has been doing it for years.

Through bare-knuckle tactics in the Senate, an animated base of voters and an institutionalized and well-funded pipeline for judges, Republicans have stocked the federal bench at all levels with conservatives who share the rights support for whacking at the wall between church and state and at the powers of federal regulatory agencies, banning abortion and expanding gun rights.

Republicans ruthless success in the judicial wars is most evident on the highest court in the land. As the Supreme Court with its new 6-3 conservative majority ends its term this month, the question for court-watchers isnt whether it will rule in a conservative way. Its how far-reaching will those rulings be.

The courts bent was perhaps most evident in its decision last month to review a Mississippi law generally barring abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, after two lower courts ruled the statute plainly violated Supreme Court precedents that the Constitution protects a womans right to have an abortion until a fetus is viable. The case will be decided in the courts next term that starts in October.

You May Like: What Major Cities Are Run By Republicans

Court Of Appeals Judges

Court of Appeals judges, also known as circuit judges, sit in one of the 12 regional circuits across the United States, or the Federal Circuit. They usually sit in a panel of three judges and determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the district court, also known as trial court, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies and some original proceedings filed directly with the courts of appeals.

Learn more about the court of appeals from the following resources:

Appellate Cases

What About The District Courts

The federal district courts, with their 673 statutorily authorized judgeships, are in many ways the backbone of the federal judicial system. Full-blown trials are now rare, but district judges decide motions to dispose of cases without trial, and oversee the pretrial processes in which cases get resolved.

Filling district vacancies is the priority of many lawyers and those whom they representcommercial interests, law enforcement officials, criminal defendants, civil rights advocates and others. The Trump administration and its Senate allies, however, have given top priority to filling appellate vacancies, perhaps on the somewhat shaky view that the appellate courts make law that binds all judges in the respective circuits.

Trump inherited large numbers of circuit and district vacancies, thanks in large part to Senate Republicans unprecedentedly miniscule number of confirmations in the final two years of the Obama presidency. Table 5 shows vacancies during presidencies from Reagan to Trumpthose in January of the first year and those in January of the fourth yearand the percentage increase or decrease.

Table 5: Vacancies on Inauguration Day and in early January, Fourth;Year, First Term

Court of appeals vacancies in January: District Court vacancies in January: First year 18 -40%

Don’t Miss: Who Raises Taxes More Democrats Or Republicans

Just Last Week The Senate Confirmed Judge Justin Walker To The Dc Circuit Court Of Appeals

On Thursday, the Senate confirmed the 52nd federal appeals court judge of the Trump era to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit commonly known as the second most important court in the land The outcome was particularly sweet for Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, since the courts newest member is 38-year-old Justin Walker, a native of Mr. McConnells hometown, Louisville, whom the senator first met when Mr. Walker interviewed him for a high school research paper. Mr. McConnell personally lobbied President Trump to choose Judge Walker, a former intern in his office, for the powerful job.

Walkers nomination also underscores the influence of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on the conservative transformation of the federal judiciary under Trump

From Fringe To Mainstream

Mr. Trump has staked his presidency on upending conventions, and his approach to the judiciary breaks sharply with that of past presidents.

He unapologetically views judges as agents of the presidents who appointed them , for instance, for ruling against the Trump administration in an immigration case. He frequently attributes his popularity among Republicans to his judicial appointments. And he has not been shy about politicizing the process.

95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party, he wrote . Thank you! 191 Federal Judges , and two Supreme Court Justices, approved. Best Economy & Employment Numbers EVER. Thank you to our great New, Smart and Nimble REPUBLICAN PARTY. Join now, its where people want to be!

In his State of the Union address in February, he bragged about his judicial appointments, promising, We have many in the pipeline. A week later, the Senate approved his 51st nominee to the appeals bench; 41 others now await votes for the lower courts.

While federal judges of all stripes take an oath of impartiality and reject the notion that they do a presidents bidding Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recently described an independent judiciary as a key source of national unity and stability the examination by The Times shows that the Trump administration has filled the appellate courts with formidable allies who fought for a range of issues important to Republicans.

You May Like: Did Republicans Win The House And Senate

How Trumps Judges Will Change America

In an age of legislative dysfunction, whoever controls the courts controls the country. In the past decade or so or more precisely, since Republicans took over the House in 2011 Congress has been barely functional. You can count on one hand, and possibly on just a few fingers,the major legislation it has enacted.

Judges, by contrast, have become the most consequential policymakers in the nation. They have gutted Americas campaign finance law and dismantled much of the Voting Rights Act. They have allowed states to deny health coverage to millions of Americans. Theyve held that religion can be wielded as a sword to cut away the rights of others. Theyve drastically watered down the federal ban on sexual harassment. And that barely scratches the surface.

The judiciary is where policy is made in the United States. And that policy is likely to be made by Republican judges for the foreseeable future.

And thats not all.In the coming months, the courts are poisedto gut abortion rights, eviscerate gun control, and neuterlandmark environmental laws. Federal judges have already stripped workers of their ability to assert many of their rights against their employers, and this process is likely to accelerate in the near future. Many of our voting rights lie in tatters, due to conservative judicial appointments, and this process is likely to accelerate as well.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-federal-judges-are-republicans/

[keywestlou]

VICTORIA'S SECRET REBRANDING ITSELF

Victoria’s Secret is rebranding itself. A total make over in the works. Am image change.

The decision to rebrand occurred 2 years ago. Its image at the time snappy lingerie with enormous wings. I must have missed something. I recall the lingerie. The wings part eludes me.

Goodbye “Angels.” Hello “What Women Want.”

Notice the market sought will be all for the ladies, nothing for the men. A total reversal.

The new image is described as a group of Seven Ambassadors called the “U.S. Collective,” who are known for their advocacy work in gender equality and body positivity, and who represent a wider range of body types and a sexual gender identification.”

CEO Martin Williams in a short statement described the change as “a dramatic shift for our brand and it’s a shift that we embrace from our core.” The old Victoria’s Secret has been “promoting dated ideas of femininity and that its collections were made for a narrow range of body types.”

It’s all in the money.

In 2015, Victoria’s Secret had 32 percent of the U.S. women’s intimate apparel market. The number was down to 19 percent in 2020.

Last year, Victoria’s Secret was forced to close 25 percent of its stores. Already through 2021, it has closed a significant number of additional stores.

Victoria’s Secret believes there will be a new sexual acceptance regarding the change.

The decision to change came instantly in 2018. Ed Rizek, the Chef Marketing Officer for L Brands that owns Victoria’s Secret, committed a faux pas. He misspoke and brought the ladies tumbling down on him.

The issue was the use of the term “transsexuals.” He said he did not think transsexuals should be included in Victoria’s Secret annual show.

“Transsexual” is considered an outdated term  and deemed offensive by many in the LGBT community.

Victoria Secret’s last show was in 2018, the same year the comment was made. The show drew only 3 million viewers compared to 9.7 million five yeas earlier in 2013.

The handwriting was on the wall. Change or die! Hopefully the change would not be too late.

Victoria’s Secret is moving rapidly to effect the change. It is quick to point out it has hired its first transgender model Valentine Sampaio.

The issue/challenge facing Victoria’s Secret is whether what it is doing to effect the change is too little, too late. Will the new market of women it hopes to attract be there for them?

Time will tell.

I am totally unaware what the new lingerie will look like. I saw what is being abandoned, as I have for years. However no photos of the new.

Trump has had some pretty whacky attorneys along the way. Many times in the past two years, I made the observation Trump’s attorneys were way out of line in the voting ballot cases. They were using the law improperly. Even the facts. Breaking all kinds of judicial rules. Saying and writing things without legal foundation.

I mentioned each time that lawyers cannot get away with such actions. The federal law provides sanctions which can be imposed on recalcitrant attorneys.

The sanctions are in the form of money. The judge sets the amount. The bigger the sin, the higher the dollar penalty.

One of Trump’s leading attorneys was Sidney Powell.  A radical lawyer. Everything comes out of her mouth.

She and other  attorneys who defended Trump’s claims re the 2020 election have been summoned for a sanctions hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker in Detroit on July 6.

Finally!

I will be shocked if the sanctions are not huge. Shockingly so. I suspect in the six figures. Anywhere from $100,000 to $1 million.

The Arizona audit has taken another wild turn. Voter data has been transported to a “secret” laboratory in Montana “to be forensically valuated.”

Excuse the use of the vernacular, but what the hell  is going on? Ballots cannot be moved willy nilly from one state to another.

The Arizona audit continues to be pure insanity. Especially when no fraud/wrongdoing came to light in the previous Arizona audits.

Something has to be done to stop this charade. Other states seeing no steps being taken to stop the Arizona audit are going to believe they have the right to do it also. When no one has the right under the Arizona circumstances. No way anyone is going to legally remove Biden from the Presidency.

This is Key West Carnival weekend. Key West’s Juneteenth Celebration. Today’s events include a 4 pm costume parade through Old Town and a 7 pm concert at the Amphitheater.

I have already decided what I am doing this evening. Rather than say I am gong out and then stay in, I have resolved my evening situation this morning.

I will remain home, order a pizza in, and watch the U.S. Open.

Guaranteed.

Enjoy your day!

VICTORIA’S SECRET REBRANDING ITSELF was originally published on Key West Lou

[opedguy]

Republicans Join Texas Long-Shot Suit

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Dec. 11, 2020.--Joining 57-year-old Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton’s lawsuit in the Supreme Court, 120 out of the 196 Republicans members of Congress put their names on an amicus brief in support of Paxton’s effort to toss out Electoral votes from the Nov. 3 presidential election.  Viewed as a “Hail Mary” most legal experts, other than the most partisan backers of 74-year-old President Donald Trump, Paxton’s lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to nullify the vote in battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia, all sealed the election for 78-year-old President-elect Joe Biden.  Paxton’s suit claims that swing state election officials violated their own rules, counting thousands of ballots that would have been excluded for Biden.  Paxton asks the Supreme Court for injunctive relief blocking the battleground states from certifying election results to the Electoral College slated to meet Dec. 14.    

         Members of the Trump administration have claimed election fraud, both in terms of state election officials deviating from state rules but also producing unspecified numbers of ballots without proper verification.  When Trump’s legal team presented evidence of  fraud to U.S. District Courts in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, not one court found the evidence compelling enough to change the vote or call for a an audit.  Paxton’s suit was crafted by Chapman University constitutional law professor John Eastman who contends that fraud in the battleground states disenfranchised Texas voters.  Eastman claims in his suit that swing state election officials covered their tracks well enough to make election fraud claims impossible to prove.  Chapman contends that it’s not necessary to show fraud, only that swing state election officials violated their own rules.       

      Biden’s supporters insist that without proof of fraud, Paxton has no claim in the Supreme Court, regardless of how swing state election officials handled the ballots.  Whether admitted to or not by Paxton and other GOP officials, the Supreme Court isn’t likely to review Paxton’s claims because the court has no way to verify irregular ballots counted by swing state election officials.  It’s one thing to allege fraud or illegal activity, still another to prove that anything irregular went on.  Paxton’s suit makes the claim that swing state election officials deviated from their own rules when collecting-and-counting mail-in ballots.   Pennsylvania Atty. Gen. Josh Shapiro called any attempt to overturn the Nov. 3 vote “seditious,” meaning it was treason to seek verification of mail-in ballots collected-and-counted under Covid-19-era counting guidelines, overstating Republicans attempts at injunctive relief.        

         When the election results were tabulated late evening Nov. 3, Trump has a decisive lead in the battleground states, only to watch his lead evaporate the next day, allegedly due to more mail-in ballots collected.  Normal election trends don’t see such and dramatic turnaround, looking like some foul play took place.  Trump’s legal team has had a hard time proving widespread election fraud, precisely, as Eastman says, because the way in which election officials counted votes made evidence of fraud impossible.  “The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” Shapiro said.  But in saying that seeking injunctive relief in court is “seditious” is, itself, anti-American since the U.S. legal system affords aggrieved parties the right to resolve their differences in court.      

       Shapiro’s statements go too far and could easily offend justices, knowing that both sides have a right to air their grievances.  If Trump believes he was cheated out of a free-and-fair election, then he has a right to his day in court. Calling Trump’s actions “seditious” is itself “seditious” because it doesn’t account for the fact that both sides of a legal dispute have a right to be heard.  If there’s nothing to hide on either side, why are Democrats overreacting for Trump attempt to have his case heard in the Supreme Court.  Signing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court is the right of anyone that feels they need to be heard in a legal proceeding.  Democrats’ denunciations of Trump’s legal rights to reverse the Nov. 3 election shows that they want no part of any legal process that challenges the results.  Whether Trump prevails or not in the Supreme Court, he certainly has a right to file for injunctive relief.    

         Whether or not the Supreme Court takes up Paxton’s lawsuit joined by 120 Republicans members of Congress is not the point.  Aggrieved parties in the U.S. justice system are entitled to file for injunctive relief in the courts.  “We apologize to our readers for endorsing Michael Waltz in the 2020 general election in Congress.  We had no idea, had no way of know at the time, that Waltz was not committed to democracy,” said the Orlando Sentinel’s editorial board.  Since when does seeking a judicial remedy not part of U.S. democracy?  Democrats and their friends in the press have gone over the top protesting Trump’s right to seek injunctive relief in the courts.  No one really knows what happened with the millions of universal mail-in ballots.  If Republicans want to find out, how is that not democratic?  What’s against the U.S. legal system is saying someone has no right to sue in the courts.

 About the Author 

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[americanmysticom]

Former U.S. Attorney, Joe diGenova, on the Growing Evidence of Voter Fraud

“THIS ELECTION WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT, THEY PLANNED THIS A LONG TIME AGO!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MNt7R_czas&ab_channel=OneAmericaNewsNetwork

[FBI Lawfare in full view? The FBI can claim the need to be a-political and stay out of it. If they do not interfere with the Judicial Branch, and their public influence campaign through ‘leaks’ - we should wait and see how this turns out in truth.]

Visit us at: Tired of censorship from other social media platforms? Join us on Free Talk Free Talk is OANs new social platform. Users can post, chat and connect with other members. It allows Free Speech at home, on the go and anywhere in the world, No SHADOWBANNING!

https://freetalk.app

Website:

https://www.oann.com

Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/OneAmericaNe...

Twitter:

https://twitter.com/OANN

Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/one_america...

[user comments]

I'm quite sure, Australian people and others throughout the world want answers. Stay strong America. Trump 2020🇦🇺🇺🇸

The FBI isn’t useless.... THEY ARE A DANGEROUS THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW,  AND FREEDOM!!!!

God bless Joe DiGenova and OAN, real patriotic Americans 🇺🇸

Stop patronizing Fox, CNN, MSNBC ABC, CBS and so on. If they don’t have people watching, they won’t have sponsors. No sponsors, no money and they won’t be able to spread their lies.

FBI is a joke. They send how many agents to look into some fake noose nonsense but will not investigate the biggest election crime in this country?

The biggest virus out there is called Democrats and the fake media!!!!!

There is no way the American people will accept corrupt Biden as their president.. we will never be communists!!!!

The haters need to learn why everybody hates President Trump. It isn't so much of draining the swamp, it's their future plans for America.

FBI, ATF, DEA are just weaponized tyrants and should be eliminated.

President Trump won, MAGA

boycott all the fake news outlets they will all go under

This brave Man is our real American Hero. Such a patriot.

Deliberate violations as not allowing observers. Should be an automatic forfeiter of the violating party.

The FBI didn't have a problem investigating Bubba Wallace and his fake noose.

Pelosi has been trying for over 4 years to expel President Trump from the WH.  This is a no brainer.

MSM are simply communists.

We got to get to the bottom of this if we don't America's going down

this is the crime comited, and no observers this is a false elextion. A BIG CUE.

Get Ready for War I hope they know they're not going to steal this country out from under us

The illegal ballots were probably dropped off by fbi trucks!

[thisdaynews]

US Election: Joe Biden Delivers ‘Victory Speech’ As Trump Fumes Over Electoral Fraud

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/us-election-joe-biden-delivers-victory-speech-as-trump-fumes-over-electoral-fraud/

US Election: Joe Biden Delivers ‘Victory Speech’ As Trump Fumes Over Electoral Fraud

Democratic candidate Joe Biden got closer to the gates of the White House on Wednesday after victories in two key states against Donald Trump, who for his part engaged in a real judicial guerrilla war.

With Wisconsin and Michigan in his pocket, second and third states taken from Donald Trump with Arizona, Joe Biden now has 264 voters. If he wins Nevada (6), he would reach the magic number of 270 to become the 46th President of the United States.

However, while reacting to his victory, Joe has hit out at Donald Trump’s inflammatory and unfounded suggestions of voter fraud in the US election.

The Democratic candidate did so during his latest speech, in which he confirmed that his campaign was feeling very confident about their chances of winning the presidency.

Striking a presidential tone, Mr Biden also claimed he had made gains in key swing states, Wisconsin and Michigan, and with a veiled swipe, pointed out they were better than President Trump’s 2016 result.

He said: “My fellow Americans, yesterday once again proved that democracy is the heartbeat of this nation, just as it has been the heartbeat of this nation for two centuries.

“And even in the face of the pandemic, more Americans voted in this election than ever before in American history.

“Over 150 million people cast their votes, I think that’s just extraordinary.

“And if we had any doubts, we shouldn’t have any longer, about a government of, by and for the people is very much alive, very much alive in America.

Mr Biden continued: “Here, the people rule. Power can’t be taken or asserted. It flows from the people and it’s their will that determines who will be the president of the United States, and their will alone.

“Now, after a long night of counting, it’s clear that we’re winning enough states to reach 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

“I’m not here to declare that we’ve won, but I’m here to report that when the count is finished, we believe that we’ll be the winners.

“Of all the votes counted, we have won Wisconsin by 20,000 votes, virtually the same margin that President Trump won that state four years ago.”

you can watch his victory speech below.

I’m confident that we will emerge victorious. But this will not be my victory alone. It will be a victory for the American people. pic.twitter.com/ZqJBVsQuQf

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) November 5, 2020

[news-monda]

[political-fluffle]

Using internal emails, sworn testimony, and other documents, Snopes was able to break down exactly how the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) worked to “generate, create, organize and weaponize” misleading narratives. “PILF, founded by Adams in 2012 as the “ActRight Legal Foundation,” is a purportedly nonpartisan 501©(3) organization providing, they told the IRS in 2018, “services and representation to states and election officials, non-profit organizations, and individuals, to assist them with the exercise of their civil and constitutional rights, with particular focus on voting rights.” PILF, alongside groups like Judicial Watch, True the Vote, and The Honest Elections Project, belongs to a coterie of nonprofits frequently cited as influential and well-heeled conservative organizations involved in challenging the expansion of mail-in voting in the 2020 election. Each of these organizations is well-connected to the others from financial and personnel standpoints, and all are united by calls for stricter voter ID laws. (…) From a nuts-and-bolts perspective, a large portion of PILF’s legal work begins by threatening to sue various state and county election officials or boards for access to their voter rolls — official documents listing valid voter registrations in a jurisdiction. They are able to make these legal threats under a provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that requires administrators “make available for public inspection … all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.” Next, PILF highlights problems — real or perceived — on the voter roll data. These “findings” often fit into a few tried-and-true tropes that get significant viral play on social media. Even though PILF does not always explicitly claim it has discovered fraud in its news releases, PILF representatives or other media outlets often promote the reports as evidence of either voter fraud or the potential for voter fraud. Common tropes have included: “more people registered than alive,” “dead people on the voter rolls,” and “noncitizens on the voter rolls.” Voter rolls, in effect, are massive spreadsheets that attempt to keep up with citizens in a jurisdiction who may move often or may not respond to election mailers. Cleaning up the rolls is not bad, but doing so with a haphazard process can lead to disenfranchisement of legal U.S. citizens, explained Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s civil rights division and a professor at Loyola Law School. (…) Claims of impropriety, fraud, and subterfuge leveled across both sides of the aisle will likely come in the run-up to, and aftermath of, the 2020 general election. If and when those claims originate from a group whose research and communications director considers “confusion” and “fog of war” acceptable outcomes of their “non-partisan” analysis, skepticism is more than warranted.

[news-sein]

[news-lisaar]

[minnesotaprelawland]

COVID-19 AND VOTE-BY-MAIL

By Farhin Sayeed, University of Minnesota Twin-Cities Class of 2021

June 13, 2020

The state of California has arguably been at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of May 29th, 2020, California has almost 104,000 total cases and over 4,000 deaths (1), placing the west coast state within the top5 states being hit the hardest by the virus (2). This public health situation along with California being the most populous state in the country has caused its state government to have much difficulty trying to keep regular state protocols functioning properly.

Governor Gavin Newsom and his administration have taken strict measures to curb the spread of the virus, beginning with his declaration of a State of Emergency on March 4th, 2020. He then subsequently ordered the first statewide Stay-At-Home order in the nation on March 19th, 2020. On May 8th, 2020, Governor Newsom declared that California had entered Phase 2 of 4 of  its processes of opening the state back up again. The same day,Governor Newsom made the controversial  announcement that due to the current State of Emergency he declared two months prior, he would be issuing Executive Order N-64-20 in order to help continue combating COVID-19.

EXECUTIVE ORDER N-64-20

Executive Order N-64-20 is twofold. First, it “orders the automatic distribution of vote-by-mail ballots for the November 3, 2020 general election to every person registered to vote in California.” (5) Second, “…Executive Order N-64-20 claims to give Governor Newsom the discretionary power to decide whether and how in-person voting will be made available for the November election, and how other details of the November election will be implemented.” (5)

Secretary of State Alex Padilla, the chief elections officer of California, issued the statement that "California will not force voters to choose between protecting their health and exercising their right to vote," (3) shortly after Governor Newsom’s order.

This “vote-by-mail” order hold great precedential value because a vote-by-mail ballot system for an election that automatically distributes ballots to every single registered voter has virtually never been done before. Moreover, the second part of executive order N-64-20 grants Governor Newsom broad authority to change and control the electoral process. Which is especially controversial due to the fact that he would gain this power during a general election.Therefore, how he exercises this power could potentially have a large effect on the outcome of various influential elections. This is something that Republicans fear greatly because it could swing an election in the favor of Democrats, the party Governor Newsom and his administration aligns with.

The plethora of dangerous possible consequences, constitutional violations, and partisanship of Executive Order N-64-20are the basis for the lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and the California Republican Party (CRP) on May 24th, 2020, against Governor Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Alex Padilla. The 27-page suit encompasses a vast amount of arguments and evidence that the GOP groups believe will be enough to convince the United States District Court of the Eastern District of California to pass judgement in their favor, declare the vote-by-mail order unconstitutional, and block Executive Order N-64-20. (For the purposes of this article, “vote-by-mail” order and Executive Order N-64-20 are synonymous)

RNC V. NEWSOM

VOTER FRAUD

The suit begins with the dangers of shifting to by-mail voting without the proper safeguards in place. From the get-go, it is evident that the GOP groups heavily disfavor this form of voting but do emphasize how it can be done with necessary measures to prevent voter fraud, which they view as the ultimate threat to the right to vote.

The plaintiffs cite The Commission on Federal Election Reform, a bipartisan commission chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and James Baker, which the Supreme Court has referenced often. The commission explains that absentee voting is the “largest source of potential voter fraud.”  Moreover, the GOP groups draw upon one specific quote from a federal court decision in the form of an interesting simile in order to further their assertion that vote-by-mail methods invite fraud. “absentee voting is to voting in person as a take-home exam is to a proctored one.” Griffin v. Roupas, 385 F.3d 1128, 1131 (7th Cir. 2004).

Although absentee voting methods are not a new phenomenon because certain states, counties, and cities have used it in addition to in-person voting, its use in the past has brought the method’s vulnerabilities to light. These vulnerabilities include ballots being mailed to the wrong address, ballot interception, voter intimidation, and even vote buying schemes. The daunting factor that these weaknesses share is that they are all extremely difficult to detect by the proper authorities. Thus, they do pose a real risk. The troubles of these risks have been seen in places that employed by-mail voting like Clark County, Nevada. Within the first week of voting, photos arose that showed many ballots “tossed in trash cans and littering apartment mailbox areas.” (5) In New Jersey, a city council election noticed that “hundreds of mail-in ballots were collected from single mailboxes. In one case, 366 ballots were picked up from the same mailbox.”(5)

The suit also warns of the fraudulent act of “Ballot Harvesting” which is the practice of having someone who is neither the voter or election official collect a voter’s ballot and to bring it to a polling location. This third party can collect however many ballots they want and are usually volunteers or campaign workers who aim to ease the voting process for people. Although at face-value ballot harvesting may seem like a noble task to complete for your fellow citizen, the GOP groups argue that “Ballot harvesting gives third parties who may be completely unknown to both the voter and election officials the opportunity to potentially tamper with absentee ballots” in any one of a number of ways. (Morley, Redlines 5.) For instance, “[h]arvesters may pressure voters into giving them blank ballots or casting their votes a certain way,” or, “[w]hen a voter has voted for the ‘wrong’ candidate, the harvester may surreptitiously change the vote, include additional votes to void the ballot, or simply dispose of the ballot rather than returning it.”(5) For these reasons, the GOP groups argue that Executive order N-64-20 would be valid only if proper safeguards against the obvious dangers of vote-by-mail and the threat of ballot harvesting were in place. One safeguard the plaintiffs propose is to only mail ballots to active voters, active voters are typically defined as registered voters who have voted recently and do not give election officials reason to think that they have moved. Another necessary measure could be the requirement of a witness signature or other identifying information for a ballot.

OUTDATED AND INNACCURATE VOTER REGISTRATION DATABASES

The RNC, NRCC, and CRP stress that these types of safeguards are extremely necessary because of the outdated and inaccurate nature of voter registration databases in the country. A 2012 study conducted by the Pew Center on the States concluded that ““[a]pproximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate”; “[m]ore than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters”; and “[a]pproximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.”

California in particular has a questionable track record with keeping their voter registration databases updated and accurate,which is why the GOP groups’ suit addresses this heavily. “In early 2019, the State and the County of Los Angeles were forced to settle a lawsuit after Judicial Watch exposed that L.A. County had on its voter rolls more than 1.5 million potentially ineligible voters—meaning that “more than one out of every five LA County registrations likely belong[ed] to a voter who has moved or is deceased.” (5)

Furthermore, according to Election Integrity Project California, 13 California counties have more registered voters than eligible citizens. California also passed Assembly Bill 1921 in 2016, which made it legal for anyone to collect and turn in an absentee ballot for another person. The instant court could see this piece of legislation as another avenue of voter fraud because the plaintiffs will likely argue thatAB 1921 increases the risk of ballot harvesting. One peculiar instance the plaintiffs use as evidence for California’s weak voter registration network is how one resident was able to continuously register his 4 dogs and deceased fatherwithout detection for almost a decade. Although it is not easy to maintain an errorless voter registration database, especially for a state with almost 40 million people, the US District Court of the Eastern District of California will likely take these factors into consideration.

VOTE BY MAIL LEGISLATION

Current vote-by-mail laws do exist in California. Of these laws, two in particular are referenced in the lawsuit in order to contribute to the GOP groups’ reasoning that Executive Order N-64-20 is invalid. California Election Code section 3000-26 allows voters to vote by mail as an alternative to voting in person. The law requires an application to be submitted in order to receive a vote-by-mail ballot. The application can be submitted in written form, electronically, or by phone. Section 3000-26 also allows voters to request a permanent vote-by-mail status if the desire to continue voting with this method. The suit likely cites this election law in order to persuade the court that Governor Newsom’s vote-by-mail order possesses unnecessary elements due to the vote-by-mail system that is already in place. The other election law referenced is California Election Code section 4000-07. This Californian election law is uniquely important because any election that is conducted “wholly by mail” (5) is under its purview. “An election may be conducted wholly by mail if a local governing body authorizes it; the election is held on a statutorily specified date;and the election either involves fewer than 1,000 voters or concerns certain special tax, assessment,expenditure, or water-related issues.”(5) The GOP groups plausibly decided to include this election law in their suit to help convince the court that the restrictions in the election law were set to deter fraud. Thus, since Executive Order N-64-20 does not share these restrictions to curb fraudulent activity, it must be stuck down.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS

Section 5 of the lawsuit raises important federal and state election constitutional concerns. These constitutional claims could play a large role in the court’s decision because a violation, especially one that violates the federal constitution, would give much reason to the court to decide against Governor Newsom and Secretary of State Padilla. The central federal constitutional claim regards the Elections Clause in article 1, section 4. “The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” (LINE 97) Because the Elections Clause reserves the power to set the time, place, and manner for congressional and presidential elections to the state legislature, the GOP groups assert that a state executive like Governor Newsom cannot exercise that power, especially if it conflicts with existing legislation. The state constitutional claims lie in the California Constitution and  expand on the arguments against allowing the governor to alter legislation. Article 2, section 4 states that “[t]he Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections.” Cal. Const. Art. II, §4 (LINE 101) Again, this claim links back to the ideal that elections and their processes are matters for the legislature to decide. Next, “[T]he Governor is not empowered, by executive order or otherwise, to amend the effect of, or to qualify the operation of existing legislation.” 63 Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 583 (1980) This claim is very crucial because Governor Newsom likely knew that he would face backlash for possibly altering existent legislation by issuing Executive Order N-64-20. Which is exactly why he claimed authority for doing so by citing 3 different California statutes.

GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR EO N-64-20

·       California Government Code 8567

o   Section 8657 allows the Governor to issue “orders and regulations” that “have the force and effect of law.” The reason Governor Newsom chose to claim authority for his executive order from section 8567 is likely because executive orders usually fall under this government code. When Governors issue orders like mandatory curfews, state statutes like section 8567 are cited often. Nonetheless, the key element of section 8567that the GOP groups emphasize is “…these orders are not themselves legislation, and they cannot contradict existing legislation.” If the US District Court of Eastern District of California accepts this argument, Governor Newsom would lose considerable justification for discounting valid legislation.

·       California Government Code 8627

o   Section 8627 grants the Governor of California more broad authority by allowing him or her “…to commandeer state “agencies” and exercise the state’s “police power.” The vague nature of this statute is interesting to consider because Governor Newsom does not specify which state agencies he is commandeering and how he is doing so. Police power is arguably even more broad and vague because“In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.” (4) Clearly a Governor’s police power encompasses many features that are conditional, therefore Governor Newsom may have a difficult time proving why the exercise of his police power is necessary. Especially if he chooses to focus on the public health aspect when in-person voting centers will still remain open during the election in November.

·       California Government Code 8571

o   Section 8571 is arguably the most important statute that Governor Newsom claims authority for Executive Order N-64-20 from because section 8571 grants special powers to the governor during a State of Emergency. As previously mentioned, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency on March 4th, 2020. There is virtually no legal opposition to that declaration so arguing his justifications for it is a moottask. Thus, the court’s decision on whether Governor Newsom logically drew power from section 8571 will be critical in their overall decision. During a State of Emergency, Section 8571 allows the governor to “suspend any regulatory statute, or any statute prescribing the procedure for conduct of state business …where the Governor determines and declares that strict compliance … would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.”In simpler terms,section 8571 grants the governor the authority to suspend a regulatory statute for state business when he or she determines that abiding the statute would prolong a State of Emergency after its declaration.

8571 VIOLATIONS

The GOP groups choose to focus on section 8571 because they view the statute as one that Governor Newsom could argue in his favor well to the court. One could easily presume section 8571 is more than enough to prove that Governor Newsom had the authority to issue Executive Order N-64-20, and this is exactly why the GOP groups take a narrow approach to arguing that the vote-by-mail order exceeds the scope of section 8571 in 4 ways.

1)     First, they argue that Election laws are not regulatory statutes, do not concern the conduct of state business, and that section 8571 allows suspending procedures NOT the replacement of them.

2)     Second, Executive Order N-64-20 purports to suspend election laws in November, which is months away. Governor Newsom himself announced that California will enter phase 3 of 4 by the first week of June. The GOP groups argue that Governor Newsom clearly does not intend for California to remain under a State of Emergency by election time. Since this is the case, the GOP groups stress it is nonsensical for Governor Newsom to issue his vote-by-mail order months in advance. Any authority from section 8571 disappears if a State of Emergency does not exist.

3)     Third, the GOP groups argue that the Governors ability to “determine and declare strict compliance” of existing election laws would in turn hinder mitigation of COVID-19/the State of Emergency was exceeded. This is an important argument because it is without a doubt that the court will question the excessiveness of this action taken by the Governor because in-person voting remains an option. The court will very likely ask why in-person voting is still a choice if in-person voting would hinder the mitigation of the virus so much.

4)     Fourth and lastly, section 8571 allows the Governor to suspend state statutes NOT the state constitution. As mentioned before, the California Constitution strictly states that the legislature is in charge of the election process. Which is why the GOP groups argue that Governor Newsom cannot suspend that law because it is constitutional, not statutory.

14TH AMENDMENT

Section 6 of the suit shines light on more constitutional concerns that all regard the 14th amendment to the U.S Constitution. These concerns have the potential to be weighed very heavily because of the strong precedential value the 14th amendment holds. This amendment was enacted in 1868 during the reconstruction era after the civil war and is a pillar of how the country practices democracy through voting. The GOP groups begin addressing 14th amendment concerns by referencing the case Reynolds v. Sims. In their decision, the then-judges of the US Supreme Court stated that 14th amendment is “the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections.” Reynolds v. Sims Furthermore, the Supreme Court made the crucial point that the 14th amendment protects against voter fraud because the right to vote includes the right to have your vote counted at “full value without dilution or discount.” The GOP groups use this case law to argue that denials and practices that invite fraud, which results in the “dilution or discount” of people’s votes,violates the 14th amendment.

Obviously, no election or voting system can be 100% free of voter fraud, especially with very large elections like the upcoming presidential one in November. This is likely why the GOP groups chose to include case law from Andersen v. United States, decided in 1974. In that case’s decision the court stated when it comes to voter fraud, whether the dilution or discount of the vote is “in greater or less degree is immaterial” Andersen v. United StatesThe GOP groups including this in the suit is ample evidence that they will try to persuade the court that it does not matter if an election system cannot be free of fraudulent activity, in fact this is exactly why any form of voting that makes voter fraud more inevitable should be struck down.

EQUAL PROTECTIONS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

Lastly, the GOP groups ask the court to consider the 14th Amendment further by asserting that Executive Order N-64-20 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S constitution requires states to “avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of its electorate.” In other words, The Equal Protection Clause guarantees that every person’s vote is counted equally. Which is why in the infamous case Bush V. Gore, the US Supreme Court declared that “The use of “standardless” procedures can violate the Equal Protection Clause. Any election system that possesses procedures that do not “ensure … equal application” (Bush v. Gore) of voting could be seen as a violation of the uniform treatment required by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Governor Newsom will have to provide convincing evidence that his vote-by-mail order will count all votes equally in November.

In summary, the lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and the California Republican Party against Governor Newsom of California and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla for the issuance of Executive Order N-64-20, which requires every registered voter in California to be automatically mailed a ballot for the election in November 2020 has 4 causes of action.

·       Count I is the violation of the Elections Clause (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

·       Count II is the violation of the Electors Clause (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

·       Count III is the violation of the Right to Vote (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

·       Count IV is the violation of the Equal Protection Clause (42 U.S.C. § 1983

In addition to asking the court to decide in their favor, the GOP groups ask the court to:

·       Declare that Executive Order N-64-20 violates the Elections Clause, the Electors Clause, the 14th Amendment

·       To grant a permanent injunction prohibiting Executive Order N-64-20 from being implemented and enforced in November

·       To grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction blocking Executive Order N-64-20 from being implemented and enforced while their case is decided by the US District Court of the Eastern District of California.  

It will be extremely interesting to see how this case unfolds within the next 5 months in what has the potential to be one of the most influential presidential elections in history. Especially during a time of intense political polarization, strong civil unrest, and a global pandemic.

________________________________________________________________

Farhin Sayeed will be graduating from the University of Minnesota Twin-Cities with a degree in political science & business law this spring. He is originally from Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, loves to play guitar, enjoys skateboarding, and is an avid social activist. He plans to attend law school and obtain a dual J.D/M.P.P degree so he can possess the legal and political skills to help his fellow citizens, and eventually create his own charitable organization.

________________________________________________________________

(1)    team, S. of C. alpha.ca.gov. (n.d.). COVID19.CA.GOV. Retrieved from https://covid19.ca.gov/

(2)    The New York Times. (2020, March 3). Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html

(3)    Phillip, A. (2020, May 25). RNC sues California to halt vote-by-mail for November general election. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/24/politics/republican-national-committee-california-vote-by-mail-lawsuit/index.html

(4)    "Police Power". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2007-02-08.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6927648/RNCvNewsom.pdf