[ad_1]
Since before Democrat Joe Biden’s victory was declared in the US election, President Donald Trump was preparing a legal effort in more than five states across the country to try and reverse the results last Tuesday.
On the one hand, there will be counts in many of them, as the laws allow this as long as the difference is narrow.
(Read also: Biden urges the country to join him in ‘defeating despair’)
But in parallel there is a whole legal battle that will be fought in the courts of the country, as the president claims that there has been fraud and the electoral rules have been violated. While many of the president’s allegations seemed unfounded, others are more serious and will occupy global attention in the coming days.
Until this Saturday, there were lawsuits pending in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona and Pennsylvania. But, undoubtedly, eyes will be on the latter state, which was the one the president gave Biden and where the Trump campaign is paying more attention.
In total, there are half a dozen lawsuits in this state and on several fronts. A group of them are more associated with the electoral process, while others deal with alleged irregularities. Although with different shades, the demands are very similar to those high in other states.
(You may be interested in: international reactions to the election of Biden and Harris in the United States)
The most serious, for the moment, are three. One has to do with the votes that came after this Tuesday when the polling stations closed and whether they can be counted.
About a month ago, Democrats turned to state courts to ask a judge to extend the deadline for mail-order voting to arrive because delays were occurring at the post office. Partly due to the high volume of mail being processed and, in part, because Trump’s newly appointed post office manager was suspected of having implemented changes (including downsizing) that were contributing to the situation.
On the streets, Trump’s critics have spilled over to the popular phrase he used on his TV show “The Apprentice”.
As in other states of the country, was a change requested to accommodate the reality of the coronavirus and allow more people to use mail as a voting method to avoid contagion.
The judge agreed with them and gave three additional days for the ballot papers to arrive, provided that the stamp is shown to have been deposited before Tuesday at 8 pm, when the elections closed.
Republicans have asked for the decision before the State Supreme Court of Justice, claiming that the electoral rules were changed at the last minute and that the only one with the power to authorize this change was the legislator.
As the court ruled that the judge’s decision was valid, the Republicans filed the case before the national Supreme Court of Justice.
(Read also: Joe Biden’s career keys and political milestones)
This court, still consisting of eight members since the recent death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg (there are nine members), he refused on two occasions to reconsider the case, but in a split decision in which a Conservative judge and three Liberals lined up to say they saw reason now to reverse the state Supreme Court decision .
However, they left the door open for further review. But since conservative judge Amy Coney Barret, appointed by Trump a few days ago, has already entered the court, it is believed that conservatives can prevail on the thesis that the constitution gives the legislator only the power to establish electoral rules and does not provide for exceptional situations such as the coronavirus.
These types of judges who defend this legal doctrine in the United States are called “originalitas” because their interpretation of the Constitution is literal.
But if they did, it would be controversial. First, because these are legitimate American votes that would be discarded. And second, because when the Supreme Court did not oppose voters using the three-day deadline, it created a right that would now be eliminated when it was too late to correct. That is, if the voters had known that their vote would not be counted if they were late, they could have chosen to vote earlier. or in person.
(We recommend that you read: ‘I am the first vice president of the United States, but I will not be the last’: Kamala Harris)
Hundreds of people gathered near the White House to protest against Trump.
Michael Reynolds. EFE
Even if they decide to discard those votes that came later, they would not be enough to alter the outcome in the state. It is estimated to be around 10,000 and Biden’s lead at the moment is much higher than that number.
The electoral authorities, in fact, separated those ballots so as not to confuse them with the rest of the early vote that arrived on time, anticipating that the Court could have discarded them.
(Read on: Why Does Mexico’s President Still Not Recognize Biden’s Election?)
Second request
The second heavy lawsuit has to do with alleged interference with citizens to observe vote counts in the city of Pittsburgh (there is a similar demand in Michigan and another in Nevada) as permitted by law. The count, in fact, was partially suspended while the case was being evaluated by a judge who ordered greater access.. Whether or not they did is controversial.
City officials say if access was restricted it was to prevent a catastrophe, as many of these observers showed up with guns and high morale.
At worst, a judge could order that the count be repeated in this city, this time with full observation. But it is estimated that the Trump campaign will still call for a recount in the state of Pennsylvania. This should clear up the doubts that exist regarding voting in this city.
What comes to my mind is that they are responding to the president’s orders by asking to do something to change the outcome
Third statement
The third involves a statement from the secretary of state who told a county’s voters who could correct mistakes on their papers by going to the polling stations.
And it should be prohibited. No one knows yet if this is true or how many people would have “curated” their vote. Furthermore, the problem is that in the midst of this type of lawsuit, accusations of all kinds are circulating on social networks and no one knows which are real and which are invented, which today are very easy to build and propagate (video alteration, etc.).
This, however, is what the authorities will need to investigate.
(Recommended story: Reconciling the United States, Biden’s challenge after beating Trump)
But, in a politicized environment like the one that exists, it won’t be easy and the loser will never be satisfied. Especially when the president himself has already decreed, without initiating those investigations, that the elections have been stolen.
There is also an underlying issue that will weigh, particularly with the Democrats.
For none of them is it a mystery that many of these cases will eventually make it to the Supreme Court, which at the moment is composed of a clear conservative majority of six members and that three of them have been chosen by Trump.
The president himself, in fact, has been telegraphing for some time that he hopes that the Court will defend him and grant him the presidency, and if that happens the social explosion could be immense.
Associated legal strategists in the Republican Party think that while the battle won’t be easy, Trump has claims that could be valid. “It is important that all votes are counted. But it is equally important to recognize that not all votes can be legal. Just as it is imperative that all valid ones be added, it is imperative that invalid ones are excluded, ”says attorney George Terwilliger, who was part of George W. Bush’s team in their Florida vote dispute. 2000.
But not everyone, even in this match, sees it that way. “It is difficult for me to understand what the legal strategy is here. What comes to my mind is that they are responding to the president’s orders asking to do something to change the outcome. But what is known about these lawsuits is that none have the potential to change the course of the election. They are a small thing, ”says Benjamin Ginsberg, who also worked with Bush on this endeavor.
(You may be interested in: Joe Biden, President-elect of the United States)
Trump also has a serious problem. Unlike Bush in 2000, where he only had to preserve the vote in a state where the Earl himself favored it, the president in this case would have to flip the result in three states where he lost for a chance to stay with the White House. And dramatically.
In the case of Florida, Bush won with 537 votes. The president, in Pennsylvania alone, is expected to get thousands of votes quashed – or a similar number will appear in his favor.
SERGIO GOMEZ
Correspondent EL TIEMPO
WASHINGTON
.
[ad_2]
Source link
