Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People have been bringing lots of suits over exactly that recently. And courts have been tossing the suits out as fast as they come in. Usually it's because "lack of standing".
People in Texas weren't sufficiently harmed by people in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin unconstitutionally changing their states' election laws, sometimes at the last minute. States outside of Texas DID (according to this hypothetical) force a new President on Texas, that the country did not vote for.
Elections for President and Vice President are done state by state, by Constitutional command. Theoretically the states should be independent of each other. But unlawful acts by one state can, in certain circumstances, directly effect another state, forcing a President on them that the (legal, legitimate, fully counted) votes of all 50 states did not elect.
How much "harm" (and exactly what kind of harm) do you have to suffer before the courts say you CAN sue, and finally you can bring in your evidence?
Who exactly CAN sue, and on what grounds does anybody have to sue?
I’m no lawyer, but I would think that anyone who voted for Trump in a swing state that engaged in fraud would have standing on the grounds that the cheating effectively robbed him of his vote. My fear would be that should he win, all that would happen is that they subtract a Biden vote and give it back to Trump.
People have been bringing lots of suits over exactly that recently. And courts have been tossing the suits out as fast as they come in. Usually it's because "lack of standing".
People in Texas weren't sufficiently harmed by people in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin unconstitutionally changing their states' election laws, sometimes at the last minute. States outside of Texas DID (according to this hypothetical) force a new President on Texas, that the country did not vote for.
Elections for President and Vice President are done state by state, by Constitutional command. Theoretically the states should be independent of each other. But unlawful acts by one state can, in certain circumstances, directly effect another state, forcing a President on them that the (legal, legitimate, fully counted) votes of all 50 states did not elect.
How much "harm" (and exactly what kind of harm) do you have to suffer before the courts say you CAN sue, and finally you can bring in your evidence?
Who exactly CAN sue, and on what grounds does anybody have to sue?
Dozens of lawsuits were filed by RESIDENTS and VOTERS in the subject states in state courts. The cases were heard and rejected for lack of evidence not standing.
Dozens of lawsuits were filed by RESIDENTS and VOTERS in the subject states in state courts. The cases were heard and rejected for lack of evidence not standing.
I think one was rejected for standing as the person it was on behalf of didn't actually vote in the election. So im not sure it would be residents, I think you would have to actually vote, or be a elector that was impacted. I dont think residency would be sufficient as without voting your couldn't argue impact.
The only option is for Republicans to start stuffing the ballot box in areas they control. Maybe someone will finally do something when there are hundreds of thousands of votes in small counties.
Weird how pubs were fine with laws being changed in states trump won. One GOP lawmaker said that his state joined the amicus brief even though their own changes were the same as some of the swing states.
Not a lawyer, but reading the case responses from the various courts gives us some hints.
It depends on what one is suing about. You specified messing with voting machines, or election rules.
It seems to me that the people with standing to sue over voting machines that don't work appropriately would be the jurisdictions using the machines. That might be each county, or the state. There are likely other harmed entities, but I would leave that to actual lawyers to answer. Of course, the entity filing the lawsuit would have to have supporting evidence that the machines did not work correctly, and so far we have not seen anything credible to support that thought.
Election rules is a pretty simple one. The PA case got thrown out because amendment 77 (if I have the reference correct) was passed sometime in early 2019. Many people had standing to sue back when it was passed, including the state representatives who voted to pass it, and then later sued to oppose it. The fact that they didn't bother to sue until it was too late does not alter standing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
