General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING in Harris Co, TX. The judge rules plaintiffs don't have standing in drive-thru voting case.
Which means over 100K votes do NOT get thrown out. However, CNBC says an appeal is expected. OTOH, the State Supreme Court has already ruled against a lawsuit like this, and the SCOTUS could decide to let the State's decision prevail.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/trump-vs-biden-judge-rules-on-harris-county-texas-drive-thru-voting.html
A federal judge on Monday rejected an effort by Republicans to invalidate more than 100,000 ballots cast at drive-thru voting locations in Democratic-leaning Harris County, Texas, in a case that has been closely watched because of its potential to affect the presidential race.
SNIP
So far, about 127,000 votes have been cast at those locations, contributing to the record of 1.4 million early votes cast in the entire county so far this election.
Hanen made the ruling after conducting a hearing that was broadcast over Zoom. Hanen was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush.
His ruling is expected to be appealed.
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
2m
BREAKING: Judge Hanen holds the plaintiffs don't have standing in Texas drive-thru voting case.
GOP challengers lose.
Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
14s
Judge Hanen: "I'm not happy with that finding. But the way I look at it, the law requires it."
Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Replying to
@KlasfeldReports
Hanen also finds that the GOP-led challenge was not timely.
Drive-thru voting was announced and approved this summer, and the lawsuit was filed quite recently.
DrToast
(6,414 posts)brush
(53,759 posts)It's too late for the repugs to regroup and come up with another dirty trick.
DrToast
(6,414 posts)But it could in future ones.
Nevilledog
(51,063 posts)Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)ananda
(28,856 posts)At least he followed the law.
RainCaster
(10,857 posts)But his opinion is good. Not only don't they have a dog in this hunt, but it's not timely. So while somebody else might be able to file a motion, it's too late. They should have done it this summer.
Nevilledog
(51,063 posts)Susan Calvin
(1,646 posts)For the repugs next appeal.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Cheezoholic
(2,015 posts)The Trump appointed Fed. Judge overturned the State court who ruled the plaintiffs didn't have standing (2 of the plaintiffs were Republican electors). The Fed. Judge ruled the 2 electors did have standing by vaguely interpreting the MN Constitution stating that they were "candidates" in a few but not all references thereby giving them standing.
In most of these suits, if the state legislatures were not involved in these vote changes, even if the state legislatures granted the Sec. of State the right to make adjustments under certain circumstances without the legislature, those suits are having an uphill battle when it hits Fed court. PA. for example changed their voting procedures w legislative approval so it gets more difficult to rule against when it gets to Fed. court.
Nevilledog
(51,063 posts)Cheezoholic
(2,015 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)would be a bad ruling with bad consequences RE: public health, but not the total abomination that throwing out 127,000 already cast ballos would be. I hope I am "reading" him correctly, and he isn't instead saying that he would throw out those ballots if he believed the Republicans had legal standing in this case.
Susan Calvin
(1,646 posts)The judge was quibbling over the definition of a building. What an idiot.
Nevilledog
(51,063 posts)Susan Calvin
(1,646 posts)Of course a tent is a structure.
brush
(53,759 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2020, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)
through. He's for some reason upset that there were tents and not buildings involved in the process. What doesn't he get that there's a pandemic out there and the state was trying to social distance voting by allowing voters to stay in their cars and vote. Easy peasy and safe.
The judge is just being a d_ck head. At least he got it right, reluctantly.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,839 posts)Not in person.
brush
(53,759 posts)Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)Johnny2X2X
(19,021 posts)Of course they will. 127,000 people being disenfranchised would be a major deal.
Lonestarblue
(9,963 posts)The down ballot races are scaring the hell out of Republicans here. And many of those Harris County votes will be for Democrats. Republicans dont care as much about Trump losing as they do Democrats picking up the nine state House seats they need for the majority and a seat at the redistricting table. Without a Democratic majority, Republicans would once again be free to gerrymander the hell out of the state, ensuring that few Democrats can be elected to the US House or to the state House and ensuring their own power for years to come.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)There is really no realistic scenario where TX decides the Presidential election. If Biden wins it then it likely moves him from 400 EV to 439 EV. Even if they can cheat him out of that going from 439 to 400 EV is still a landslide win.
However those down ticket races ... a lot more they can lose there.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)Chainfire
(17,523 posts)I suppose it will all be cannon fodder for appeals if the lose tomorrow. I am not a lawyer, but I have read two Grisham books.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Failure of imagination on Hanen's part. Take a page from Justice Boof's template and just pretend the law doesn't say what it says, make up examples of things that don't exist to support your unsupportable finding, and then rule however it suits you. But then again, Justice Boof only has to answer to Justice Boof; Judge Hanen has to answer to a judicial fitness commission when he makes lawless rulings.
Brainfodder
(6,423 posts)OPTICS get you investigated!
Proceed assholes!
I know you will!
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Of course, 11th hour, and we might only get 10 votes back, but curious.
TwilightZone
(25,454 posts)He found that the plaintiffs (the GOP) had no standing.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)sure be trying to protect my vote. Think part of their plan. To create such doubt that people try and vote twice....to validate their right. And remember he told people to vote twice. I envision him saying people voted twice. And no one will really know the party affiliation. Just that X # voted twice.
CaptainTruth
(6,582 posts)All 3 decisions basically reaffirmed that States are in charge of elections & Federal courts/judges can't tell them how to run their elections (barring Constitutional/Federal issues of course).
Basic principle that should apply in this case too.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)into the monkey-works.
Now we'll see if this gets appealed.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Cheezoholic
(2,015 posts)is none of them seem to mind breaking the "unwritten" rule to not hear these cases so close into an election, if you want us to hear the suit bring it after the people have spoken. Oh, wait, that was when we had a non-partisan judicial system with some integrity and honor.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,562 posts)There are all kinds of different nuances across the Republic, and I can easily see SCOTUS refusing to hear an appeal. I thought the GOP was bullish on state's rights.
ChoppinBroccoli
(3,784 posts)And if he ruled against Trump, then it's very unlikely that anyone else will reverse him. Despite all these Republican judges on the bench, I think they're starting to see the writing on the wall. Like almost every other Republican officeholder, I think they're starting to distance themselves from Trump because they know he's going down hard.