PITTSBURGH – A Pennsylvania federal judge has granted permission to a number of groups seeking to intervene in the lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign over mail-in ballots, including the Pennsylvania State Democratic Party and the NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference.
On July 23, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. urged U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Nicholas Ranjan to reject the motion to intervene by the Pennsylvania chapters of the Democratic Party, the NAACP, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.
Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. initially filed suit 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 said.
“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 went 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 election 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.”
UPDATE
Ranjan, however, disagreed with the arguments of the president’s re-election campaign and felt the intervenors were able to interject themselves into the case through permissive intervention.
“Here, the Court need not address intervention by right, since permissive intervention is appropriate – the proposed intervenors’ requests to intervene are timely, the grounds they present share a common question of law or fact with the underlying action, and there is no undue delay or prejudice involved,” Ranjan said.
According to Ranjan, the intervenors met the necessary criteria of (1) A timely application for intervention; and (2) That the party’s claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the underlying action, in addition to whether the intervention would “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.”
“Here, it is apparent that all proposed intervenors moved in a timely way; indeed, they all moved in the few weeks between when plaintiffs filed the initial complaint and when they amended. Second, the proposed intervenors’ interests have a question of law or fact in common with this lawsuit. Namely, the proposed intervenors’ interest in the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s voting procedures, mainly through the use of drop-boxes for mail-in voting, goes to the heart of plaintiffs’ action,” Ranjan said.
“Third, intervention at this time will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of plaintiffs, since the case has not progressed to a stage where intervention would be burdensome. Indeed, plaintiffs only filed their amended complaint last week. While the hearing on plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory relief is about two months away, the proposed intervenors will nonetheless be able to fully comply with this Court’s pre-hearing scheduling order, without delaying or prejudicing plaintiffs’ rights, including preparation for the hearing.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00966
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com