Supreme Court Rejects Sidney Powell’s Election Fraud Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected two mandamus petitions that Sidney Powell and other lawyers filed in late December.

The two cases took issue with the election results in Arizona and Wisconsin.

“The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied,” the court said Monday.

That’s it, that’s the order.

The matter-of-factness and brevity stand in stark contrast to the urgency and “public importance” that the lawyers communicated in the since-dismissed petitions.

“A submission directly to this Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus is unusual, but it has its foundation. While such relief is rare, this Court will grant it ‘where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken,’” each of the mandamus petitions said.

Each of the petitions also presented four questions for the court to answer:

A. Whether presidential electors have standing to challenge the outcome of a presidential election for fraud and illegality that cause the defeat of their candidate?

B. Whether federal courts have and should exercise jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over claims by presidential electors that the presidential election was stolen from them by fraud and illegality under color law in violation of their constitutional rights under the Elections and Electors, Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution?

C. Whether a claim by presidential electors to de-certify the results of a presidential election and enjoin voting in the electoral college by the rival slate of electors is barred by laches when it is brought within the state law statute of limitations for post-certification election contests, and before the post recount re- certification?

D. Whether the remedial powers of a federal court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 include invalidation of an unconstitutionally conducted election, and an injunction against presidential electors appointed in such an election from voting in the electoral college?

None of those questions were answered and the Supreme Court did not take up any of its time explaining why it did not do so.

The Supreme Court is also stepping in to hear a case that involves two Arizona election laws, one of which involves ballot harvesting.

Two Arizona laws are at issue in the virtual oral arguments before the justices. One requires election officials to reject ballots cast in the wrong precincts. The other concerns voting by mail and provides that only the voter, a family member or a caregiver can collect and deliver a completed ballot.

“Prohibiting unlimited third-party ballot harvesting is a commonsense means of protecting the secret ballot,” the state told the justices in court filings. The out-of-precinct rule is intended to prevent multiple voting, Arizona said.

But Arizona Democrats said the state has a history of switching polling places more often in minority neighborhoods and putting the polls in places intended to cause mistakes. Minorities move more often and are less likely to own homes, resulting in the need to change polling places, Democrats said.

Arizona far outpaces other states in discarding out-of-precinct ballots, rejecting 11 times more than the next-highest state. And minority voters are more likely to need help turning in their ballots, the challengers said. In many states where the practice is legal, community activists offer ballot collection to encourage voting.

The court will also hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act which the court significantly changed in 2013.

The Act used to require that states who had a history of being discriminatory in their voting laws obtain permission from courts or the Department of Justice prior to making any election law changes.

In 2013, the Court got rid of the preclearance formula because it said that Congress has not updated the formula to determine which states should be covered under the Act.

Republicans in Arizona contend that the legal test should require proof that the law in question disproportionately affects the minority group.

In other words, arguing that a law that would close the polls a half-hour earlier should also take into account other means of voting such as early voting and mail-in voting.

The Supreme Court is set to issue its ruling this summer.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Sidney Powell’s Election Fraud Cases appeared first on Conservative Brief.

Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Martin Walsh

This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.

Try a better search engine at

Visit our Discussion Forum at

Follow us:

Try a better search engine at

Visit our Discussion Forum at

Follow us:
USSA News | The Tea Party's Front Page
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :