Republicans suffered setbacks in court challenges over presidential elections in three battling states on Friday, while a law firm that was criticized for its work for President Donald Trump’s campaign withdrew from a major case in Pennsylvania.
The legal blows began when a federal appeals court rejected an attempt to block some 9,300 mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day in Pennsylvania.
The judges noted the “great disruption” and “unprecedented challenges” facing the nation during the Covid-19 pandemic as they maintained the three-day extension.
US Chief Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith said the panel had in mind “an indisputable proposition in our democratic process: that the legitimate vote of all citizens must count.” The ruling involves a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to accept mail-in ballots through Friday, Nov. 6, citing the pandemic and concerns about postal service delays.
Republicans have also asked the US Supreme Court to review the issue. However, there aren’t enough late-coming ballots to change the results in Pennsylvania, given President-elect Joe Biden’s lead.
The former Democratic vice president won the state by about 60,000 votes out of 6.8 million cast.
The Trump campaign or Republican representatives have filed more than 15 legal challenges in Pennsylvania as they seek to reclaim the state’s 20 electoral votes, but so far they have offered no evidence of any widespread electoral fraud.
A Philadelphia judge found none because he refused Friday night to reject about 8,300 mail-in ballots there. The campaign has pursued similar litigation in other battlefield states, with little to show.
In Michigan, a judge on Friday refused to stop certifying Detroit-area election results, rejecting claims the city had committed fraud and tainted the tally with its handling of absentee ballots.
It is the third time a judge has refused to intervene in a state count that shows Biden for more than 140,000 votes.
And, in Arizona, a judge dismissed a Trump campaign lawsuit that sought ballot inspection in the greater Phoenix area after campaign attorneys acknowledged that the small number of ballots in question would not change the outcome of how the state voted for president.
The campaign had sought a postponement of the certification of Maricopa County election results until ballots containing excess votes were inspected, instances in which people were voting for more candidates than allowed.
Meanwhile, legal giant Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, who had been criticized for their work for the Trump campaign, withdrew from a lawsuit that seeks to stop Pennsylvania officials from certifying election results.
Porter Wright introduced the motion on Thursday, as criticism mounted that law firms backing Republican election challenges were helping Trump challenge the will of the American people.
Porter Wright, who has made more than $ 700,000 from the Trump campaign, appeared to delete his Twitter account on Tuesday after it was inundated with attacks.
The payments include more than $ 140,000 paid through a Republican National Committee account for “count” challenges, according to Federal Election Commission records.
The firm did not respond to specific questions about the posts or whether it would cease representing the Trump campaign entirely. In a statement earlier this week, the firm said it had a long track record in handling electoral law cases for various parties.
“Sometimes this forces us to take on controversial cases. We expect criticism in such cases and affirm the right of all people to express concern and disagreement, ”the Ohio-based firm said.
The US appeals court, denying the request for an injunction on Friday, said it was not ruling on the wisdom of the three-day extension or on the power of the state court to grant it. Instead, the court found that the plaintiffs had no right to challenge ballots submitted by compliant voters who were trying to follow the rules in a chaotic year.
“The Covid-19 pandemic … has caused immense loss and great disruption,” Smith wrote to the three-judge panel, which concluded that mail-in voters may be harmed by the process, not unfairly privileged.
“While in-person ballots that are cast on time will count, ballots cast on time may not count because, given the mail-in rates, they may not be received before 5:00 pm on November 6.” Smith said.
.
