Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In Pennsylvania Case, Bringing Within 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/alito-moves-deadline-supreme-court-briefing-pennsylvania-case-bringing-within-safe-harbor


Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In Pennsylvania Case, Bringing Within 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene




by Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/06/2020 - 12:00




Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has made a critical decision which may signal that court's willingness to hear a controversial case attempting to flip Pennsylvania's 2020 election results.
[url=https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/samuel alito.jpg?itok=xKGtb_4N][/url]
Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called "no-excuse mail-in" voting regime.
Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case outside the "safe harbor" window which requirest that controversies "concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures" to be determined" at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors," according to Law & Crime.
In other words, the Tuesday deadline may signal that the Supreme Court takes Kelly's case, which was rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend.
According to Kelly's filing, the 'no-excuse mail-in' voting scheme should only apply in a limited number of circumstances, and that people must vote in person unless a narrow list of excuses applies. Thus, Act 77 and related election access laws should be invalidated - along with votes cast under it in the 2020 election.
More via Law & Crime:
In strict theory, the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to settle Pennsylvania constitutional issues, such as whether the state statute at question (Act 77) violates the state constitution.  Generally, such matters are the exclusive realm of a state supreme court.  But there are exceptions to that general concept, Kelly argues, including here.  Because the state is acting under a “direct grant of authority” from the U.S. Constitution to manage federal elections, the U.S. Supreme Court can become involved, he argues, and can determine whether the Pennsylvania statutory and constitutional regime of laws violates the U.S. Constitution.  Kelly invites the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude as such and, perhaps more dubiously, that the state court’s way of rubbishing the election violates his rights to petition the government and to receive due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto.  He frames the issues this way:

Quote :

1. Do the Elections and Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution permit Pennsylvania to violate its state constitution’s restrictions on its lawmaking power when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections?
2. Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution permit the dismissal of Petitioners’ claims with prejudice, on the basis of laches, where doing so foreclosed any opportunity for Petitioners to seek retrospective and prospective relief for ongoing constitutional violations?

[size]
The “elections clause” of the U.S. Constitution is Article I, § 4, clause 1.  This clause basically says state legislatures can set their own rules for elections:
[/size]

Quote :

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.

[size]
The U.S. Supreme Court has said the framers intended the clause as “a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.”  (Naturally, many of Trump’s supporters are attempting to do the opposite of that.)
*  *  *


[/size]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-allows-forensic-audit-dominion-voting-machines-michigan



"Big Win For Honest Elections" - Judge Allows Forensic Audit Of Dominion Voting Machines In Michigan




[size=10][size=10]by Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/06/2020 - 14:55[/size]




Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,
President Donald Trump’s legal team began a forensic analysis of Dominion voting machines in Michigan after a judge on Friday permitted the examination.
[/size]

Quote :

“Our team is going to be able to go in this morning at about 8:30 [a.m.] and will be there for about eight hours to conduct that forensic examination and we’ll have the results in about 48 hours, and that’ll tell us a lot about these machines,” attorney Jenna Ellis told Fox News on Sunday.
“A judge actually granted our team access … to conduct a forensic audit,” Ellis added.

[size][size]

Ellis was referring to a ruling from a judge in Antrim County, Michigan, who authorized the audit of 22 Dominion Voting Systems machines, said Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
[/size][/size]

Quote :

"BIG WIN FOR HONEST ELECTIONS," Giuliani wrote in part of a tweet.
"Antrim County Judge in Michigan orders forensic examination of 22 Dominion voting machines."

[size][size]
It’s not clear which of the several election lawsuits the order originated from.

Later, Antrim County spokesperson Jeremy Scott told the Detroit Free Press that forensic images will be taken from voting machines used during the Nov. 3 election. Judge Kevin Elsenheimer issued the order regarding a challenge from voter William Bailey, who filed a lawsuit alleging that ballots were damaged in a recounting of ballots in a marijuana proposal that narrowly passed, reported Fox News. Elsenheimer’s order doesn’t mention the presidential race, and it’s not yet clear if the order allows Trump’s team to examine the machines.
The Michigan GOP last month noted that voting machines in Antrim County incorrectly switched 6,000 votes from Trump to Joe Biden. The Secretary of State’s office said it was due to a technical error and non-updated software, adding that the issue was later corrected.
Ellis, in the Fox News interview on Sunday, cast doubt on the Secretary of State’s claims, saying that it was “an unexplained and so-called ‘glitch.”

(L-R) President and CEO of Election Systems & Software Tom Burt, President and CEO of Dominion Voting Systems John Poulos, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic Julie Mathis testify during a hearing before the House Administration Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, Jan. 9, 2020. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Elsenheimer’s order said that Antrim County needs to “maintain, preserve and protect all records in its possession used to tabulate votes in Antrim County, to not turn on the Dominion tabulator in its possession and to not connect the Dominion tabulator in its possession to the internet,” as reported by the Detroit News.
Jake Rollow, a spokesman for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, told the Detroit News that the judge’s order is not clear.

[/size][/size]

Quote :

“However, what we know, and has been previously explained on numerous occasions, is that a human error by the Antrim County Clerk prompted results to be reported incorrectly,” said Rollow to the publication.
“Reporting errors are common, have no impact on tabulation, and are always caught and corrected in the county canvass if not before, as was the case in Antrim County.”

[size][size]
Dominion Voting Machines, in numerous statements, has vigorously denied that its machines can switch votes from one candidate to another and has also denied ties to other vote-tabulation software companies or foreign governments.
The Epoch Times has reached out to the Michigan Secretary of State’s office and Antrim County after Ellis’s Fox News interview.[/size]
[/size]