Trump provided no evidence to support his fraud claim
Washington:
While President Donald Trump has vowed to ask the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on a presidential race that is still too close to be called, the country’s highest court may not be the arbiter final of this election, said legal experts.
Election law experts said it was doubtful the courts would accept an offer from Trump to stop counting ballots received before or on election day, or that any dispute a court could deal with would change the course of racing in tightly fought states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.
With the vote count still underway in many states in the early hours of Wednesday morning, Trump made an appearance in the White House and declared victory over Democratic challenger Joe Biden.
“This is a major fraud for our nation. We want the law to be used properly. So we are going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. We want all votes to stop,” he said. he declares.
The Republican president has provided no evidence to support his fraud claim or detail the disputes he would pursue in the Supreme Court.
As of Wednesday afternoon, the election was still on the line. A handful of closely contested states could decide the outcome in the hours or days to come, as large numbers of ballots mailed amid the pandemic. coronavirus appear to have lengthened the process.
However, legal experts said that while there could be objections to particular ballots or voting and counting procedures, it was uncertain whether such disputes would determine the end result.
Ned Foley, an electoral law expert at Ohio State University, said on Twitter that the Supreme Court “would only be involved if there were votes of questionable validity that would make a difference, which might not be the case”.
Republicans and Democrats have assembled armies of lawyers ready to go to the mat in a close race. Biden’s team includes Marc Elias, one of the senior election lawyers at Perkins Coie, and former attorneys general Donald Verrilli and Walter Dellinger. Trump’s lawyers include Matt Morgan, the president’s campaign general counsel, Supreme Court attorney William Consovoy, and Justin Clark, senior campaign counsel.
Benjamin Ginsberg, a longtime Republican electoral attorney, told CNN that any attempt to reject legally cast votes would likely be “viewed by any court, including the Supreme Court, as a mere denial of massive voting rights. which would be frowned upon “. Ginsberg represented George W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 2000 when the Supreme Court ended a pro-Bush recount against Democrat Al Gore.
Trump’s lawyer Jenna Ellis on Wednesday defended Trump’s attempt to challenge the vote count and assess his legal options. “If we are to meet these legal challenges, it is not without precedent,” Ellis told Fox Business Network in an interview. “He wants to make sure the election is not stolen.”
Taking a case to Federal Court immediately was a possibility, she added, without giving more details. “We have all the legal options on the table.”
The case closest to being resolved by the Supreme Court is an appeal currently pending before the judges in which Republicans are challenging a September ruling from Pennsylvania’s highest court allowing postal ballots that were postmarked on the day. ballot and received up to three days later to be counted.
The Supreme Court had previously refused to expedite the Republicans’ appeal. But three conservative judges have left open the possibility of resuming the case after polling day.
Even if the court were to take up the case and rule for the Republicans, it could not determine the final vote in Pennsylvania because the case only concerns mail-in ballots received after November 3.
In another Pennsylvania case filed in federal court in Philadelphia, Republicans accused Montgomery County suburban officials of illegally counting mail-in ballots early and also giving voters who submitted defective ballots a chance to vote again.
If Biden gets 270 electoral votes without needing Pennsylvania, the likelihood of a legal battle in that state decreases in any case, legal experts have said.
And any challenge should also go through the usual judicial hierarchy.
“I think the court would summarily refuse any effort by the president or his campaign to bypass the ordinary court process,” said Steve Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
“Even Bush v. Gore went through Florida state courts first.”
(This story was not edited by GalacticGaming staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
