Give directly to the person's campaign.
?
You know they'll be there. Watch your sixes!!
with all the MAGA patriots there on January 6th when the electors vote for President Trump!
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that President Donald Trump, “Whether he knows it yet or not, he will be leaving” the White House after the 2020 presidential election. Cnbc article July 20, 2020.
The result appears to be that no lawsuit involving the recent election cycle has been heard on the merits. Insofar as I am aware, the substance of misconduct claims have not been heard in court. (In fairness, there has been no decision on whether a state can sue itself for election misconduct.)
The U.S.S.C has created a constitutional right to abortion from emanations and penumbras. It has told us there is latitude to provide jobs and college admissions based on race or sex. The high court has created a constitutional right to burn the flag.
The Supreme Court, and other courts, have determined limits on constitutional rights to: free speech, bearing arms, freedom of assembly, religious worship, who can use which bathroom, whether the state can hang a murderer; whether men can compete in women’s sports; whether you can operate a restaurant, how hot your coffee can be, etc. ad nauseum.
However, when it comes to the citizen’s right to make sure his or her vote counts and is not nullified by corrupt and dishonest practices, the courts have decided that it is imperative they restrain themselves from taking a position on the merits.
They have thoughtfully informed us of constraints on them that no-one knew existed. The Friday ruling cites only a conclusion, but no reasoning.
If a state sues, is it not representing its citizens? Isn’t that, at the root, the only function of a state government? Are the citizens’ rights to an honest vote not affected if another state runs a bogus election and the first state’s votes become nullified?
Does a state not have standing to sue because the court anticipates it will not succeed on the merits? Why do courts ever bother to write legal opinions when they can save time and tell us the outcome they have in mind right away?
My untutored mind is having difficulty figuring out just who, and under what circumstances, has a legal right to a fair election.
It seems the current answer is: no-one.
