Trump backers ask federal judge to halt Wisconsin recount

[riversedge]

Source: The Capital Times





JESSIE OPOIEN | The Capital Times @jessieopie 4 hrs ago
........................

A lawsuit filed by the Great America PAC, Stop Hillary PAC and Ronald R. Johnson (not the Wisconsin senator) seeks a temporary restraining order to block the recount, arguing it could jeopardize the Equal Protection rights of Wisconsin voters in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case.

The recount, which started Thursday, must be completed by Dec. 13 in order to meet a federal deadline for certification of electoral votes.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that timeline creates too much possibility for errors in the process and potentially jeopardizes the state's 10 electoral votes.

"This chaotic rushing creates an unacceptable risk of error that would both undermine the fundamental Due Process right to vote and cast an unjustified pall over the results of the election — both within the State of Wisconsin and (depending on the outcome of similar pending recounts in other states) potentially throughout the nation," attorney Jay E. Heit wrote.

......................

Read more: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/trump-backers-ask-federal-judge-to-halt-wisconsin-recount/article_2e476960-151e-57ea-a061-645510858c78.html

---

As the article points out--this is the second legal challenge! First one asked for a hand recount which was rejected.

Now this one went to a Federal court!! Stupid reason! Just let us do the recount!

[pangaia]

1. All part of the delay delay delay...

[Dopers_Greed]

2. The election is being stolen

They know that a recount has significant odds of reversing the results, so Herr Dump's goons are trying to shut it down

[jalan48]

3. In other words, there can never be recounts of Presidential elections.

And, WTF, it wasn't chaotic on election night?

[SoCalMusicLover]

9. Not Unless The Democrat Is In The Lead nt

[longship]

4. Bush v. Gore?

Do they mean the SCOTUS case that SCOTUS explicitly said should not be used as a precedence?

Pshaw!

[mitty14u2]

5. Republicans will only follow laws they want with complete control of Washington

Republicans run Wisconsin, they have bought there way to power leaving a huge amount of Americans defenseless, it will be known to Trump voters after its to late!

[DURHAM D]

6. I owe you an apology.

I Alerted this as a duplicate. Only later did I realize this is about Wisconsin, not Michigan. Sorry.

[riversedge]

13. Thats OK. Easy to get confused with 3 states all happening at once and courts going back

and forth.

[ck4829]

7. But I thought Bush v Gore "stood on it's own"

Isn't that what the SCOTUS said back in 2000? Wasn't this also found to be the case in Ohio as well?

https://casetext.com/case/ne-ohio-coal-for-the-homeless-v-husted-5

[Thinkingabout]

8. If taking days to do the recount would result in errors perhaps there were many more

Errors on election day and now there is ample time to correctly count the votes on the recount. Perhaps there is more fear of the recount results.

[turbinetree]

10. Hey Trump backers FU and the horse you road in on

you can't have it both ways, the money has been paid, are you going to give the re-count moola back? Your state has already accepted the money, have you thought about that with the your pebble between your ears.

And besides your a fascist, and what are your hiding from?

just maybe your state actor Russia or the incompetence of your election machines may have been hacked, the Constitution gives people the RIGHT to challenge and ask for a recall of the votes, if that someone is on the ballot, well guess what Dr. Jill Stein was on the ballot, did you not read or see this?

[JudyM]

11. They keep using Stein's 1% as an issue; Clinton needs to get front and center on all of these.

Not just riding along, but leading... because the 1% issue shouldn't be taking up the courts' time when time is so short.

[0rganism]

12. well, so much for "this decision doesn't set a precedent", eh?

"in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case"
uh huh, yup, the alleged no-precedent case is once again applied as a precedent, how special

[cstanleytech]

14. Didnt atleast 4 counties pad the vote in favor of Trump? If yes I would say a recount is warranted

because if 4 did it then what about the rest?