Election Lawsuits

[Volkonski]

[Volkonski]

[Volkonski]

[Volkonski]

[Volkonski]

[SuzieC]

Fantastic. Chief Judge Linda Parker is my judicial heroine.

[Volkonski]

[Foggy]

[KickahaOta]

New life goal: Never inspire a judge to write 110 pages about me.

[Jim]

New life goal: Never inspire a judge to write 110 pages about me.

Except to give you an award...

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[noblepa]

I read a large part of the sanctions ruling. I couldn't make all the way through.

I did enjoy the smackdown on Lin Wood.

As I understand it, the Kraken lawyers are on the hook for Detroit and Michigan's legal expenses, right?

Are they jointly and severally liable, or has the judge apportioned the bill among the Krakenoids? IOW, can Detroit try to collect the entire judgement from one lawyer, such as Sidney Powell, if the others prove elusive? Or, must they collect a specific percentage of the judgment from each one?

[slq]

I read a large part of the sanctions ruling. I couldn't make all the way through.

I did enjoy the smackdown on Lin Wood.

As I understand it, the Kraken lawyers are on the hook for Detroit and Michigan's legal expenses, right?

Are they jointly and severally liable, or has the judge apportioned the bill among the Krakenoids? IOW, can Detroit try to collect the entire judgement from one lawyer, such as Sidney Powell, if the others prove elusive? Or, must they collect a specific percentage of the judgment from each one?

Yep. I don't have it in front of me, but at the bottom it did say it was joint and several.

[Luke]

So remember back last year when Squidney & pals were all over EO 13848 and how that was going to put the disgraced loser back in office? Well, Joe Biden just extended it. Cue exploding heads.

Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Foreign Interference in or Undermining Public Confidence in United States Elections
SEPTEMBER 07, 2021
•
PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS
On September 12, 2018, by Executive Order 13848, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 etseq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the threat of foreign interference in or undermining public confidence in United States elections.

Although there has been no evidence of a foreign power altering the outcomes or vote tabulation in any United States election, foreign powers have historically sought to exploit America’s free and open political system. In recent years, the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity of the threat of foreign interference. The ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on September 12, 2018, must continue in effect beyond September 12, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13848 with respect to the threat of foreign interference in or undermining public confidence in United States elections.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 7, 2021.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... elections/

[Luke]

The Telegram dead-enders are banging the #Revote / Decertify drum again.

Hadn't seen this article before, it looks back at Bush v Gore and takes the position that a revote could happen. Don't agree, but it was an interesting read.

Right Without a Remedy? The ‘Butterfly Ballot’ Case and Court-Ordered Federal Election ‘Revotes’
George Mason Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 215, 2001
University of Memphis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 105

37 Pages Posted: 10 Aug 2011
Steven J. Mulroy University of Memphis - Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law
Date Written: August 10, 2011

Abstract
The article examines a question raised by the “butterfly ballot” regarding the allegedly misleading ballot used in Palm Beach County, Florida during the 2000 presidential election controversy: can a court ever order a “revote,” in whole or in part, of a presidential election? After providing the factual and legal background of the case, the article examines statutory and case law authority to rebut the conventional wisdom that federal law establishing a uniform date for the presidential election bars any court-ordered revote. It also responds to arguments that a revote of the presidential election in Palm Beach County (or anywhere) would be unworkable and unfair, specifically addressing the special problems caused by “partial” revotes. By analogy, it concludes that as court-filed election challenges become more common, courts should consider seriously the advantages of “revote” remedies.

Suggested Citation:
Mulroy, Steven J., Right Without a Remedy? The ‘Butterfly Ballot’ Case and Court-Ordered Federal Election ‘Revotes’ (August 10, 2011). George Mason Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 215, 2001, University of Memphis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 105, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1907903

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=1907903


https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.ph ... INDEX=TRUE

[bob]

Right Without a Remedy? The ‘Butterfly Ballot’ Case and Court-Ordered Federal Election ‘Revotes’

The article relies somewhat on Donohue v. Board of Elections, which Mark Small relied on extensively in his unsuccessful 2016 revote SCOTUS petition. As well as Foster v. Love, which Donofrio relied on extensively in his unsuccessful SCOTUS petition last year.

I don't agree with the analysis, but, regardless, the author is talking about a revote only before the Electoral College's results are certified by Congress.

[noblepa]

Right Without a Remedy? The ‘Butterfly Ballot’ Case and Court-Ordered Federal Election ‘Revotes’

The article relies somewhat on Donohue v. Board of Elections, which Mark Small relied on extensively in his unsuccessful 2016 revote SCOTUS petition. As well as Foster v. Love, which Donofrio relied on extensively in his unsuccessful SCOTUS petition last year.

I don't agree with the analysis, but, regardless, the author is talking about a revote only before the Electoral College's results are certified by Congress.

IANAL, but it seems to me that, if there were, in fact, a problem with the ballot, the remedy would be a court order to fix the problem. It is normally impractical to hold a new election for any race wider than local city council member, so the remedy must look forward, not back.

Even a revoke for city council is problematic, since many voters who voted in the first election would not bother to show up, which could definitely affect the outcome.