Pennsylvania's top election officer says just 10,000 ballots were received after Nov. 3
Source: Politico
The number is far too small to undermine President-elect Joe Bidens margin of victory in a critical battleground state.
Pennsylvanias chief election officer announced on Tuesday that around 10,000 ballots were received between the close of polls on Election Day and the evening of Nov. 6 a number far too small to undermine President-elect Joe Bidens margin of victory in a critical battleground state.
The approximately 10,000 mail ballots are at the center of a case in front of the Supreme Court that President Donald Trump and his allies have pushed for, as they advance a broader strategy thats less about actually making a cohesive legal argument than it is about undermining trust in the democratic process.
The case is perhaps the most prominent current lawsuit backed by Trump, as he seeks to undermine confidence in Bidens victory. Trump and his allies have baselessly claimed that there was widespread election fraud, a charge that they have not substantiated to any significant degree. Both before and after the election, election administrators and voting experts rejected the premise of widespread fraud in American elections, saying that when it does occur, it is isolated and not a sign of a systemic problem. The New York Times surveyed election officials in nearly every state after the election, and said that none reported any major voting issues.
Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/10/pennsylvanias-top-election-officer-says-just-10-000-ballots-were-received-after-nov-3-435972
pfitz59
(10,197 posts)to make Trump's lawsuits moot. Huge waste of time and money. Seems to me the effort is a scam to entice more "campaign contributions" which will quickly disappear into the Trump money grinder...
onenote
(42,374 posts)If the Court holds that state courts have no constitutional role to play in interpreting/applying state election law.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)The statute is clear when the ballots must be received by. The state courts extended it, despite clear statutory language. So that's a bit more than "interpreting/applying."
I do hope that rather than issuing an advisory opinion, they will take the more normal route since there is no reason to render an legal decision when the facts render it moot.
onenote
(42,374 posts)While the statute was clear about the deadline, the PA Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner that the Court has the authority to act to protect electors right to cast their ballot, as protected by Pennsylvanias Free and Equal Elections Clause., citing precedent (including the extension of voting deadlines in the case of a natural disaster, wherein it was held that [c]ourt[s] possess broad authority to craft meaningful remedies when regulations of law . . . impair the right of suffrage.
There are members of the Supreme Court whose position isn't merely that the PA Supreme Court misinterpreted PA law -- it is that the PA Supreme Court has no authority to interpret the statute.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)But still not large enough to matter.
C Moon
(12,188 posts)progree
(10,864 posts)KS Toronado
(16,904 posts)bucolic_frolic
(42,663 posts)They will email, or you can visit their website. If someone were hindering mail-in ballots, these voters would know and would not be quiet about it. And that also answers the idea that someone hindered mail-in ballots on the basis of sorting out one side or the other by cross-checking names on the outside of envelopes with voter registration. Many people would complain. Loudly. So to the idea of mail-in ballot voter fraud - there's just no there there.