ahahahahahahahahahahahah *deep breath, repeat ad infinitum*

They are appealing their trio of losses in Pennsylvania to the US Supreme Court. Cases decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on November 23, November 17, and OCTOBER 23 https://twitter.com/MsMaggieMaye/status/1340747192785661954
The argument in all three cases is identical: Bush v. Gore says that you can overrule the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on issues of Pennsylvania election law
They waited until a month and a half after the election, and until after the Electors had voted, to file a petition asking SCOTUS to review.

Despite one of these cases having been decided a week and a half BEFORE the election
Let's remind everyone what those cases were.

Here's the October 23 one
Let's remind everyone what those cases were.Here's the October 23 one
Let's remind everyone what those cases were.Here's the October 23 one
It's important to note that this decision was 7-0 that the PA Election Code does not ALLOW county boards of elections to do signature matching.

No dissents. This wasn't a partisan ruling. Here's the procedural background: The Secretary of State issued guidance, Trump sued
It's important to note that this decision was 7-0 that the PA Election Code does not ALLOW county boards of elections to do signature matching.No dissents. This wasn't a partisan ruling. Here's the procedural background: The Secretary of State issued guidance, Trump sued
It's important to note that this decision was 7-0 that the PA Election Code does not ALLOW county boards of elections to do signature matching.No dissents. This wasn't a partisan ruling. Here's the procedural background: The Secretary of State issued guidance, Trump sued
It's important to note that this decision was 7-0 that the PA Election Code does not ALLOW county boards of elections to do signature matching.No dissents. This wasn't a partisan ruling. Here's the procedural background: The Secretary of State issued guidance, Trump sued
It's important to note that this decision was 7-0 that the PA Election Code does not ALLOW county boards of elections to do signature matching.No dissents. This wasn't a partisan ruling. Here's the procedural background: The Secretary of State issued guidance, Trump sued
The federal judge was thorough and demolished the Trump team's claim: there are a number of election statutes where the PA legislature expressly required signature matching; it didn't do that for absentee ballots, so there's no need for signature matching here under the code
The federal judge was thorough and demolished the Trump team's claim: there are a number of election statutes where the PA legislature expressly required signature matching; it didn't do that for absentee ballots, so there's no need for signature matching here under the code
The federal judge was thorough and demolished the Trump team's claim: there are a number of election statutes where the PA legislature expressly required signature matching; it didn't do that for absentee ballots, so there's no need for signature matching here under the code
The federal judge was thorough and demolished the Trump team's claim: there are a number of election statutes where the PA legislature expressly required signature matching; it didn't do that for absentee ballots, so there's no need for signature matching here under the code
The federal judge was thorough and demolished the Trump team's claim: there are a number of election statutes where the PA legislature expressly required signature matching; it didn't do that for absentee ballots, so there's no need for signature matching here under the code
Just before Judge Ranjan ruled, the Secretary asked the PA Supreme Court to address the same question; the PA Supreme Court is the highest court that can address questions of state law and its ruling on what state law means would be binding on federal courts (remember that, btw)
Just before Judge Ranjan ruled, the Secretary asked the PA Supreme Court to address the same question; the PA Supreme Court is the highest court that can address questions of state law and its ruling on what state law means would be binding on federal courts (remember that, btw)
Just before Judge Ranjan ruled, the Secretary asked the PA Supreme Court to address the same question; the PA Supreme Court is the highest court that can address questions of state law and its ruling on what state law means would be binding on federal courts (remember that, btw)
Gonna skip the part that summarizes the arguments of the parties and jump to the conclusion: Judge Ranjan got it right, the PA Election code, as currently drafted, does not require signature matching for absentee ballots.
Gonna skip the part that summarizes the arguments of the parties and jump to the conclusion: Judge Ranjan got it right, the PA Election code, as currently drafted, does not require signature matching for absentee ballots.
Gonna skip the part that summarizes the arguments of the parties and jump to the conclusion: Judge Ranjan got it right, the PA Election code, as currently drafted, does not require signature matching for absentee ballots.
Gonna skip the part that summarizes the arguments of the parties and jump to the conclusion: Judge Ranjan got it right, the PA Election code, as currently drafted, does not require signature matching for absentee ballots.
Gonna skip the part that summarizes the arguments of the parties and jump to the conclusion: Judge Ranjan got it right, the PA Election code, as currently drafted, does not require signature matching for absentee ballots.
Basically, the information the boards are directed to check doesn't include a signature to match against. Plus, the law USED to contain a signature comparison requirement, but it was specifically deleted.
Basically, the information the boards are directed to check doesn't include a signature to match against. Plus, the law USED to contain a signature comparison requirement, but it was specifically deleted.
Basically, the information the boards are directed to check doesn't include a signature to match against. Plus, the law USED to contain a signature comparison requirement, but it was specifically deleted.
Basically, the information the boards are directed to check doesn't include a signature to match against. Plus, the law USED to contain a signature comparison requirement, but it was specifically deleted.
Basically, the information the boards are directed to check doesn't include a signature to match against. Plus, the law USED to contain a signature comparison requirement, but it was specifically deleted.
It's important, for Bush v. Gore reasons, to understand what the PA Supreme Court is doing here. It is NOT saying "look, the legislature forgot to include X in our election law, and it's important, so we'll add it"

It's NOT saying "the legislature said X, but the PA Constitution
doesn't allow X"

It is simply and straightforwardly saying "this is what the election code passed by the Legislature requires or permits"

No more, no less. That is a State Supreme Court's job, and SCOTUS *cannot* overrule it on the interpretation of the election code.
OK, that's the first decision. How about the second one? This is the 11/17 decision that torpedoed Giuliani at the federal case, finding that PA law didn't require that election observers be particularly close to the actual counts
This one was decided 5-2, where the 2 dissents (Saylor and Mundy, the Republican Justices) would have found the case moot (because the parties had signed a consent order) & specifically wrote "OF COURSE no ballots would be thrown out even if the observers should have been closer"
Again, this was a straight question of statutory interpretation: What does the Pennsylvania Election Code require for placement of "Election Watchers"? There was no "Constitutional Override" involved at all.

Read these excerpts carefully.
Again, this was a straight question of statutory interpretation: What does the Pennsylvania Election Code require for placement of "Election Watchers"? There was no "Constitutional Override" involved at all.Read these excerpts carefully.
Again, this was a straight question of statutory interpretation: What does the Pennsylvania Election Code require for placement of "Election Watchers"? There was no "Constitutional Override" involved at all.Read these excerpts carefully.
Again, this was a straight question of statutory interpretation: What does the Pennsylvania Election Code require for placement of "Election Watchers"? There was no "Constitutional Override" involved at all.Read these excerpts carefully.
Look, we'll get to this when I start reading the Petition (haven't done it yet), but the takeaway here is that the odds SCOTUS reverses these decisions are asymptotically approaching zero. Is it *theoretically possible* that Gorsuch and Thomas will have simultaneous aneurysms,
strip themselves naked, paint eldritch symbols all over their bodies and run into the streets dancing and screaming "textualism and federalism were lies!"? I guess. But that's essentially what the Trump campaign is asking SCOTUS to do:
not just rule that a State Supreme Court misinterpreted State Law, but that it violated the "plenary power of the legislature" by *expressly refusing to rewrite the statutes to include requirements the legislature did not*
This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of a potentially viable Bush v. Gore claim (and remember, this whole theory of "legislative power in elections is unrestricted by the state constitution" is NOT the law; it's the argument of 3 judges in a prior case, not a majority of the court)
To call this argument dead on arrival is to vastly undersell exactly HOW dead it is. We're talking stillborn, then nuked from orbit, then the ashes were gathered and buried, then an earthquake swallowed the cemetery ... and that all happened 250 years ago.
Or, to quote the master: it is an ex-parrot. It has ceased to be!
OK, case number 3: This is the 4-3 decision of the PA Supreme Court that determined which of the requirements on the envelope were mandatory and which merely directory (i.e. the legislature wanted them there, but their absence doesn't render them void)
Basically, the PA Election Code is written knowing it will be broadly construed, and the legislature didn't even require names or addresses; that was the Secretary. So that can't be mandatory.
Basically, the PA Election Code is written knowing it will be broadly construed, and the legislature didn't even require names or addresses; that was the Secretary. So that can't be mandatory.
Basically, the PA Election Code is written knowing it will be broadly construed, and the legislature didn't even require names or addresses; that was the Secretary. So that can't be mandatory.
Basically, the PA Election Code is written knowing it will be broadly construed, and the legislature didn't even require names or addresses; that was the Secretary. So that can't be mandatory.
Basically, the PA Election Code is written knowing it will be broadly construed, and the legislature didn't even require names or addresses; that was the Secretary. So that can't be mandatory.
As you can tell from the discussion (and the vote split), this is a closer textual question. But again, SCOTUS doesn't review state court interpretations of state laws. And SCOTUS will NOT have any appetite to says "cancel the votes because the name and address were preprinted"
As you can tell from the discussion (and the vote split), this is a closer textual question. But again, SCOTUS doesn't review state court interpretations of state laws. And SCOTUS will NOT have any appetite to says "cancel the votes because the name and address were preprinted"
As you can tell from the discussion (and the vote split), this is a closer textual question. But again, SCOTUS doesn't review state court interpretations of state laws. And SCOTUS will NOT have any appetite to says "cancel the votes because the name and address were preprinted"
As you can tell from the discussion (and the vote split), this is a closer textual question. But again, SCOTUS doesn't review state court interpretations of state laws. And SCOTUS will NOT have any appetite to says "cancel the votes because the name and address were preprinted"
As you can tell from the discussion (and the vote split), this is a closer textual question. But again, SCOTUS doesn't review state court interpretations of state laws. And SCOTUS will NOT have any appetite to says "cancel the votes because the name and address were preprinted"
There's a similar discussion of whether the "date" requirement is mandatory; the court concludes that since the ballot has to be received by election day anyway, the date on the declaration can't possibly be critical information
OK, with that background in mind, let's take a look at the Petition for Cert itself
Oh, come the hell on
They open with an intro of "look, there are issues in a whole bunch of states", citing the Texas case the Court just kicked (bold move) and then this abomination
"A highly partisan administration official wrote a long-form blog about this" is NOT something you cite to the Supreme Court.

And yes, that's basically what Navarro's "paper" is
They then start with "Absentee ballots are bad (oh, the PA state legislature allowed them anyway)", along with footnote 7, which is the SINGLE WORST Footnote I've ever seen.
They then start with "Absentee ballots are bad (oh, the PA state legislature allowed them anyway)", along with footnote 7, which is the SINGLE WORST Footnote I've ever seen.
They then start with "Absentee ballots are bad (oh, the PA state legislature allowed them anyway)", along with footnote 7, which is the SINGLE WORST Footnote I've ever seen.
Seriously. Worse than "See Ex. ____"

I can't believe they did this
Your ENTIRE argument in this case is "the state supreme court has to be reversed because its interpretation is at odds with the 'real' meaning of the statutes, and the Legislature's authority is plenary, so that's unconstitutional"

How do you just casually drop this in?
Your ENTIRE argument in this case is "the state supreme court has to be reversed because its interpretation is at odds with the 'real' meaning of the statutes, and the Legislature's authority is plenary, so that's unconstitutional"How do you just casually drop this in?
Your ENTIRE argument in this case is "the state supreme court has to be reversed because its interpretation is at odds with the 'real' meaning of the statutes, and the Legislature's authority is plenary, so that's unconstitutional"How do you just casually drop this in?
"Your Honors, the state legislature's authority is so plenary that their decision to allow absentee voting may be invalid under the state constitution"

Did they hit their heads while they were drafting this??
Well ... this is bold bold take, considering that out of 8 judges to consider the argument that the law required signature verification, ALL 8 said "uh ... no, the law is crystal clear that it doesn't"
Also, the reference to the state's "elected Supreme Court" is going to go over like a lead fucking balloon. The Justices of the Supreme Court are not going to appreciate you taking shots at the integrity of PA's judges, and it's too easy to point out that this was cross-partisan
So this is both stupid in a general tactical sense and in the very specific "this argument can't possibly help you on these facts, anyway" sense
Oops - thread continues here https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1340774551723139072
You can follow @AkivaMCohen.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.