2. To compel state election officials to allow Trump campaign officials closer observation of the counting process.
A state judge ruled in the campaign’s favor, allowing campaign officials to observe the Philadelphia process from a six foot distance. Philadelphia election officials appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, and the outcome of that appeal is pending.
Levitt says this ruling will likely affect the pace of the count, rather the outcome. “Imagine a gymnasium, with observers lining the walls: to let the observers get closer, they’ve got to move the count closer to the walls and not be counting in the center,” he writes. Since people can no longer count in the center of the gym, “the count is going to move more slowly.”
3. To compel Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and all 67 counties to impose an earlier date for voters to show proof of identification if it was not on their initial ballots.
Litigation is ongoing. The presiding judge ordered all counties to segregate ballots if the voters do not provide supplemental identification by Nov. 9. The ballots with supplemental identification provided after Nov. 9 cannot be counted until approved by the court.
Local Republicans filed a separate suit against Boockvar in state court, alleging she subverted state law when she issued guidance telling voters with deficiencies on their mail-in ballots to cast provisional ballots, and trying to prevent those provisional ballots from being counted.
A state judge denied that request, but ordered officials to segregate provisional ballots from voters who submitted deficient mail-in ballots before election day.
4. To compel the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop counting mail-in-ballots
The campaign and Republican National Committee filed suit to halt the process of counting mail-in ballots in Montgomery County, one of the counties in suburban Philadelphia, alleging that the board of elections was counting 600 ballots that had not been placed in secrecy envelopes and was therefore not complying with requirements. Pennsylvania election data shows Montgomery county overwhelmingly voted for Biden.
The litigation is ongoing.
5. To intervene in an already existing dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court about whether ballots the state received after 8 p.m. on Election Day should count.
The litigation is ongoing.
Some legal experts are skeptical SCOTUS will take the case, while others say that even if the Justice do, their ruling is unlikely to change the outcome of the Presidential election.
“I think that the court is going to be very hesitant to involve itself in the process in the most politically contentious context possible,” says Michael Dimino, an election law expert at Widener University in Pennsylvania. Joshua Geltzer, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, notes that the number of ballots that may fall in this category “appears increasingly irrelevant to the election outcome given the sheer vote numbers in that state regardless of those ballots.”
The backstory: After Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court extended the ballot receipt deadline to Nov. 6, state Republicans twice appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first time they were unsuccessful, and the second time the court declined to expedite the decision before the election, but left open the possibility of hearing it afterwards. On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Alito, in response to a motion from Pennsylvania Republicans, ordered state election officials to segregate any ballots that arrived after election day. State officials had already ordered counties to segregate any ballots that arrived after Election Day, likely anticipating a future challenge.
Nevada
1. To impose an injunction on the automated signature-verification machines used in Clark County as ballots continue to be counted.
A federal judge rejected the request on Nov. 6, ruling that federal judges should not be involved in state election administration and there is no evidence Clark County is doing anything unlawful.
The backstory: The Trump campaign held a press conference on Nov. 5 introducing Jill Stokey, a Nevada voter who claimed that when she tried to cast a ballot, she was told someone had already cast a mail-in ballot in her name. She alleged that the signature verification technology used in Clark County, the most populous county in the state, enabled someone to cast a mail-in ballot in her name. Her lawsuit asserted, without evidence, that “lax procedures for authenticating mail ballots” had resulted in “over 3,000 instances of ineligible individuals casting ballots.”
Aaron Ford, Nevada’s Attorney General, called Stokey’s allegations “absurd.” “While the Attorney General’s Office normally does not comment on pending litigation, I feel compelled to dispel the misinformation being circulated to undermine the public’s trust in our election,” he said in a statement.
2. To compel state election officials to allow the public closer observation at a Clark County ballot-counting facility.
The Trump campaign, Republican National Committee, and a plaintiff, Fred Krause, filed a lawsuit before election day in state court seeking to halt the counting process in Clark County until they could observe the process.
A district judge rejected the lawsuit, ruling they lacked standing to bring the claims and had no evidence to back up their arguments. The plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court, which accepted the request to expedite the case, but denied the request for immediate relief. In a November 5 order, the State Supreme Court said
the campaign and state Republicans had reached a settlement. According to local news, the settlement included expanding observation access, so that all counting tables would be visible to the public.
Michigan
1. To halt the counting of absentee ballots, on the grounds that campaign officials had not been given access to observe the process as required by state law.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens denied the campaign’s request on Nov. 6.
2. To halt the certification of election results in Detroit, Michigan’s largest city and a Democratic stronghold.
Judge Timothy Kenny denied the motion for injunctive relief on Nov. 6, saying there was no evidence that oversight procedures had not been followed.
“Chief Judge Kenny’s quick decision mirrors a decision yesterday by Court of Claims Judge Stephens – specifically, that, once again, the allegations are mere speculation,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s Press Secretary Ryan Jarvi said in a statement. “The swift, clear and decisive opinion should put to rest the meritless claims that have been made in Michigan and other states around the country.”
The backstory: The case was not brought by the Trump campaign, but by a conservative group, the Election Integrity Fund, and sought to stop election workers in Detroit from “curing” absentee ballots that could not initially be read by a machine, a normal part of the ballot counting process. The case alleged that the work had not always been overseen by election inspectors from both major political parties, and that certification should be delayed until inspectors could review the process.
Georgia
1. To disqualify about 53 ballots.
A poll watcher in Chatham County reported seeing a stack of late ballots that may have arrived after the 7 p.m. Election Day deadline get mixed in with ballots that had arrived on time.
A Superior Court judge in Chatham County rejected the suit on Nov. 5 after hearing testimony from county officials that the ballots had, in fact, arrived on time. “There is no evidence that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7:00 p.m. on Election Day,” the court found.
Arizona:
Fox News and the Associated Press have declared Biden won the state, but other networks have held off, deeming the race too close to call. On November 7, the Trump campaign and Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit in state court alleging voters’ ballots had been rejected because they contained “bleeds,” splotches” and “stray marks.” These allegations appear similar to claims circulating on social media that ballots would not be counted if voters filled them out using a Sharpie marker. Election officials have said these claims are false. A lawsuit with similar allegations was filed in the same court system by a group of voters who were represented by a conservative legal fund on Nov. 4;
plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit on Nov. 7. They did not provide a reason for dismissing the case.
Go on a Shopping Spree During the WoW 20th Anniversary Celebration
20th Anniversary Update PTR Development Notes
Kroger x World of Warcraft Promotion - How to get the Classic Sunny Tabard
M+ should probably be removed from the game, and asap
Fire Mage
Ask it! Macro Edition
MMO-Champion
Recent Blue Posts
Recent Forum Posts
Originally Posted by Antiganon
