Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
NEW - YES! Marc Elias and DemocracyDocket have filed to intervene in GOP suit in PA!
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/2020-11-11-40-DNCs-Br.-in-Support-of-Mot.-to-Intervene.pdfII. BACKGROUND
On the same day that Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. was declared the
winner of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes, President Trump’s personal attorney
announced the Trump Campaign’s intention to sue to invalidate hundreds of
thousands of Pennsylvanians’ votes based on demonstrably false allegations that
Trump Campaign representatives were not permitted to observe the review and
counting of absentee and mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania. This lawsuit followed two
days later. Plaintiffs, the Trump Campaign and two individual voters, assert
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Equal Protection
Clause, the Electors and Elections Clauses, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that some
County Boards of Elections counted ballots without the presence of poll watchers;
those who observed the counting of ballots were not permitted to scrutinize each
individual absentee or mail-in ballot envelope; and voters who reside in the
Defendant Counties were allegedly treated differently than qualified electors in other
parts of the state. Compl. ¶¶ 159-243. These claims have no basis in law or fact.
Plaintiffs seek to invalidate ballots based on a non-existent right of Trump
Campaign representatives to review individual absentee and mail-in ballots. The
remedy sought is dramatic and extends to all ballots cast in Pennsylvania—upwards
of 6.75 million votes—including those cast in-person. But just as in the recently dismissed case, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Philadelphia County, No. 20-
Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB Document 40 Filed 11/11/20 Page 4 of 15
- 4 -
05533 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2020), the Trump Campaign once again fails to identify any
cognizable injury under federal or state law. There is still no constitutional right to
poll watch, so the Trump Campaign is not injured by state law setting forth the
parameters for authorized individuals to observe the review and counting of absentee
and mail-in ballots. Moreover, such ballots were counted with poll watchers from
the Trump Campaign present. And Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding allegedly
disparate treatment reflect nothing more than counties lawfully following the
Secretary’s guidance allowing eligible voters to cast provisional ballots if their
“mail-in or absentee ballot was rejected for a reason unrelated to the voter’s
qualifications.” Pa. Dep’t of State, Pennsylvania Provisional Voting Guidance,
(Oct. 21, 2020), https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Do
cuments/PADOS_ProvisionalBallots_guidance_1.0.pdf. Plaintiffs’ requested
remedy—setting aside at least 6.75 million ballots, or in the alternative, “only” more
than 680,000 ballots—not only violates state law, it obliterates the constitutional
rights of voters and candidates and improperly inserts this Court into issues of state
law and election administration minutia.
III. ARGUMENT
On the same day that Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. was declared the
winner of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes, President Trump’s personal attorney
announced the Trump Campaign’s intention to sue to invalidate hundreds of
thousands of Pennsylvanians’ votes based on demonstrably false allegations that
Trump Campaign representatives were not permitted to observe the review and
counting of absentee and mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania. This lawsuit followed two
days later. Plaintiffs, the Trump Campaign and two individual voters, assert
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Equal Protection
Clause, the Electors and Elections Clauses, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that some
County Boards of Elections counted ballots without the presence of poll watchers;
those who observed the counting of ballots were not permitted to scrutinize each
individual absentee or mail-in ballot envelope; and voters who reside in the
Defendant Counties were allegedly treated differently than qualified electors in other
parts of the state. Compl. ¶¶ 159-243. These claims have no basis in law or fact.
Plaintiffs seek to invalidate ballots based on a non-existent right of Trump
Campaign representatives to review individual absentee and mail-in ballots. The
remedy sought is dramatic and extends to all ballots cast in Pennsylvania—upwards
of 6.75 million votes—including those cast in-person. But just as in the recently dismissed case, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Philadelphia County, No. 20-
Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB Document 40 Filed 11/11/20 Page 4 of 15
- 4 -
05533 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2020), the Trump Campaign once again fails to identify any
cognizable injury under federal or state law. There is still no constitutional right to
poll watch, so the Trump Campaign is not injured by state law setting forth the
parameters for authorized individuals to observe the review and counting of absentee
and mail-in ballots. Moreover, such ballots were counted with poll watchers from
the Trump Campaign present. And Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding allegedly
disparate treatment reflect nothing more than counties lawfully following the
Secretary’s guidance allowing eligible voters to cast provisional ballots if their
“mail-in or absentee ballot was rejected for a reason unrelated to the voter’s
qualifications.” Pa. Dep’t of State, Pennsylvania Provisional Voting Guidance,
(Oct. 21, 2020), https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Do
cuments/PADOS_ProvisionalBallots_guidance_1.0.pdf. Plaintiffs’ requested
remedy—setting aside at least 6.75 million ballots, or in the alternative, “only” more
than 680,000 ballots—not only violates state law, it obliterates the constitutional
rights of voters and candidates and improperly inserts this Court into issues of state
law and election administration minutia.
III. ARGUMENT
Go get 'em, Marc!
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
He has brought his professionalism, his brilliance & his relentless effort to countering the endless bs lawsuits to this election. From voter suppression to the recounts..Marc Elias has stopped the bs everytime.
Thank you Mr Elias.
what an awesome lawyer Marc Elias is for years!
He deserves a really nice vacation too!
👍💙
Cha 
Blue 💙 Democracy!
💙
