Do you see significant differences between the equal protection clause as applied in the Bush v Gore case in 2000 and the Pennsylvania case ruled on today?

It starts on page 34.
The claim that the non-uniform application of ballot curing was an EP violation as in Bush v Gore, was rejected by the judge, because the case explicitly stated that it was not about local entities having differences in their execution of elections, but about a court ordering a recount not offering guidance to ensure even rudimentary standards of equal treatment.
The mail by secretary Boockvar was not a court order, nor was it alleged that different guidance was given to different counties, and the fact that some counties chose to not implement the recommendation, or implement it differently, was judged to not be an EP violation, because that was explicitly stated to not be the matter at hand in Bush v Gore.

In the Bush v Gore case the Supreme Court said that its decision should not count as a precedent. They did not allow Florida to recount the votes because of time constraints. It is also significant that the vote difference in Florida was only only a few hundred votes whereas Biden’s lead over Trump in Pennsylvania is in the tens of thousands. There is no chance that the ballots in question could possibly reverse the state vote.

@ragingloli Do you think there is enough looseness in the Judge Brann decision versus Bush, that an appeal is not only possible, but highly likely?

@LostInParadise I did not realize that. However, whether the decision says that or not, there has been a lot of disagreement about whether it is precedent or not. For instance see
https://www.propublica.org/article/why-bush-v-gore-still-matters

You also say: “There is no chance that the ballots in question could possibly reverse the state vote.” I do not know that. Do you?

The campaign will appeal either way, regardless of chances of success, because they are banking on a biased supreme court finding in their favour.
But reading the judge’s ruling opinion, it does not sound like a narrow disagreement in the interpretation of the case Bush v Gore, but rather a finding that the campaign grossly misrepresented that case in order to support their argument. The same goes for the cases they cited to support the claim that the campaign had standing in this lawsuit.
So I think that any appeal has a very low chance of success.

I agree with @ragingloli for the reasons stated. I also think the case will become moot by the time it shows up on the SCOTUS docket.

@ragingloli I believe the campaign announced today that they will appeal. I do not know if they have to be heard in the Court of Appeals before they file for certiorari. I think Trump will get a fair hearing before the Supreme Court.

To me the most amazing thing was Biden’s confidence on Election Night. It was almost like he knew what was coming in the next few days.

@Strauss I do not think the case will be moot. I believe the appeals process will be rushed.

“To me the most amazing thing was Biden’s confidence on Election Night. It was almost like he knew what was coming in the next few days.”
That is just political showmanship. Anyone would present themselves as certain of victory.

@ragingloli You are correct – anyone would. I am probably reading more into it than was there.

@crazyguy Perhaps the process will be rushed, but from what I’ve seen and heard from various sources, as of today, 11/23/2020, Pennsylvania is all set to certify Biden as President-Elect. That would certainly make the case moot.

@Strauss I am not a lawyer; I do not know whether certification of election results makes any lawsuit moot. Would you know the impact of certification on future lawsuits?

I’m not a lawyer either. But there’s an interesting article in Law and Crime that suggests the Supreme Court has no interest in hearing this case. IMHO, that plus the certification by Michigan and most likely by Pennsylvania are the final nails in the coffin of the Trump Campaign’s attempt to win the election in the Supreme Court. It’s time to concede and let the transition begin.

I agree that the transition should commence. But, I see the need in parallel, of getting to the bottom of any and all fraud instances or even attempt fraud instances, even if the number of questionable ballots would not sway the election. My rational is that there is an even more important election coming up in January and there will be many, many future elections.

I have a strong suspicion that people will shy away from in-person voting for ever. Therefore, it is extremely important to iron out actual and potential bugs in remote voting.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/527733-trump-campaign-loses-appeal-over-pennsylvania-race

“The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that “the Campaign’s claims [of widespread voter fraud in the state] have no merit,” according to the court’s opinion.

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote in the 21-page opinion, according to the AP. “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

The three judges, all appointed by Republican presidents, determined that District Judge Matthew Brann’s order from last week was justified in rejecting the Trump’s campaign’s lawsuit.”

@ragingloli I have acknowledged previously that evidence and proof are almost impossible to find given the fact that actual ballots are guarded so securely that nobody other than election officials may look at them. It will take an interventionist and brave court decision to get to the bottom of any set of allegations. Unfortunately judges appointed by both parties are reluctant to upset the apple cart.

@crazyguy But, I see the need in parallel, of getting to the bottom of any and all fraud instances or even attempt fraud instances…

Of course any and all instances of fraud or attempted fraud should be investigated and prosecuted as warranted. But as Judge Bibas states (per @ragingloli, above) just because someone says it is so doesn’t make it so. If it’s so egregious, then District or State attorneys can investigate and/or prosecute.

Trump lawsuit again thrown our of court for lack of evicence The decision was made by justices all appointed by Republican presidents, including one appointed by Trump. In the words of one of them, “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here”. That is pretty damning. Not only is there no evidence, there is not even a clear charge being made.

@LostInParadise Yes, I saw the news story about that. I am truly surprised about the lack of a “specific” allegation. Evidence requires access to signatures in the voter roll and on the envelope in which the ballot is supposedly mailed. And we know that access is restricted until a court determines that the access is essential.

However, my question is about equal protection as it was applied in the Bush v Gore decision.

Maybe you should suggest that to Giuliani. He is not doing very well in coming up with election violations on his own.

@LostInParadise I think Trump’s legal team is getting stuck in petty squabbles, and is losing sight of the forest. However, I know that equal protection was alleged in Pennsylvania. I do not know if that allegation has been ruled on yet.

I still say those lawsuits, plus the one currently being run through the courts by the State of Texas et al, have no more standing than a tweet with a legal fee.

Edit: typo

@Strauss The legal minefield is hard to navigate and it is extremely unpredictable. My only exposure to judges has been in traffic court, and you would be amazed at the variation in rulings made by different judges; or by the same judge on different days.

So, while I agree with you that the Texas suit seems meritless, I would not be terribly surprised if SCOTUS decides to at least hear the arguments.

The claims in the suit are “novel and far-reaching,” as the State of Georgia states in its motion, joined by 20 states and the District of Columbia. This is nothing less than an attempt to force the Supreme Court to permit force the battleground states in in question to overturn the votes of the electorate.

@Strauss I would agree that the remedy sought is pretty extreme. But with the electors voting on Dec 14, time is extremely short.

Not is it extreme, but it is also without legal precedent. There has never, to my knowledge, been a successful lawsuit by one state against laws, legislators or legislation of another state.

All 50 states have certified their election. Each state has different processes for certifying results, and some states certified their slate of presidential electors separately from state and local election results. The end result is that there are 306 electoral votes projected for Biden and 232 projected for Trump. It takes 270 electoral votes of the 538 available to become president. Some states have laws that seek to bind their electors to the winning candidate and in some instances stipulate that so-called “faithless electors” may be subject to penalties or replaced by another elector. The Supreme Court ruled this summer that such laws punishing members of the Electoral College for breaking a pledge to vote for the state’s popular vote winner are constitutional.

@Strauss I agree that the case is unprecedented. I can understand possible frustration with some states’ laws, and it is ok to confirm that such laws do indeed meet the US Constitution, as they are required to do. The real question is the timing. It may be too late to undo the 2020 election, but SCOTUS could require a change for future elections, probably excluding the runoffs in Georgia.