I believe courts are not built to overturn elections based on large numbers of fraudulent votes.
My survey of actual overturned elections versus fraud convictions led me to this tentative conclusion (sorry about no links here - only in prior post, but Heritage Foundation lists a series of overturned elections and Politico et al document, by contrast, fraud convictions):
Courts are willing to timely overturn elections with single digit margins, where guilt on each count (vote) is determined to the appropriate standard.
If the fraud is large, the court may eventually convict, but will only punish the fraudster, NOT overturn the result. This is because guilt of one person can be proven to a good standard. But to throw out 1000 votes would result in 1000 more injured parties. The court does not want to pronounce “blanket” guilt on the votes themselves, because even one false negative disenfranchises a voter. Each solitary case must therefore be proven to a high standard to affect an election result.
(I am open to correction. Obviously I am no lawyer, but this is my intuition upon absorbing a small sample of court case information)
Trump’s main path is therefore through legislatures. This is actually gaining steam, despite what doomers say.
The struggle with the legislative path is that Trump’s lawyers CANNOT admit what I just stated above. The courts are not the venue for this decision, yet if they say that, it appears they are retreating on that front.
So we are in the uncomfortable position of explaining why legislators must act, without admitting that a court has good reason never to hear a case that may result in mass vote nullification. So don’t pay attention to any who scoff, “Why have the courts thrown it out? Bwahaha.”
The case is strong.
Courts by precedent and defensible reason, will not take the case.
Trump’s lawyers cannot admit this due to strategy/PR considerations.
If we do not give up.... success is inevitable.
It will happen either via legislatures or via public outcry for a court/debate/hearing to grapple with the stunning work of the Trump data team regarding negative votes.
I believe courts are not built to overturn elections based on large numbers of fraudulent votes.
My survey of actual overturned elections versus fraud convictions led me to this tentative conclusion (sorry about no links here - only in prior post, but Heritage Foundation lists a series of overturned elections and Politico et al document, by contrast, fraud convictions):
Courts are willing to timely overturn elections with single digit margins, where guilt on each count (vote) is determined to the appropriate standard.
If the fraud is large, the court may eventually convict, but will only punish the fraudster, NOT overturn the result. This is because guilt of one person can be proven to a good standard. But to throw out 1000 votes would result in 1000 more injured parties. The court does not want to pronounce “blanket” guilt on the votes themselves, because even one false negative disenfranchises a voter. Each solitary case must therefore be proven to a high standard to affect an election result. (I am open to correction. Obviously I am no lawyer, but this is my intuition upon absorbing a small sample of court case information)
Trump’s main path is therefore through legislatures. This is actually gaining steam, despite what doomers say.
The struggle with the legislative path is that Trump’s lawyers CANNOT admit what I just stated above. The courts are not the venue for this decision, yet if they say that, it appears they are retreating on that front.
So we are in the uncomfortable position of explaining why legislators must act, without admitting that a court has good reason never to hear a case that may result in mass vote nullification. So don’t pay attention to any who scoff, “Why have the courts thrown it out? Bwahaha.”
The case is strong. Courts by precedent and defensible reason, will not take the case. Trump’s lawyers cannot admit this due to strategy/PR considerations. If we do not give up.... success is inevitable.
It will happen either via legislatures or via public outcry for a court/debate/hearing to grapple with the stunning work of the Trump data team regarding negative votes.