The project’s post-election claim was tossed, just before the commonwealth’s certification deadline.
A federal court has thrown out the Trump campaign’s claim in Pennsylvania, which challenged presumptive President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the commonwealth. In so doing, district judge Matthew Brann refused the campaign’s eleventh-hour attempt to file a new grievance that would have restored election scams claims the Trump project had abandoned a couple of days earlier. (I described the suit here, and discussed the Trump project’s last-ditch effort to change it here)
Judge Brann’s 37- page opinion states a variety of factors for dismissing the case. The majority of them are directed toward the grievances of two specific complainants– voters who declared that their ballots had been poorly discounted. By contrast, the court found that the Trump project had no standing to take legal action against, having actually presumed no evidence that President Trump was harmed in any cognizable method by the way in which the election was performed in Pennsylvania.
At bottom, though, the court discovered that the fatal flaw in the event is the one that we have repeatedly stressed: The inequality between the harm alleged and the treatment sought.
As the judge discussed, even if one accepted the dubious property that the 2 citizens in concern were incorrectly denied the right to vote while others similarly situated were not, the commensurate relief would be for their votes to be counted.
That, however, was not the solution they sought. Rather, supported by the Trump campaign, the 2 citizens petitioned the court to stop Pennsylvania from certifying– on Monday as state law requires– the commonwealth’s election result, which had Biden winning by 83,000 votes. Brann countered:
Forbiding accreditation of the election results would not renew the Specific Plaintiffs’ right to vote. It would simply reject more than 6.8 million [Pennsylvanians] their right to vote. “Standing is determined based on the theory of damage and the specific relief asked for.” It is not “given in gross: A plaintiff’s remedy need to be tailored to redress the plaintiff’s specific injury.” Here, the response to revoked tallies is not to invalidate millions more. [Footnotes omitted.]
As we detailed on Friday, the case was in an odd posture.
In submitting its initial complaint on November 9, the Trump campaign declared comprehensive vote fraud, relying primarily on the allegation that Republican poll-w