Lawsuits as Means to Restructure U.S. State for Greater Federal ControlPrior to the election, lawsuits brought by Trump forces in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Virginia, New Jersey, Illinois, Montana, Hawaii, Texas and elsewhere challenged state and county authorities attempting to expand access to mail-in ballots and time for receiving them. They argued that mail voting would increase the incidence of voter fraud. Virginia, Nevada and Vermont have been settled but the rest are pending. While there are almost no examples of ineligible voters voting, there is ample evidence of the fraud of election officials arbitrarily discounting mail-in ballots, saying signatures on ballot envelopes do not match the voter's registration card, or that no signature is present, etc. It is also the case that these lawsuits are directed at state authorities. Court rulings against the states, especially if they go to the Supreme Court, could significantly strengthen federal control over election laws and regulations. Since the election, Trump has filed several lawsuits. In Nevada the claim is that non-residents voted. In Georgia it is claimed that absentee ballots received after the 7 pm deadline on Election Day were not separated and held for several days as required but instead were counted. Both of these were dismissed by local judges. However, Republicans in Nevada have filed a lawsuit claiming, without evidence, irregularities concerning the counting of votes and ineligible people voting. That suit is still pending.
In Pennsylvania, one Trump lawsuit involves an effort to keep ballots received after Election Day from being counted, a case likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. A second challenges the counting of mailed and absentee votes in Philadelphia. For Philadelphia, Trump's observers want to be close enough to see the writing on the outside of the ballots, which is where signatures are. A ruling by the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County allowed for observers to be closer, but also emphasized observers "are directed only to observe and not to audit ballots." Trump's lawyers have appealed that case to Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court. This then is a means for creating the basis, in future elections, for the campaigns themselves, not local county officials, to have control over auditing ballots -- potentially getting them thrown out, or counted, depending on what serves the campaign. It is likely that some of these cases, and perhaps additional ones Trump files as the dispute continues, could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Part of what is occurring then is an effort to have election law determined by the federal government, in this case the Supreme Court. Currently, for elections, usually the Supreme Court of each state has the final say on election law and usually the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, lets stand their decisions. This is because the Constitution gives states, not the federal government, the power to decide how elections are run. This power was part of the compromise that secured the forming of the Union at that time, despite the strength of the colonies to be independent republics of their own. Overall the existing structure still keeps power in the hands of the states when it comes to elections. There have been various times when the federal government has intervened, such as with the Voting Rights Act. As well, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) after the 2000 Bush-Gore election took steps to concentrate power for elections, giving state Secretaries of State control over voter rolls and regulations which before that was mainly at the county level. These current efforts take this further, by now potentially removing this power from the state Secretaries of State and concentrating it more in federal hands. A ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, against Pennsylvania extending the deadline for receiving ballots, would serve this. It would provide a mechanism to put far greater power at the level of the federal government to say various state election laws and regulations are unconstitutional -- something that could then be applied to other states. It has been a major feature of the Trump administration to break the bonds of the Constitution and provide conditions for the ruling oligarchs to restructure all previous arrangements to directly seize hold of the political power and eliminate any arrangements that stand in their way. State-controlled elections, especially in conditions where the outcome cannot be predicted, have become such an obstacle. However, the rulers are perhaps underestimating the broad sentiment among the people that the Supreme Court is now stacked in favour of Trump. The rapid confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court was seen as undemocratic. So unlike the Bush-Gore election, when the Supreme Court deciding the election outcome was accepted, that is not likely to be the case now. Among the people, the court is losing its legitimacy, as is generally the case for government at all levels. A danger to the people is to see such restructuring that favours the rulers as something that favours the people. For elections it would no doubt be justified in the name of eliminating the various inequalities stemming from different state laws and regulations, eliminating the Electoral College and so forth. The change needed
is not greater federal control. It is greater control by the people
themselves, their empowerment to decide health care, education, jobs,
elections -- all matters of concern. The problem is developing a
structure that ensures all are equal members of the polity, with equal
rights and duties. (Photo: V. Pickering)
This article was published in Article Link:   Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
In Michigan, the Trump
campaign is asking for counting to stop until it has "meaningful
access" to observe ballots being counted and "to review those ballots
which were opened and counted while we did not have meaningful access."
Detroit is one of the places named. The suit specifically targets the
Michigan Secretary of State claiming her actions "have undermined the
right of all Michigan voters -- including the voters bringing this
action -- to participate in fair and lawful elections." It is more
likely that the suit is in part a means for the campaign to challenge
mail-in ballots based on signatures and to discount votes, not count
them. A local Michigan judge dismissed the lawsuit November 5. The
Trump campaign has not said whether they will appeal. 