The article says this:

[quote]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court this spring affirmed the state elections commission’s guidance that it’s up to each voter to decide whether they are indefinitely confined. More than 215,000 voters this year said they were confined, which allows them to cast a ballot without having to present a photo ID. The lawsuit says more than 96,000 self-identified confined voters should not count.
[/quote]

No idea where they get 96,000 and what their logic is about them being thrown out. I don't know if they separate ballots from the envelopes they come in, so I don't know if there is anyway to know which votes should be thrown out.

It also has this:

[quote]
The lawsuit alleges that more than 14,000 ballots “requested in the name of a registered Republican by someone other than that person” were cast and that more than 12,000 “Republican ballots” were returned but not counted.
[/quote]

Where this 14,000 comes from is a mystery to me, but it assumes these ballots were returned and also assumes that the ballots that were returned had votes cast for Biden. As for "returned but not counted", I don't know where that number comes from either. If it is true, I assume there is a reason they were not counted, but this seems to be different than the "we lost them" reason. I have to believe that there are also Democratic ballots that were not counted for the same reason.

[QUOTE=chalsall;564250]But there are some systems where you can't "Throw the first one away.[/QUOTE]Example: multicellular life.

Well, you might be able to throw it away, but it would be phenomenally difficult.

[QUOTE=rogue;564357]<snip>
It also has this:
[quote]The lawsuit alleges that more than 14,000 ballots “requested in the name of a registered Republican by someone other than that person” were cast and that more than 12,000 “Republican ballots” were returned but not counted.[/quote]
Where this 14,000 comes from is a mystery to me, but it assumes these ballots were returned and also assumes that the ballots that were returned had votes cast for Biden. As for "returned but not counted", I don't know where that number comes from either. If it is true, I assume there is a reason they were not counted, but this seems to be different than the "we lost them" reason. I have to believe that there are also Democratic ballots that were not counted for the same reason.[/QUOTE]
The very next sentence in the article shows what nonsense this whole claim is:[quote]People do not register to vote by political party in Wisconsin so it is impossible to know how many Republicans or Democrats requested absentee ballots.[/quote]The "logic" is trying to stall certification. Where do they get their "data" from? That would be, "Somewhere the sun don't shine."

And yet again...
 

[url=https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-pennsylvania-mike-kelly-elections-tom-wolf-c79f3356b29a1a25ff5eabfb059f3a5c]Judge halts further vote certification; Gov. Wolf to appeal[/url][quote]
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania appeals court judge ordered state officials on Wednesday to halt any further steps toward certifying election results, a day after Gov. Tom Wolf said he had certified Democrat Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.
<snip>
Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly and others filed suit Saturday to challenge approximately 2.5 million mail-in ballots that were predominantly cast by Democrats. They said the GOP-controlled state Legislature had failed to follow proper procedure when they voted last year to expand mail-in voting. The state Supreme Court has twice this month overturned Republican challenges over election issues.[/quote]
[b]EDIT:[/b] The Pennsylvania lawsuit is based on the narrow scope of absentee voting described in Article VII of the Pennsylvania State Constitution:[quote]§ 14. Absentee voting.
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.
(b) For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.[/quote]The latest lawsuit, which would, if successful, result in the invalidation of approximately [i]two and a half million[/i] ballots, is based on the contention that the above clause does not allow the Legislature to provide for absentee voting in any other circumstances.

I note, however, that the word "shall" [i]mandates[/i] the legislature to provide for absentee voting under the stated circumstances, but the language does not [i]forbid[/i] the Legislature from providing for absentee voting in [i]other[/i] circumstances.

The law itself (2019 Act 77) has not previously been challenged as being contrary to the Pennsylvania State Constitution, though the 2020 extension of the deadline for the arrival of mail-in ballots [i]was[/i] challenged.

[b]Further edit:[/b] Governor Wolf has appealed Judge McCullough's order to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Thanks to Rick Hasen's [url=https://electionlawblog.org/]Election Law Blog[/url] we are informed of an effect of this appeal:

[quote]Pennsylvania Code, Title 210 Chapter 17:
Rule 1736. Exemption from Security.
[indent](a) General rule. -- No security shall be required of:
[indent](1) The Commonwealth or any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity.

(2) Any political subdivision or any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity, except in any case in which a common pleas court has affirmed an arbitration award in a grievance or similar personnel matter.

(3) A party acting in a representative capacity.

(4) A taxpayer appealing from a judgment entered in favor of the Commonwealth upon an account duly settled when security has already been given as required by law.

(5) An appellant who has already filed security in a lower court, conditioned as prescribed by these rules for the final outcome of the appeal.[/indent]
(b) [i]Supersedeas automatic[/i]. -- Unless otherwise ordered pursuant to this chapter the taking of an appeal by any party specified in Subdivision (a) of this rule shall operate as a [i]supersedeas[/i] in favor of such party, which supersedeas shall continue through any proceedings in the United States Supreme Court.[/indent][/quote]

"Supersedeas" means the lower court's proceedings are stayed pending review.

If the court does tosses out these votes, then it is akin to blaming the voters for not knowing that the law was unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=rogue;564465]If the court does tosses out these votes, then it is akin to blaming the voters for not knowing that the law was unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]The votes won't be tossed out. The law isn't unconstitutional. Article VII, section 14 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution says the Legislature [i]must[/i] ("shall") provide by law for absentee voting under the stated circumstances. It does [i]not[/i] say that the Legislature can provide for absentee voting [i]only[/i] in the stated circumstances, or that it [i]may not[/i] provide for absentee voting in other circumstances, as the suit contends.

The language is plain enough that it doesn't take a legal expert to interpret it. That may be why, on his Election Law Blog, Rich Hasen describes the suit as "bonkers."

If there were any merit to it, (1) such a defect would likely have been detected while the law was being written, and (2) a suit based on the theory would certainly been filed earlier.

But the fact that a judge is actually willing to listen to the arguments raises the possibility that she will agree with the plaintiffs.

[QUOTE=rogue;564472]But the fact that a judge is actually willing to listen to the arguments raises the possibility that she will agree with the plaintiffs.[/QUOTE]If she gets the chance. The appeal to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court stays her order to halt certification. And if the State Supreme Court throws the case out (as I predict it will), that's it. Unless [i]that[/i] ruling is appealed to Federal courts. Rick Hasen's [url=https://electionlawblog.org/]Election Law Blog[/url] has the following:[quote]Justin Levitt, an election law expert and professor at Loyola Law School, said that even though legal effort to overturn the election result is meritless, it is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

"It was dead a few days after the election. It's been undead since. And it's remarkably hard to kill the undead for good," he said of the campaign's legal effort. "There will probably be some continued action in the courts either until [Senate Majority Leader] [url=https://thehill.com/people/mitch-mcconnell]Mitch McConnell[/url] puts his foot down or until the fundraising dries up."[/quote]

As to why Judge McCullough -- a State Appeals Court judge -- [i]issued[/i] the injunction, it seems to be a choice between, (1) She is so ignorant and incompetent she thinks the claim has merit, and (2) She made a partisan political ruling in willful disregard of the facts and the law.

Wait -- that's not a choice, it's a dilemma.

Although in the second case the state judiciary probably has a mechanism for kicking her off the bench for violating judicial ethics. That's what happened to Judge Roy Moore. He was booted off the Alabama Supreme Court, got re-elected to the Court, and was kicked off the bench [i]again[/i]. Then lost his race for US Senate.

I don't even bother dropping into Google News anymore.

I don't care what other people are doing. I'm sorry for those who need to (or feel the need to).

Gotta confess, I watched the first post-election week of TV news (mind, you all channels, half a dozen, even OANN), flipping for 5-10 minutes apiece. It was an interesting challenge and good exercise for controlling blood pressure... Then I stopped because this has an adverse effect for acid reflux. :rolleyes:

Now I look at just one or two minutes per day in the morning and I still cannot believe my eyes sometimes. Sheesh, what an eel on the frying pan and a big bully at the same time.
[YOUTUBE]vVR2_JyVzHE[/YOUTUBE]
"you are just a lightweight"

Ouch!
 

The [url=https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/3rd-trump.pdf]Ruling[/url] in the appeal of the dismissal by US District Court Judge Brann of the PA election lawsuit in Federal Court is out.

The unanimous opinion, written by Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bibas (appointed 2017), began[quote]Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.[/quote]
And it ended
[quote]Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections. The ballots here are governed by Pennsylvania election law. No federal law requires poll watchers or specifies where they must live or how close they may stand when votes are counted. Nor does federal law govern whether to count ballots with minor state-law defects or let voters cure those defects. Those are all issues of state law, not ones that we can hear. And earlier lawsuits have rejected those claims.

Seeking to turn those state-law claims into federal ones, the Campaign claims discrimination. But its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold. The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so. The Second Amended Complaint still suffers from these core defects, so granting leave to amend would have been futile.

And there is no basis to grant the unprecedented injunction sought here. First, for the reasons already given, the Campaign is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Second, it shows no irreparable harm, offering specific challenges to many fewer ballots than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. Third, the Campaign is responsible for its delay and repetitive litigation. Finally, the public interest strongly favors finality, counting every lawful voter's vote, and not disenfranchising millions of Pennsylvania voters who voted by mail.

Plus, discarding those votes could disrupt every other election on the ballot. We will thus affirm the District Court's denial of leave to amend, and we deny an injunction pending appeal. The campaign asked for a very fast briefing schedule, and we have granted its request. Because the Campaign wants us to move as fast as possible, we also deny oral argument. We grant all motions to file overlength responses, to file amicus briefs, and to supplement appendices. We deny all other outstanding motions as moot. This Court's mandate shall issue at once.[/quote]