365NEWSX
365NEWSX
Subscribe

Welcome

Election lawsuits break record before votes counted

Election lawsuits break record before votes counted

Election lawsuits break record before votes counted
Oct 25, 2020 2 mins, 18 secs

On a single day last week, the Trump campaign announced one lawsuit to challenge ballot counting in Nevada and lost another lawsuit at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over whether ballots with mismatched signatures will be counted.

Meanwhile, a Texas appeals court ruled that counties could operate multiple ballot drop-boxes, and in Minnesota the attorney general announced a deal to prevent a security company from deploying armed personnel to the polls.

Mia Familia Vota Education Fund, an immigrant rights group, filed a convoluted challenge last week in federal court in the District of Columbia accusing President Trump, Attorney General William Barr and acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf of “violently suppressing opposition” by deploying officers to protect federal property from rioters.

A federal district court ruled that the governor’s limit was unconstitutional and restored the multiple drop boxes.

A federal appeals court then blocked the ruling and restored the governor’s limit.

That decision was upheld Friday by a state appeals court.

Democrats challenged that requirement, arguing that fear of contracting COVID-19 is a disability so every voter should be able to cast absentee ballots.

The state’s high court rejected the challenge, arguing that state law clearly intended different standards and to allow anyone to claim disability defeated the purpose of that law.

The Keystone State justices had already approved an extended deadline for receiving and counting mail-in ballots, ruling that they can be received up through three days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by Nov.

On Friday, the justices weighed in with a new decision: that election officials must accept mail-in ballots even if the signatures on them don’t match those on file for a voter.

But the state ruling extending the ballot deadline got a blessing last week from the U.S.

Supreme Court, where a 4-4 tie left the state ruling in place.

Courts are supposed to consider what is known as the Purcell Principle, named after a 2006 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that judges should try to avoid making last-minute changes to voting procedures.

That came into play during this year’s primaries, particularly in a case out of Wisconsin, where Democrats wanted to expand the deadline for casting absentee ballots.

A lower federal court agreed but the justices, in a 5-4 ruling, blocked that, ruling it would “alter the nature of the election.”.

has been the key vote, siding with the court’s three Democratic-appointed justices on the Pennsylvania deadlines case but with the court’s other Republican appointees in requiring witness signatures for absentee ballots in South Carolina

“Once the dust has settled, we’re going to have a rather massive number of federal court decisions, a significant number of which invoke the Purcell principle,” said Ballotpedia’s Mr

Summarized by 365NEWSX ROBOTS

RECENT NEWS

SUBSCRIBE

Get monthly updates and free resources.

CONNECT WITH US

© Copyright 2024 365NEWSX - All RIGHTS RESERVED