Last week, we reported on the efforts being made to undermine the American election system with challenges being raised in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. We sent our letter to the Pennsylvania election officials urging careful compliance with the law and, just days later, we filed a critical brief in a Pennsylvania state appellate court.
After we filed our brief, the leftist activists dismissed their lawsuit. Then they filed in federal court. So yesterday, so did we.
Working with local counsel in Pennsylvania, we filed our amicus brief on behalf of over 100,000 Americans who joined our cause – including over 4,000 Pennsylvanians.
The case is set for an emergency hearing today, so it can resolve this suit before a rapidly approaching federal deadline on December 13, 2016.
In this new federal lawsuit, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein alleged that the Pennsylvania election recount requirements are unconstitutional. She’s wrong, and in our brief we explained why.
We made the case that Pennsylvania election law adequately protects its voters’ constitutional rights, for instance, the law requires a mandatory statewide recount when an election is decided by 0.5% or less. We explained that just because those wanting a recount failed to meet the threshold requirements does not make those requirements unconstitutional. And we argued that their failure to identify a single instance of illegality in the election and refusal to post a bond as showing required by law was the reason their scheme was doomed to fail.
Plaintiffs allege that there is “no feasible process for the voters to obtain a statewide recount.” This is false. There is a feasible process if the voters have evidence of illegality. The available process was not “feasible” for these activists because they had no such evidence. Plaintiffs now berate the Pennsylvania law with which they were either unable or unwilling to comply. But failure by political activists to satisfy the basic requirements of state election and pleading code to obtain an optional recount do not turn those requirements into unconstitutional burdens on the right to vote — especially when the law also allows for — in fact, requires — an automatic statewide recount when the election is decided by 0.5% or less.
Jill Stein, and her supporters are attempting to undermine the election process. In this lawsuit, just like the others, they have no case. Just as we explained, Pennsylvania law:
adequately protects the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiffs — the right to vote and have one’s vote counted — and Plaintiffs identify no authority to the contrary.
Today, an emergency hearing has been scheduled in federal court in Pennsylvania. Yesterday a federal court in Michigan shut down an unwarranted and burdensome recount in that state. The anarchists seeking to undermine our constitutional election process are failing. We will win. The Constitution will prevail. And we’ll keep fighting until that is ensured.
We told you we would monitor the election recount situation and engage as needed. We have done so, and we are achieving positive results. As we said last week:
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.
There is still time for you to join our cause. Stand with us and thousands of other Americans against partisan activists intent on delegitimizing America’s election system.
UPDATE 12.12.2016: Today, the federal court entered its Order denying Jill Stein’s baseless request for an emergency order compelling Pennsylvania to conduct a statewide recount. The court noted that the relief Stein sought would jeopardize the votes of all Pennsylvania voters:
[G]ranting the relief Plaintiffs seek would make it impossible for the Commonwealth to certify its Presidential Electors by December 13 (as required by federal law), thus inexcusably disenfranchising some six million Pennsylvania voters.
Following an argument we raised in our brief in the case, the court explained how , in the state court case in which we also filed a brief, the petitioners there “did not include any allegation that hacking had actually occurred.” And paraphrasing another argument we raised, the court explained, “The right to have one’s vote counted does not, however, encompass the right to have one’s vote verified through a mandatory statewide recount.”
The recount in Pennsylvania is over. We won. Activist efforts to delegitimize our election have failed. The integrity of our election system is intact. Thank you for standing with us and making your voice heard.
As we battle to defend the constitutional election process, we urgently need your support. Chip in $5 or more now.
Will Senate Republicans have to “go nuclear” in order to secure our border and avoid a government shutdown? Today on the show we discussed the possibility of Senate Republicans having to exercise the so-called nuclear option, or what I call simply “the Constitutional option,” that would only...
The framers of our Constitution wisely adopted the practice, utilized by many governments since Biblical times, of mandating that a census be regularly taken to count the citizen and non-citizen populations, and obtain other useful information. The relevant Constitutional clause leaves the details...
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...