I Prayed have prayed
Father, thank You that You are sovereign over this election. We ask that You guide our nation in truth.
Reading Time: 9 minutes

With Election Day just days away, and early voting already underway in many states, the election-related lawsuits have been piling up, and court decisions (and appeals) have been coming out at a dizzying rate.

Some are still trying to change the rules in the middle of the election that would make it easier to commit fraud and to manipulate election resultsā€”not unlike a college football coach persuading the referees to change the rules in the middle of a bowl game to make sure his team can win.

Challenges to election procedures inĀ South CarolinaĀ (witness requirements for absentee ballots);Ā OhioĀ andĀ TexasĀ (ballot drop-box locations); andĀ Florida (registration deadline)ā€”to name just a fewā€”have all made the news as they make their way through the federal courts. . . .

Absentee-ballot deadlines have been a major contentionā€”especially when federal judges extend them well beyond Election Day. That raises many serious issues about the integrity of the election process and the possibility of ballots being voted and collected (or altered) by so-called ā€œvote harvestersā€ after Election Day to shift reported preliminary results.

Here are eight such cases:

1)Ā Wisconsin

We previouslyĀ wrote aboutĀ the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appealsā€™ decision to stay (or stop from going into effect) the order of a federal district court judge appointed by then-President Barack Obama that ā€œextended the deadline for the receipt of mailed ballots from Nov. 3 (Election Day) to Nov. 9, provided that the ballots [had been] postmarked on or before Nov. 3 ā€¦ .ā€. . .

2)Ā Indiana

Unfortunately, the 7thĀ Circuitā€™s election-related work didnā€™t end with Wisconsinā€™s case. The same court had to repeat itself only five days later when itĀ stayed and ā€œsummarily reversedā€ an Indiana-based federal judgeā€™s order ā€œrequiring the state [of Indiana] to count all absentee ballots received by November 13, 2020, ten days after Election Day.ā€Ā  . . .

3)Ā North Carolina

Shifting gears, some plaintiffs have pursued their election-related claims in state courts and then entered into settlement agreements or consent decrees with state officials who refuse to defend their state laws as they are obligated to do.

Thatā€™s known as collusive litigation, in which state election officials use lawsuits filed by their friends and political allies to subvert laws implemented by state legislatures that they donā€™t like or that were passed by their political opposition.Ā  . . .

Thatā€™s what happened in North Carolina, where the U.S. 4thĀ Circuit Court of AppealsĀ refusedĀ to stay a six-day extensionā€”from three days after the election to nineā€”during which mail-in ballots could be received and counted by election officials so long as the ballots were mailed on or before Election Day.

This extension was the result of a state court consent decree entered into between the state court plaintiffs and the North Carolina Board of Elections, which is controlled by Democrats, while both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly are controlled by Republicans.

A lower court judge found that the board had ā€œsecretlyā€ negotiated the settlement without consulting the legislature and ā€œshowed little or no interestā€ in defending state law against the lawsuit.

Judge James A. Wynn, another Obama appointee, wrote the opinion for the entire 4th Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and G. Steven Agee, with whom Judge Paul Niemeyer joined. . . .

The dissenters countered that ā€œwe are faced with nonrepresentative entities changing election law immediately preceding or during a federal election. In making those changes, they have undone the work of the elected state legislatures, to which the Constitution clearly and explicitly delegates the powerā€ to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections.Ā  . . .

Foreshadowing Gorsuchā€™s concurrence in the Wisconsin case, they went on to say, ā€œWhether it is a federal court ā€¦ or a state election boardā€”as it is hereā€”does not matter; both are unaccountable entities stripping power from the legislatures. They are changing the rules of the game in the middle of an electionā€”exactly whatĀ PurcellĀ ā€¦ counsels against.ā€

In fact, Niemeyer noted, the 4thĀ Circuit majority was changing the rules when ā€œwell over 1,000,000ā€ North Carolinians had already voted.

The courtā€™s action ā€œdisrespects the Supreme Courtā€™s repeated and clear command not to interfere so late in the day.Ā  This pernicious pattern is making the courts appear partisan, destabilizing federal elections, and undermining the power of the people to choose representatives to set election rules.ā€

 

With Election Day just days away, and early voting already underway in many states, the election-related lawsuits have been piling up, and court decisions (and appeals) have been coming out at a dizzying rate.

Some are still trying to change the rules in the middle of the election that would make it easier to commit fraud and to manipulate election resultsā€”not unlike a college football coach persuading the referees to change the rules in the middle of a bowl game to make sure his team can win.

Challenges to election procedures inĀ South CarolinaĀ (witness requirements for absentee ballots);Ā OhioĀ andĀ TexasĀ (ballot drop-box locations); andĀ FloridaĀ (registration deadline)ā€”to name just a fewā€”have all made the news as they make their way through the federal courts.

But wait, thereā€™s more!

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now.Ā Learn more now >>

Absentee-ballot deadlines have been a major contentionā€”especially when federal judges extend them well beyond Election Day. That raises many serious issues about the integrity of the election process and the possibility of ballots being voted and collected (or altered) by so-called ā€œvote harvestersā€ after Election Day to shift reported preliminary results.

Here are eight such cases:

1)Ā Wisconsin

We previouslyĀ wrote aboutĀ the U.S. 7thĀ Circuit Court of Appealsā€™ decision to stay (or stop from going into effect) the order of a federal district court judge appointed by then-President Barack Obama that ā€œextended the deadline for the receipt of mailed ballots from Nov. 3 (Election Day) to Nov. 9, provided that the ballots [had been] postmarked on or before Nov. 3 ā€¦ .ā€

In doing so, the court of appeals chastised the district court judge, reminding him that ā€œthe Supreme Court has insisted that federal courts not change electoral rules close to an election dateā€ and that ā€œthe design of adjustments during a pandemicā€ is not a ā€œjudicial task.ā€

On Oct. 26, the U.S. Supreme CourtĀ agreed, rejecting the Democratic National Committeeā€™s request for a stay of the 7thĀ Circuitā€™s order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence explaining his rationale for why this decision differed from the high courtā€™s decision in the Pennsylvania case (more on that in a moment), and Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence emphasizing that ā€œ[t]he Constitution provides that state legislaturesā€”not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officialsā€”bear primary responsibility for setting election rules ā€¦ [a]nd the Constitution provides a second layer of protection, too. If state rules need revision, Congress is free to alter them.ā€

2)Ā Indiana

Unfortunately, the 7thĀ Circuitā€™s election-related work didnā€™t end with Wisconsinā€™s case. The same court had to repeat itself only five days later when itĀ stayedĀ and ā€œsummarily reversedā€ an Indiana-based federal judgeā€™s order ā€œrequiring the state [of Indiana] to count all absentee ballots received by November 13, 2020, ten days after Election Day.ā€

The court relied on the same rationale as in its previous cases and in some instances even said ā€œ[s]ubstitute ā€˜Indianaā€™ for ā€˜Wisconsinā€™ and the essential point remains.ā€

An important point to keep in mind that too many seem to forget or want to ignore is that, as the 7thĀ Circuit said, ā€œas long as the state allows voting in person, there is no constitutional right to vote by mail.ā€

The fact that there is a pandemic is still ā€œnot a good reason for the federal judiciary to assume tasks that belong to politically responsible officials.ā€

In other words, it is up to state officials, not judges, to decide what the rules are applying to voting and the receipt of absentee ballots.

3)Ā North Carolina

Shifting gears, some plaintiffs have pursued their election-related claims in state courts and then entered into settlement agreements or consent decrees with state officials who refuse to defend their state laws as they are obligated to do.

Thatā€™s known as collusive litigation, in which state election officials use lawsuits filed by their friends and political allies to subvert laws implemented by state legislatures that they donā€™t like or that were passed by their political opposition.

Even more problematic, these consent decrees in turn often spawn their own rounds of federal litigation by state legislators and others who object to state laws being undefended and summarily changed through settlement agreements.

Thatā€™s what happened in North Carolina, where the U.S. 4thĀ Circuit Court of AppealsĀ refusedĀ to stay a six-day extensionā€”from three days after the election to nineā€”during which mail-in ballots could be received and counted by election officials so long as the ballots were mailed on or before Election Day.

This extension was the result of a state court consent decree entered into between the state court plaintiffs and the North Carolina Board of Elections, which is controlled by Democrats, while both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly are controlled by Republicans.

A lower court judge found that the board had ā€œsecretlyā€ negotiated the settlement without consulting the legislature and ā€œshowed little or no interestā€ in defending state law against the lawsuit.

Judge James A. Wynn, another Obama appointee, wrote the opinion for the entire 4thĀ Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and G. Steven Agee, with whom Judge Paul Niemeyer joined.

The central dispute between the majority and the dissent centered on what constituted the ā€œstatus quoā€ when applying theĀ PurcellĀ principle, established by the Supreme Court in 2006. Thatā€™s the idea that federal courts generally should not interfere with a stateā€™s election-related decisions close to an election.

Wynn and the majority said, ā€œThe state court issued an order approving the Consent Judgment on October 2.Ā  This October 2 order established the relevant status quo forĀ PurcellĀ purposes. Under this status quo, all absentee votes cast by Election Day and received by November 12 would be counted.ā€

The dissenters countered that ā€œwe are faced with nonrepresentative entities changing election law immediately preceding or during a federal election. In making those changes, they have undone the work of the elected state legislatures, to which the Constitution clearly and explicitly delegates the powerā€ to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections.

As the dissenters pointed out, ā€œThe Constitution does not assign these powers holistically to the state governments, but rather pinpoints a particular branch of state governmentā€”ā€˜the Legislatures thereof.ā€™ā€

Foreshadowing Gorsuchā€™s concurrence in the Wisconsin case, they went on to say, ā€œWhether it is a federal court ā€¦ or a state election boardā€”as it is hereā€”does not matter; both are unaccountable entities stripping power from the legislatures. They are changing the rules of the game in the middle of an electionā€”exactly whatĀ PurcellĀ ā€¦ counsels against.ā€

In fact, Niemeyer noted, the 4thĀ Circuit majority was changing the rules when ā€œwell over 1,000,000ā€ North Carolinians had already voted.

The courtā€™s action ā€œdisrespects the Supreme Courtā€™s repeated and clear command not to interfere so late in the day.Ā  This pernicious pattern is making the courts appear partisan, destabilizing federal elections, and undermining the power of the people to choose representatives to set election rules.ā€

Emergency appeals have already been filed with the Supreme Court by both the Trump campaign and North Carolina state legislators, no doubt encouraged by Wilkinson and Agee saying that they ā€œare likely to succeed on their appeal.ā€

4)Ā Minnesota

A federal district court in Minnesota recently confronted a similar issue with another collusive lawsuit. Thereā€”as in North Carolinaā€”Steve Simon, the Minnesota secretary of state, a former Democratic state legislator, entered into a consent decree with certain groups, as a result of a state court lawsuit, agreeing ā€œnot to enforce Minnesotaā€™s statutorily mandated absentee-ballot receipt deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.ā€

ā€œInstead, the [state] court ordered [Minnesota officials, consistent with the consent decree] to count ballots that are postmarked by November 3, so long as election officials receive them within a week of Election Day.ā€ . . .

5)Ā Michigan

The Michigan Court of Appeals, that stateā€™s intermediate appellate court,Ā ruledĀ on Oct. 16 that a lower Michigan court had incorrectly required the state to accept mail-in ballots up to 14 days after Election Day and that it had improperly prohibited the state from enforcing its laws relating to who, other than the voter, can handle and deliver his or her ballot.

It made clear that ā€œdesigning adjustments to our election integrity laws is the responsibility of our elected policymakers, not the judiciary.ā€

In fact, the court said:

Our legislature has addressed the expected increase in [absentee] voter ballots by empowering clerks to begin processing [absentee] voter ballots earlier in an effort to provide a final vote tally after polls close for the 2020 election ā€¦ .

While plaintiffs may view these efforts as inadequate first steps, there is no reason to believe that these specific efforts are constitutionally required, even in the midst of a pandemic.

Instead, they reflect the proper ā€˜exercise of discretion, the marshaling and allocation of resources, and the confrontation of thorny policy issuesā€™ that the people have reserved exclusively for our Legislative and Executive branches to exercise. . . .

6)Ā Pennsylvania

On Oct. 19, an evenly divided Supreme CourtĀ deadlockedĀ 4-4 and thus left in place a ruling by Pennsylvaniaā€™s Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that would requireā€”according to that courtā€™s interpretation of state lawā€”stateĀ  officials to count absentee ballots received up to three days after the election even if they donā€™t have a postmark showing they had been mailed by Election Day.

7)Ā Iowa

On Oct. 14, the Iowa Supreme CourtĀ heldĀ that a lower state court abused its discretion when it issued an Oct. 5 stay preventing the Iowa secretary of state from requiring that county officials distribute ā€œonly the blank Official State of Iowa Absentee Ballot Request Form ā€¦ .ā€

While the decision turns largely on state law, the court said, ā€œClearly, reasonable people can disagree on whether sending out blank or prepopulated absentee-ballot request forms is better policy ā€¦ [but m]ore importantly, it is not the role of the court system to evaluate the wisdom or fairness of policy choices made by other branches of governments.ā€Ā  . . .

8)Ā Alabama

And finally, we turn to Alabama.Ā  We previouslyĀ discussedĀ the 11th Circuitā€™s rulings that have repeatedly stayed a recalcitrant federal district judgeā€™s order prohibiting Alabama from enforcing its witness and photo-ID requirements for absentee ballots, and the fact that this same decision did not stay the district courtā€™s order telling Alabama state officials they could not stop local officials from providing curbside voting, something not authorized under state law.

(Excerpt from The Daily Wire. Article by Zach Smith. Photo Credit: Getty Images.)

Share your thoughts on these voting lawsuits. . .

Comments (4) Print

Comments

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Mel Teoh
November 2, 2020

Father God
Please allow a MAGA 2020 Landslide Victory so that all this will not be needed tomorrow but maybe a law that can not be changed for future election that election RESULT must be RECEIVED on the night of the election.
In Jesus name. Amen.

3
Suzie
November 1, 2020

FATHER GOD just as the cry was so great in Egypt when YOUR people Israel were taken and held captive, that YOU sent a deliverer, Moses to set them free and to lead them out of bondage into freedom; we also cry out to YOU FATHER GOD to help us to Not Go Into Bondage with the wicked and evil democrats in JESUS Name! Help us FATHER GOD for we have no might against all of these enemies set against us! Forgive our lack of prayer and obedience that allowed this wickedness to get to this point! FATHER GOD please send deliverance and give us 4 more years of peace with President Donald J. Trump! FATHER GOD we ask for the democrats that stand and support things that YOU call abominations to repent and receive salvation in the Name of JESUS! If they don’t repent FATHER we thank YOU for fighting our enemies for us as YOUR WORD tells us YOU Will in the MIGHTY PRECIOUS NAME of JESUS CHRIST! Amen!

5
pat dipalma
November 1, 2020

so where is the case for NJ??? I thought there was one for requiring mail ins iso going to the polls. so who fell down on the job??? We need answers!!! This can never happen again. We have been cheated by Gov. Murphy, and the election his biggest misstep.

brendamc
November 1, 2020

I pray that any and all efforts to hijack the election in any race be prevented. I pray for love, peace and unity upon all people in the Name of the LORD Jesus Christ!

35

Partner with Us

Intercessors for America is the trusted resource for millions of people across the United States committed to praying for our nation. If you have benefited from IFA's resources and community, please consider joining us as a monthly support partner. As a 501(c)3 organization, it's through your support that all this possible.

Dave Kubal
IFA President
Become a Monthly Partner

Share

Click below to share this with others

Log in to Join the Conversation

Log in to your IFA account to start a discussion, comment, pray, and interact with our community.