Election Officials in Philadelphia (of course) conspired with the candidate of a state senate race to falsify absentee ballots.
Justice Newcomer, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania wrote, in part:
"Indeed, the two Democrats on the three-member board of elections, an elected body, testified that they were aware of the voter fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce the election law and had later tried to conceal their activities by hurriedly certifying the Democratic candidate as the winner."
At issue were fraudulently cast absentee ballots, sufficient to cast the results of the election in doubt. In his ruling, Newcomer threw out the absentee ballots, and kept the votes that had been recorded on election day by voting machines. In that outcome, the Republican won.
So he did not "award" the election to the loser. He based an adjudication of the winner on the only reliable votes at hand.
The Third Circuit returned his decision with an order that he reconsider on the merits. He did so, and reaffirmed his earlier decision. The case went to the USSC, which upheld Newcomer's decision.
This kind of case is taken to the Federal courts all the time, and involves a claim by the plaintiff that he and his voters were discriminated against as a class which is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a clear matter of Federal law. He also held that the actions of the elections board, who were co-conspirators, meant that he and the voters of his district were denied due process in the election proceedings, also a matter of Federal law.
So, there is nothing terribly radical here. A judge made a decision about the usability of fraudulent ballots, and ruled that fraudulent ballots couldn't be used. By disqualifying the illegal ballots, the remaining ballots decided the election.
What does this have to do with Huffpo's claim that this case establishes a precedent for overturning the current election?
Nothing.
Thanks for your clarification. the story I read on it didn’t have all those details and it was indeed misleading. Thanks again for clearing that up.
Thanks for your clarification. the story I read on it didn’t have all those details and it was indeed misleading. Thanks again for clearing that up.
Great post. Thanks.