Trump Loses Election Fraud Cases in Michigan and Pennsylvania
Michigan Judge Denies Trump Backers’ Bid to Toss Detroit Votes
Bloomberg reports Michigan Judge Denies Trump Backers’ Bid to Toss Detroit Votes
A Michigan judge rejected a lawsuit by supporters of President Donald Trump seeking to block certification of the election results in Detroit and surrounding Wayne County on the grounds that the counting of ballots there was plagued by widespread fraud.
Circuit Court Judge Timothy Kenny ruled Friday that the suit failed to show why he should halt the certification or order an audit of the vote tally in Michigan’s largest city, which voted heavily in favor of President-Elect Joe Biden. Major media outlets declared Biden the winner of Michigan and its 16 electoral votes last week, and he leads the vote count by more than 146,000 votes.
Wayne County provided a large part of that margin, casting 587,074 votes for Biden, compared to 264,149 for Trump, according to the county’s unofficial results.
The Trump campaign has filed a similar lawsuit in federal court in Michigan seeking to halt certification of the state’s results based on allegations of fraud, largely in Wayne County. It is also suing to block certification of the election results in Pennsylvania, likewise alleging fraud in Democratic-leaning cities and counties in that state.
Trump Loses Pennsylvania Appeal Challenging Ballot Receipt Deadline
ZeroHedge reports Trump Loses Pennsylvania Appeal Challenging Ballot Receipt Deadline
The 3rd Circuit upheld a lower court order rejecting a constitutional challenge to PA's extended, post-Election Day deadline for absentee ballots.
"...we do so with commitment to a proposition indisputable in our democratic process: that the lawfully cast vote of every citizen must count."
We do not decide today whether the Deadline Extension or the Presumption of Timeliness are proper exercises of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s lawmaking authority, delegated by the U.S. Constitution, to regulate federal elections. Nor do we evaluate the policy wisdom of those two features of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling. We hold only that when voters cast their ballots under a state’s facially lawful election rule and in accordance with instructions from the state’s election officials, private citizens lack Article III standing to enjoin the counting of those ballots on the grounds that the source of the rule was the wrong state organ or that doing so dilutes their votes or constitutes differential treatment of voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Further, and independent of our holding on standing, we hold that the District Court did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief out of concern for the settled expectations of voters and election officials. We will affirm the District Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction.
Fast and Expected
That was both fast and expected.
Similar challenges await the same fate.
Trump will appeal, and if there is any bit of further common sense, higher courts will refuse the case.