I just looked for an update. Found one. They're asking for another hour because the dog ate their homework.
Happy New Year, y'all -
And let's start with an election litigation update for the Gohmertian Goofiness.
As of 3 minutes ago no reply brief from Gohmert but some other updates have appeared.
(No, the judge won't ignore his filing if it's a little late.)
I just looked for an update. Found one. They're asking for another hour because the dog ate their homework.
Not only do they want to intervene, they want to do so in their "official capacities as Presidential Electors for the State of Michigan."
Note: They are not Presidential Electors. Anywhere.
More from Mike Dunford
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.
As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a
The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.
But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.
https://t.co/l7EDatDudy
It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.
Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.
Oh myyyyyyyyyy
— Mike Dunford (@questauthority) January 25, 2021
Good morning, followers of frivolous election-related litigation - new filings in Seditionists v 117th Congress et al. (aka in re Gondor)
I've really got to get stuff done, but there's time for a really quick overview.
As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a
The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.
But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.
https://t.co/l7EDatDudy
It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.
Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.
Happy Monday! Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice? https://t.co/p8d3flDkGm
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) January 25, 2021
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
This is an excellent question, and it's something that I've thought about some over the last couple of months.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
Any merit to the notion that the rationales for some of these rulings will harm progressive challenges in future elections?
— Andrew Broering (@AndrewBroering) January 3, 2021
One says laches, another moot, another standing, sometimes with almost the same type of plaintiff.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
I went over the dismissal on my stream, but a few thoughts on where things are at:
1: The Notice of Appeal doesn't shock me; I figured Louie would be this dumb.
2: As was the case with the case at the District Court, it doesn't really matter how vigorously Pence defends this.
3: The lack of standing is so spectacularly, glaringly obvious that it doesn't really matter whether Pence raised certain arguments; they will get noticed by the court.
4: That's because federal courts have an independent duty to ensure they have jurisdiction.
5: Standing is a jurisdictional requirement; no standing means no case.
6: The rules for standing are clear and nothing in the opinion dismissing the case was the least bit controversial in any universe except the alternate one inhabited by Louie and the Arizonan cosplayers.
7: "But it's the 5th Circuit" will be raised both by Trumpistians and those who are exceptionally nervous. There is exactly as much reason to be concerned about the 5th as there was the trial court: ie none at all.
So - my expectations:
Given the timeline, I suspect that Louie will be granted an expedited appeal and will lose on an expedited basis. I also expect that he will appeal to SCOTUS and the appeal there will not be expedited.
1: The Notice of Appeal doesn't shock me; I figured Louie would be this dumb.
2: As was the case with the case at the District Court, it doesn't really matter how vigorously Pence defends this.
And the appeal has been noticed. pic.twitter.com/o4g4ES1wrU
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 2, 2021
3: The lack of standing is so spectacularly, glaringly obvious that it doesn't really matter whether Pence raised certain arguments; they will get noticed by the court.
4: That's because federal courts have an independent duty to ensure they have jurisdiction.
5: Standing is a jurisdictional requirement; no standing means no case.
6: The rules for standing are clear and nothing in the opinion dismissing the case was the least bit controversial in any universe except the alternate one inhabited by Louie and the Arizonan cosplayers.
7: "But it's the 5th Circuit" will be raised both by Trumpistians and those who are exceptionally nervous. There is exactly as much reason to be concerned about the 5th as there was the trial court: ie none at all.
So - my expectations:
Given the timeline, I suspect that Louie will be granted an expedited appeal and will lose on an expedited basis. I also expect that he will appeal to SCOTUS and the appeal there will not be expedited.
More from Politics
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
