Just days ago we told you about the efforts being made to undermine the American election system with challenges being raised in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. We told you about our letter to the Pennsylvania election officials urging them to ensure that local law is meticulously followed.
We told you we would monitor the situation and engage as necessary.
We have engaged. Today, we filed an amicus brief with the Pennsylvania appellate court hearing the election recount lawsuit, on behalf of thousands of Americans and many concerned Pennsylvanians.
The case is set for a hearing Monday morning. The court needs to resolve this suit before a critical federal deadline that’s just around the corner on December 13, 2016.
In our brief, we made the case that the leftist activists who filed the lawsuit simply failed to allege anything that supported their “belief” and “concern” that the Pennsylvania presidential election was “illegal.” The Petitioners identified three reasons that, they contended, the court should order a recount: (1) an “expert” opinion that said that hacking is possible; (2) Democrat National Committee (DNC) and voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois were hacked; and (3) the actual results were inconsistent with the pre-election polls.
We tackled each of these reasons and explained why it failed to justify a recount under state law. First, there was no evidence presented of any hacking; second, there was no evidence presented about any hacking or fraud in Pennsylvania, just unrelated speculation; and third, even the petitioners’ own supposed “expert” concluded that “the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong.” In sum, the anarchist activists attempting to undermine the election process simply have no case.
In conclusion we argued:
All three bases miss the mark. Perhaps, Petitioners must believe, if they allege enough hypothetical, hyperbole, and computer activity unrelated to the Commonwealth’s 2016 election, something will stick. But reliance on three legally insufficient grounds does not generate a legally sufficient petition. The product of three times zero is still zero.
We argued that a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion, “directly on point, forecloses Petitioners’ scheme.” According to that opinion:
As we noted before, the court will not grope in the dark, or follow a contestant on a fishing expedition, in the hope of being able to find enough to enable him by the investigation to make out his case.
We also argued that, “[t]o prevail, Petitioners must present evidence at the hearing of actual illegal electronic vote manipulation — something not even alleged or identified in their Petition. Even if this Court were to overlook the legal insufficiencies of Petitioners’ pleading, it must not overlook a glaring lack of evidence.”
Just like we told the court:
The policy of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in protecting its citizens’ right to seek a judicially supervised recount when evidence of foul play has surfaced is critically important. This Petition makes a mockery of that policy and cheapens and jeopardizes that protection.
Finally, we urged the “Court to filter out the facially baseless claim made by the Petitioners herein and in so doing, preserve the integrity of the Commonwealth’s 2016 presidential election, its Election Code, its citizens’ constitutional rights, and the American election process.”
American elections are the envy of the world. We will continue to do everything we can to make sure they always are. We will continue to monitor this case, and the others, and bring you any new important developments.
Join us and take a stand against partisan activists intent on delegitimizing America’s election system.
UPDATE 12.5.2016: The leftist agitators have just dismissed their lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court. Through your voice we helped soundly defeated their first attempt to undermine the election process in state court. But now they’ve promised to file a federal lawsuit today demanding the same arbitrary recount. We are ready to file another critical amicus brief in federal court to uphold the integrity of our election process.
As we battle to defend the constitutional election process, we urgently need your support. Chip in $5 or more now.
As we have detailed previously, one of the most important aspects of presidential power is the ability to nominate federal judges – judges who will determine how the Constitution is interpreted for decades to come. We have been aggressively working behind the scenes to ensure that qualified...
Governments across the world have conducted censuses to count their citizen and non-citizen populations, and obtain other useful information, since Biblical times. The framers of our Constitution adopted this tradition by mandating that a census be taken every ten years, which has occurred...
In a major victory for U.S. diplomacy, the U.S. Senate has confirmed Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State and Ric Grenell to be U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Mr. Pompeo was confirmed by a vote of 57-42 and Mr. Grenell was confirmed by a vote of 56-42. As we have previously reported, these two...
Recently, the State of California passed several laws designed to advance California’s open-borders agenda and status as a sanctuary state. These laws, for example, restrict voluntary cooperation with federal immigration agents by employers and state and local law enforcement agencies when it comes...