President Donald Trump’s campaign has said it is appealing the rejection of a federal lawsuit aimed at preventing Pennsylvania from certifying its election results unless the state invalidates tens of thousands of mail-in ballots.
Sunday’s campaign filing with the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia was expected.
Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani said the case should be decided by the US Supreme Court, which has a Conservative majority of 6-3. The ruling is unlikely to prevent Pennsylvania from certify the victory of President-elect Joe Biden in the state as of Monday. Trump has said his goal is to “decertify” the state’s performance in one way or another.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann in Williamsport, Pa. On Saturday was quick to dismiss the case. He compared the trial to the “Frankenstein monster” because it had been “randomly assembled” and lacked evidence.
“In the United States of America, that cannot justify the deprivation of the right to vote of just one voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populous state,” wrote Brann, known as a conservative Republican.
The dismissal of the Pennsylvania case was Trump’s most high-profile courtroom defeat since the Nov. 3 election. Lawsuits by the campaign and its GOP allies failed in Michigan, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona as judges refused to reject millions of votes based on allegations related to a broad conspiracy theory and implausible on corrupt Democratic election workers.
Giuliani personally opposed Pennsylvania’s defeat motion to Brann on Tuesday. The former New York City mayor accused Democrats of working together in vibrant states, especially in urban areas, to steal the election from Trump through various methods, including allowing voters to correct mistakes on their ballots by mail and “secretly” counting the votes. without adequate supervision by too distant campaign observers.
In its legal documents, the campaign presented a narrower case, arguing that voters in Republican-leaning counties were denied equal protection under the U.S. Constitution because Democratic-leaning counties were more permissive in allowing voters to “cure” the defects of the vote. The campaign aimed to have at least about 70,000 ballots rejected by mail because they were badly corrected.
Brann ruled both that the Trump campaign did not have standing to sue and that it did not raise a valid equal-protection claim because Pennsylvania counties were not banned by state law to let voters correct minor voting errors.
“It’s not law, it’s theater and it’s not very good theater,” said Laurence Tribe, professor at Harvard Law School, a frequent critic of Trump, in a telephone interview. .
‘Dangerous and harmful’
“It is a dangerous and damaging theater because it undermines the confidence of millions of people in our electoral system and our legal system” for the president to “bounce back in court to make far-fetched statements,” he said.
Tribe also said he didn’t think the Supreme Court would overturn Brann’s decision, even if she agreed to hear the case.
The campaign call will be randomly assigned to a panel of three of 14 Third Circuit judges, eight of whom were nominated by Republican presidents, including three by Trump; six were nominated by Democrats.
Trump remained defiant even as he faced mounting pressure from members of his own party to concede defeat in the US election which Biden won by 6 million votes. Giuliani and other Trump attorneys have said there are several “paths to victory,” including outside the justice system. Lawmakers in GOP states are also under pressure to ignore the popular vote and assign their constituents to Trump when the electoral college meets on December 14.
Chris Christie, the former Republican governor of New Jersey and generally a Trump ally, said on Sunday that the conduct of the president’s legal team had been “scandalous” and a “national disgrace.”
“They allege fraud outside the courtroom, but when they enter the courtroom they don’t plead the fraud and they don’t support the fraud,” Christie said on ABC. This week”. “You have an obligation to present the evidence. Evidence has not been presented. “