PITTSBURGH – In opposing 14 separate defendant motions to dismiss or join parties to a lawsuit over mail-in ballots, President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign says it is only “attempting to ensure that the upcoming General Election is conducted uniformly and in conformity with the Election Code” and “waiting is not an option” to resolve the matter.
On Aug. 4, the Trump campaign filed an 84 page-long omnibus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, stating its defense to more than a dozen motions to dismiss the suit or join additional parties to it.
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.
In addition to the Trump campaign, plaintiffs in the case are the Republican National Committee, Republican U.S. Reps. Glenn Thompson, John Joyce, Mike Kelly and Guy Reschenthaler, plus voters Melanie Stringhill Patterson and Clayton David Show.
In the five weeks since the suit was brought, a flurry of filings nearing 300 have been made in the case, including motions to dismiss the case by various counties in Pennsylvania, motions to intervene from outside organizations with a vested interest in the case or join additional parties to the action.
“To be free and fair, elections must be transparent and verifiable. Yet, defendants have inexplicably chosen a path that jeopardizes election security and will lead – and has already led – to the disenfranchisement of voters, questions about the accuracy of election results and ultimately chaos heading into the upcoming Nov. 3 General Election,” according to the lawsuit.
It is the view of the plaintiffs that such concerns are a by-product of Pennsylvania’s decision last year to provide voters with the option to vote by mail without a stated reason for doing so through Act 77.
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.”
A spokesperson for Boockvar offered no comment on the litigation.
UPDATE
Among other remarks made in the 84-page brief, the Trump campaign reiterated its view that the state election authorities’ collection and counting of mail-in ballots during the Primary Election in June was “illegal.”
“The inconsistent, patchwork administration of the Primary Election foretells of a General Election similarly fraught with the collection of ballots through illegal means, the counting of ballots that do not meet the Election Code’s requirements for a properly cast ballot, and a lackadaisical approach to enforcing the Election Code’s other requirements,” according to the brief.
“But the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has determined that the Election Code requirements for by-mail voting are mandatory, substantive provisions of Pennsylvania’s election process that must be followed to ensure ballot secrecy and to prevent fraud. Plaintiffs seek equal and rigorous enforcement of such requirements, nothing more and nothing less.”
The campaign claims they have stated “valid vote dilution claims based upon the defendants’ inconsistent election administration”, with causation having been sufficiently alleged. Furthermore, the campaign stated that despite the defendants’ ardent belief to the contrary, “none of plaintiffs’ claims require pleading or proving voter fraud.”
Additionally, the Trump campaign expressed that none of Pennsylvania’s county election boards were permitted to be dismissed from the case, since the upcoming General Election hinges on a fair application of the Election Code statewide.
“The indispensable nature of the County Election Boards defeats the motions to dismiss (or motions for a more definite statement) based upon a lack of allegations of conduct by a particular board. To ensure a uniform application of the Election Code, which is necessary to protect plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, all of the County Election Boards must be before this Court,” per the brief.
“Importantly, the Election Code gives Secretary Boockvar no authority to oversee the County Election Boards’ election administration, except for limited authority to order a recount or re-canvas. Consequently, under the Election Code, the County Election Boards, rather than Secretary Boockvar, are responsible to mail out, receive, count, and verify absentee and mail-in ballots.”
The Trump campaign also dismissed any notion of abstaining proceedings until state court matters related to the administration of elections are further developed.
“Defendants ask this Court to abstain in favor of a later-filed state court matter that will not even be through with briefing on preliminary objections until Aug. 27, 2020 (and discovery has not commenced). Moreover, plaintiffs are not parties to that state court action, the claims are not identical, the state law at issue is not ambiguous and no other justification exists that would justify this Court declining to fulfill its strict duty to exercise jurisdiction to protect federal constitutional rights,” according to the Trump campaign’s brief.
“With only three months left until the General Election, waiting is not an option.”
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