The order asks the Supreme Court to allow Trump to intervene in support of a lawsuit by Ken Proxton, the Texas attorney general. Republican attorneys general from 18 other states also support Texas. They are asking the court to declare the election results in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania invalid, all of which were won by President-elect Joe Biden.
The lawyer who filed the Trump order, John Eastman, has made a series of inaccurate claims with the argument of the president’s position. Here is an outline of some of them.
The statement reads: “President Trump has triumphed over almost every historic record of success in presidential elections. For example, he has won both Florida and Ohio; no candidate in history – Republican or Democrat – has ever lost the election after winning both states. . ”
Facts first: This is false. Richard Nixon lost the 1960 presidential election to John F. Kennedy, although Nixon won Florida and Ohio.
It would also just be an interesting fact, not a proof of fraud, if Trump was indeed the first candidate to lose an election while wearing Ohio and Florida. Different candidates build different geographical coalitions.
Applications for absentee ballots in Michigan
The directive states: “In Michigan, the Secretary of State has illegally flooded the state with absentee ballot papers mailed to every registered voter, despite the fact that state law strictly restricts the application process.”
Facts first: The Supreme Court has the final ruling on what is legal and what is not, but no clear basis for allegation that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violated the law by sending out absentee ballot applications to every registered voter (in jurisdictions) it was not themselves send out applications to each registered voter). The application was available online to be expressed by anyone; even Michigan residents were allowed to post applications to other residents.
When Trump was asked by reporters in May to explain what he thought was illegal about what Michigan was doing, he did not give a specific answer
. Nor did White House Secretary Kayleigh McEnany when she was asked in May.
Pennsylvania and Signatures
The directive alleges that “the foreign minister has issued a directive claiming that the requirements for the verification of signatures are suspended, in violation of state law.”
Facts first: Again, we refer to the Supreme Court on what is legal – but it is noteworthy that both a unanimous Supreme Court in Pennsylvania and a federal judge appointed by Trump ruled that the signature of Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar was legal. Both found that nothing in state law required provinces to check whether the signatures of the voters on the envelopes matched the signatures on the file.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously ruled in October that Boockvar’s leadership should be maintained. “We do not want to read a requirement for the comparison of the signature in the clear and unambiguous language of the election code,” the court said in the ruling in which the judges forbade provinces to reject ballots because of the inconsistent signatures.
Similarly, Federal District Court Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, appointed by Trump, ruled in October: ‘After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and the law in question, the court finds that the clear language of the election code does not require signing. do not set. comparison for in- and absent ballot papers and applications. In other words, the leadership of the secretary complies with the election code and creates no problems with the dilution of votes. “
Throw boxes in Wisconsin
The mandate claims that “in Wisconsin, the largest cities all deployed hundreds of unmanned, uninsured ballot papers for absentees who were all invalid to return absent votes under state law.”
Facts first: We’ll leave the legality to the courts again, but it’s not true that the subjects in the major cities of Wisconsin were ‘unsafe’. The subject cabinets are fastened different ways – such as being anchored to the ground, sealed against toddler and subject to 24 hour video surveillance, as per guidance of the State Electoral Commission.
Drop boxes and parking lots
The assignment provides no evidence of mass fraud. Instead, it claims that the policies of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have created a greater prospect of fraud. As an example, it was said that “leaving ballot boxes in public parking lots is fraud.”
Facts first: It is unfounded. Official ballot papers across the country are specifically designed and set up to receive ballot boxes safely without tampering, theft or other forms of fraud – they are designed with countermeasures, mounted on the ground, made with durable materials and often monitored by video surveillance – and there is no evidence that the boxes were used in the 2020 presidential election for fraudulent purposes.
“Although there have been many debates in the past election about the use of ‘drop boxes’ for the delivery of absentee ballots, I am not aware of any cases in which fraud was found using them during the last election,” CNN’s Electoral Law analyst Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.
Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center, told CNN in August that ‘drop boxes’ do not ‘present a kind of difficult security problem’, adding that election administrators follow the same security practices they use to collect all others. ballot papers.
To indicate that the US presidential election was unfair, the call evoked a August statement in which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized the presidential election in Belarus. The order notes that Pompeo cited the ‘ban on local independent observers at polling stations’ as a factor proving that the election there was ‘not free and fair’.
Facts first: This is misleading. Regardless of what happened in Belarus, there is no evidence that independent observers have been systematically banned from US polling stations.
Since election day, Trump has on several occasions falsely claimed that Republican voters in particular have been banned from counting seats or otherwise prevented from observing the count and denying the access they legally deserve. But Trump claim after Trump claim was dropped; where Democratic observers were allowed, Republican observers were also allowed.
You can read more here about what happened to the poll viewers in key swing states.
The directive says of Trump: ‘He has won 18 of the 19 so-called’ bellwether ‘provinces in the country – provinces whose votes are historically almost always for the candidate who wins the election. ‘
Facts first: It’s true – Trump won 18 of the 19 provinces that voted for the president from 1980 to 2016, according to the Wall Street Journal – but irrelevant to the allegation that the election was tainted. As demographics and political preferences change, controversial areas may cease to be a surrounding area for overall benign reasons.