PITTSBURGH – Groups hoping to weigh in on the lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign over Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot system didn’t come close to proving why they should be involved, the campaign is arguing.
On July 23, Donald J. Trump for President urged Judge Nicholas Ranjan of Pittsburgh’s federal court to reject the motion to intervene by the Pennsylvania chapters of the NAACP, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.
Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. initially filed on June 29 versus Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and the Boards of Election of all 67 Pennsylvania counties.
“Indeed, although they provide detailed affidavits of their activities in conducting voter registration, voter education, and voter turnout, the Proposed Intervenors fail to identify any interest in the actual conduct of elections or any authority under the Pennsylvania Election Code giving them the right to handle third-party ballots or otherwise play any role in the administration and monitoring of elections,” the response in opposition of the motion to intervene says.
“The reason for such failure is because no such right or authority exists, and thus the Proposed Intervenors lack a substantial interest to be a party in this litigation.”
The response goes on to say their motion falls “woefully shy” of what is required for intervention.
When the coronavirus pandemic caused Pennsylvania to postpone its April primary election until June, more than 1.8 million voters applied for a mail-in or absentee ballot. State elections officials said more than 1.5 million ballots were returned.
The decision to expand mail-in voting, the plaintiffs said, led to voters submitting absentee and mail-in ballots during the June 2 Primary Election in places such as shopping centers, parking lots, fairgrounds, parks, retirement homes, college campuses, fire halls, municipal government buildings, and elected officials’ offices.
Moreover, the plaintiffs contend these voters took these actions with “the knowledge, consent and/or approval of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.”
“This is all a direct result of defendants’ hazardous, hurried, and illegal implementation of unmonitored mail-in voting which provides fraudsters an easy opportunity to engage in ballot harvesting, manipulate or destroy ballots, manufacture duplicitous votes, and sow chaos,” the suit stated.
“Contrary to the direction of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly, defendants have sacrificed the sanctity of in-person voting at the altar of unmonitored mail-in voting and have exponentially enhanced the threat that fraudulent or otherwise ineligible ballots will be cast and counted in the upcoming General Election.”