Legal Catch-22 in PA?

[gnome]

There's a particular topic in a recent appeal in the state of PA that interests me:

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5482

Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they've delayed too long. The result of the court's gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.

I'm looking to untangle this because I feel strongly that lawsuits about the rules of an election should occur before the election and I'm getting hit back with this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Given the source, I think it's worth checking that the statement about why the plaintiffs are held not to have standing isn't an outright lie.

Dave

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Given the source, I think it's worth checking that the statement about why the plaintiffs are held not to have standing isn't an outright lie.

Dave

I also can't find anything to support that this lawsuit would have been denied standing if filed prior to the election.

The denial on the bases of laches was not a surprising result. Waiting until after the election and requesting that huge parts of the voting populace be disenfranchised because you think the rules weren't correct is an extreme request. The obvious question is "why didn't you complain before all this damage was done" is asked.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Indeed - timing is not the issue of the lack of standing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I also can't find anything to support that this lawsuit would have been denied standing if filed prior to the election.

The denial on the bases of laches was not a surprising result. Waiting until after the election and requesting that huge parts of the voting populace be disenfranchised because you think the rules weren't correct is an extreme request. The obvious question is "why didn't you complain before all this damage was done" is asked.

Or even sought redress, if one isn't trying to disenfranchise voters but only effect future elections for example, it would be different.

 

[Darat]

There's a particular topic in a recent appeal in the state of PA that interests me:

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5482



I'm looking to untangle this because I feel strongly that lawsuits about the rules of an election should occur before the election and I'm getting hit back with this.

Just from the few judgements I read the italicised text seems to be conflating judgements incorrectly. The standing decision was simply that the plaintiffs needed to file against their county not the state, and the too long was based on another set of plaintiffs who could have had filed months ago.

I suspect like always the actual legal filing will be different to the claims made outwith the court.

Have you got a link to the appeal documents?

 

[Horatius]

Given the source, I think it's worth checking that the statement about why the plaintiffs are held not to have standing isn't an outright lie.

Dave

In Googling around, it's not clear that such a suit was even filed.

There's a wiki page for election lawsuits filed prior to the election, and the only one listed for Pennsylvania deals with the extension of the deadline for mail-in votes. I think that's the one the Republicans actually won, so there certainly wasn't a ruling against them based only on a lack of standing.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-e...ted_States_presidential_election#Pennsylvania

 

[Dave Rogers]

The denial on the bases of laches was not a surprising result. Waiting until after the election and requesting that huge parts of the voting populace be disenfranchised because you think the rules weren't correct is an extreme request. The obvious question is "why didn't you complain before all this damage was done" is asked.

Cruz is also claiming that Pennsylvania was "chang[ing] the rules in the middle of the game" by enacting a law in advance of the election then conducting the election entirely in accordance with that law, while implying that waiting till the election's over then demanding to have votes thrown out that were made in accordance with that law will somehow be fairer. I managed to get behind the sofa before my irony meter exploded, but it'll take a fair while to tidy up the living room.

Dave

 

[Crossbow]

There's a particular topic in a recent appeal in the state of PA that interests me:

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5482



I'm looking to untangle this because I feel strongly that lawsuits about the rules of an election should occur before the election and I'm getting hit back with this.

Given the fact that this analysis comes from Ted Cruz who is just another stupid, idiotic, lying, Trump lackey, then I am not going to bother with it.

 

[gnome]

I also can't find anything to support that this lawsuit would have been denied standing if filed prior to the election.

The denial on the bases of laches was not a surprising result. Waiting until after the election and requesting that huge parts of the voting populace be disenfranchised because you think the rules weren't correct is an extreme request. The obvious question is "why didn't you complain before all this damage was done" is asked.

That's exactly my point. It didn't even occur to me that the appeal might refer to a hypothetical rather than a real case. I'll look in that direction.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Given the fact that this analysis comes from Ted Cruz who is just another stupid, idiotic, lying, Trump lackey, then I am not going to bother with it.

I was trying to be polite, but that's basically what I meant in post #2.

Dave

ETA: Though, of course, in Cruz's case, lying and being a Trump lackey seem relatively unconnected.

 

[Trebuchet]

Given the fact that this analysis comes from Ted Cruz who is just another stupid, idiotic, lying, Trump lackey, then I am not going to bother with it.

Whose wife is ugly and whose father assassinated JFK, according to Trump. I'm still boggled at the number of Republicans once slandered by Trump who now have there noses up his backside.

 

[Horatius]

Whose wife is ugly and whose father assassinated JFK, according to Trump. I'm still boggled at the number of Republicans once slandered by Trump who now have there noses up his backside.

You forgot to mention him being the Zodiac Killer.

 

[Horatius]

In Googling around, it's not clear that such a suit was even filed.

There's a wiki page for election lawsuits filed prior to the election, and the only one listed for Pennsylvania deals with the extension of the deadline for mail-in votes. I think that's the one the Republicans actually won, so there certainly wasn't a ruling against them based only on a lack of standing.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-e...ted_States_presidential_election#Pennsylvania

That's exactly my point. It didn't even occur to me that the appeal might refer to a hypothetical rather than a real case. I'll look in that direction.

Further to my above post, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a page dedicated to cases of public interest, which includes one specifically for the 2020 election:

http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/cases-of-public-interest/election-2020


I've looked at all the ones that could possibly have been the one Cruz alluded to, and they were all post-election filings.

So, either Cruz is full of ****, as expected, or the Penn supreme court page dedicated to tracking cases related to the 2020 election just happens to be missing this case.

At this point I'll call Cruz's claim made-up ********, until and unless he can point us to this alleged ruling.

 

[Dr. Keith]

At this point I'll call Cruz's claim made-up ********, until and unless he can point us to this alleged ruling.

I think Cruz, a Harvard Law grad, was careful enough to cage his comment in "the plaintiffs point out that" language so that he can flimsily claim that he was merely repeating what was claimed by the plaintiffs.

Side note: if the plaintiffs pointed this out in court or in a filing with the court they would have provided a citation to the relevant case at that point. So, if I cared to look into this, that is where I would look.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You forgot to mention him being the Zodiac Killer.

Yeah but, that one's actually true.




ETA: My mom met his wife and said that she was a lovely and smart woman. My mom, who is fairly liberal for a woman of her age in this state, could not figure out how Ted landed such a lovely woman.

 

[Butter!]

Whose wife is ugly and whose father assassinated JFK, according to Trump. I'm still boggled at the number of Republicans once slandered by Trump who now have there noses up his backside.

Well sure, Trump knows he's the Zodiac killer!

EDIT: ****, someone already said that, I suck.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

There's a particular topic in a recent appeal in the state of PA that interests me:

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5482



I'm looking to untangle this because I feel strongly that lawsuits about the rules of an election should occur before the election and I'm getting hit back with this.

Yeah, that's a bunch of BS.

Problem #1:

THERE WAS ALREDY AN ELECTION UNDER THE RULES THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT. The primary. If they had an issue, they could have fought about it then.

Problem #2:

They can argue for standing based on imminent harm.

Problem #3:

Even if the did try to sue before, and were told they don't lack standing, then they can just refile later and that helps their argument & proposed remedy.

 

[pgwenthold]

Problem #2:

They can argue for standing based on imminent harm.

.

The standing question is interesting, but for sure any candidate in the election could have sued ahead of time.

Voters? That's a different question.

 

[Puppycow]

FWIW, here's what Wikipedia says about standing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

I think it would be likely that citizens of Pennsylvania would have had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law if they had sued in a timely manner. That doesn't mean that they would have prevailed.

Since Cruz gives no footnote to the particular case to which he refers, I cannot verify his claim. I wouldn't just take him at his word.