Image 01 Image 03

Pennsylvania: Emergency Injunction Sought From SCOTUS To Halt Any Further Certification Actions

Pennsylvania: Emergency Injunction Sought From SCOTUS To Halt Any Further Certification Actions

Seek “an immediate, emergency writ of injunction to prevent” PA officials “from taking any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the November 3, 2020, General Election …

On Saturday night, November 28, we noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification. The basis for the PA Supreme Court ruling was that the petitioners had waited too long, and should have challenged mail-in ballot procedures prior to the election:

Upon consideration of the parties’ filings in Commonwealth Court, we hereby dismiss the petition for review with prejudice based upon Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner. Petitioners’ challenge violates the doctrine of laches given their complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77’s enactment. It is well-established that “[l]aches is an equitable doctrine that bars relief when a complaining party is guilty of want of due diligence in failing to promptly institute an action to the prejudice of another.” Stilp v. Hafer, 718 A.2d 290, 292 (Pa. 1998).

The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.4

Note: This is not the same case as previously was before SCOTUS on the issue of mail-in ballots received after election day. This case involves the claim that the mail-in ballot procedure (so-called ‘no-excuse absentee voting’) passed by the legislature violated the PA Constitution.

In reviewing the posture of the case, which turned on state law issues, I expressed doubt the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case:

The question on everyone’s mind is whether the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case. My first reaction is that it’s hard to see on what basis SCOTUS would take the case given the nature of the ruling and the posture of the case. Unlike claims of fraud or other problems with voting that violated legislative enactments, here the mail-in provisions of the legislation itself is being challenged. But it is only challenged after the vote has taken place, unlike the late-ballot and other provisions that were challenged in advance, and unlike claims of fraud or miscount.

Two things are possible: The mail-in procedures violated the PA Constitution, and the petitioners waited too long to raise that objection. As I’ve written many times, one of the Republican legal problems in these litigations is what the remedy would be. Throwing the case to the legislature based on the mail-in procedure after the vote is asking alot, perhaps too much.

In this circumstance, I think it will be hard for the petitioners to get four SCOTUS judges to hear the case, much less five to reverse. Maybe I’ll be surprised, but that’s my initial reaction.

We should find out soon if I was overly pessimistic. The petitioner’s have filed an Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction:

Applicants (“Petitioners”) respectfully request an immediate, emergency writ of injunction to prevent the Respondents, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Thomas W. Wolf, and Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (“the Executive-Respondents”) from taking any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the November 3, 2020, General Election (the “Election”) in Pennsylvania for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States of America or certifying the remaining results of the Election for U.S. Senators and Representatives. More specifically, Petitioners seek an injunction that prohibits the Executive-Respondents from taking official action to tabulate, compute, canvass, certify, or otherwise  inalize the results of the Election as to the federal offices and that prohibits the Executive-Respondents from undertaking the following actions ….

To the extent that the above-prohibited actions have already taken place, Petitioners seek an injunction to restore the status quo ante, compelling Respondents to nullify any such actions already taken, until further order of this Court.

Petitioners also ask the Court to consider this Application as a petition for certiorari, grant certiorari on the questions presented, treat the Application papers as merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable.

The following questions are presented if the Supreme Court were to hear the case:


1. May a legislature violate its state constitution’s restrictions on the lawmaking power when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections pursuant to Article I, § 4, and Article II, § 1 of the U.S. Constitution?

2. Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violate Petitioners’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by dismissing with prejudice the case below, on the basis of laches, thereby foreclosing any opportunity for Petitioners to seek retrospective and prospective relief for ongoing constitutional violations?

The application goes, in the first instance, to Justice Alito, who is the Justice assigned to the Third Circuit (covering PA). He could grant it on his own, which seems unlikely, or refer it to the full court, which seems more likely.

The problem with getting SCOTUS to take the case is that the state supreme court is the final arbiter of state law. The petitioners try to turn that state law issue into a federal question because it concerns a federal election and arguably implicates federal rights. I’m not familiar enough with the issue to say definitively whether that will work, but there are other reasons SCOTUS may not want to hear the case.

In the end, the Petitioners are seeking to invalidate millions of votes, and throw the issue presumably to the state legislature as to selecting electors, where there is no allegation that those mail-in voters did anything wrong. They relied on a procedure passed by the legislature, used in prior elections, and not even challenged prior to this election. As a practical matter, I can’t see a court doing that.

Remember, for SCOTUS even to take the case, four Justices need to so vote. If I guessed now, I wouldn’t think there are four votes there. Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan would be certin no votes. I’d be surprised if 4 of the 5 conservatives would vote to take the case, or that all 5 would vote to overrule.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


As I have previously elaborated, SCOTUS will be of no help to Trump, irrespective of what the Constitution prescribes.

Alito ordered ballots segregated, sua sponte if i understands this correctly.

One would think he’s inclined to look further.

    stablesort in reply to rduke007. | December 1, 2020 at 6:44 pm

    As I understand the issue, Alito had assumed that the ballots were already being segregated based upon a statement by the state’s AG, but discovered too late that what he AG said had no bearing on the county election officials.

    The question that remains is how many ballots are already mixed in the soup and will be counted regardless of his order.

lindsaydoering | December 1, 2020 at 5:59 pm

The prior PA election that had mail-in under Act 77 was a primary – not a general. It impacted a different set of voting rights. Therefore – was the case even ripe for legal review prior to the general?

SCOTUS overruled the Florida supreme court in 2000, twice. There is therefore precedent for getting involved in a case where the state supreme court decided to try to throw a presidential election.

    Milhouse in reply to irv. | December 1, 2020 at 11:46 pm

    No, there isn’t. This is entirely a question of state law, so SCOTUS isn’t even entitled to an opinion on the matter. If it came up in a federal case SCOTUS would have to ask the PA supreme court for its opinion.

    Ironically if it had gone the other way, if the PA court had sided with Trump and struck down Act 77, Biden would have had a plausible case to bring to SCOTUS to overturn that, by arguing that when setting the rules for choosing electors a state legislature is not bound by its own state’s constitution. That’s a question for which good arguments can be made on both sides, and it’s a question of federal law so it would be for the federal courts to decide.

    But that’s not the situation here. Biden likes Act 77 and doesn’t want it overturned; Trump doesn’t like it and does want it overturned. And only the state courts can overturn it. The federal courts can uphold it but not overturn it. So this appeal (as opposed to appeals on the grounds of fraud, or late-arriving ballots, or observers being kept from observing) doesn’t seem to have any chance at all.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 2, 2020 at 7:36 am

      “The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, § 1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers.
      On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections.”

      It would seem that not even Justice Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer subscribe to your version of “the states can be as lawless as they please”, Milhouse. Perhaps you need to read Bush v. Gore including the dissent since you seem to have forgotten almost all of it…

        Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | December 2, 2020 at 10:52 am

        You’re either incapable of understanding plain English, or deliberately lying. There aren’t any other choices.

        This is entirely a question of state law. And the only authority on that is the state court. The only potential federal question is whether the state legislature has to follow state law. That question would only come up if the state court had sided with Trump and struck the act down. Then the federal courts would have a role, because Biden would appeal to them. But since the state court ruled that the act is valid under state law, no federal court has any role here.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 2, 2020 at 12:11 pm

          Since your options are stark I go with “Milhouse, you are lying” as the option “Milhouse, you are mistaken” is plainly impossible (in your mind).

          Even if you come to the conclusion that the State Supreme Court correctly and authoritatively determined the meaning of the action of the state legislature (which is possible) your claim was that “SCOTUS isn’t even entitled to an opinion on the matter.” This claim is patently false.
          Because there is an impact on the presidential election SCOTUS does have jurisdiction and is not in any way bound by the court below, in this case the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Again, read Bush v. Gore.

Mark Levin did a hour on this yesterday, his opinion ( I have no doubt he is right) that Act 77 is illegal and so doesn’t follow Pa law and henceforth the US Constitution in how states need to make election laws.

    Dathurtz in reply to Skip. | December 1, 2020 at 7:00 pm

    What does legal or illegal have to do with it?

    Milhouse in reply to Skip. | December 1, 2020 at 11:48 pm

    The US constitution does not require states to obey their own constitutions. If the PA courts are happy with Act 77 violating their constitution, no federal court has the right to say otherwise.

      hbk314 in reply to Milhouse. | December 2, 2020 at 5:40 am

      IANAL, but I don’t believe it violates the PA Constitution.

      Section 14 states that there needs to be a process for voters meeting the qualifications in the section to vote absentee. It says nothing that would suggest they’re the only people who may vote by mail. It reads like AT LEAST these people have to have the option, not ONLY these people.

      felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 2, 2020 at 6:56 am

      Maybe. But the court refused to interpret the State Constitution (because of their cop-out “laches”) so even if SCOTUS could ask them for the meaning of the clear language of the state constitution the state supreme court has not yet determined that meaning. I doubt even the partisan hacks of the PA supreme court will dare to say that “mo” actually means “yes”. In that case, SCOTUS would have every right to interpret the “interpretation” of PA constitutional law with the same creativeness the PA supreme court displayed (i.e. disregard what they want to say and replace it with the actual meaning of the text of the PA consitution).

        The relevant section lists specific reasons why someone is qualified to vote absentee and requires the state to facilitate that. It does not restrict further use of voting by mail, just like it doesn’t restrict in-person absentee.

        Even if it were somehow found to be unconstitutional, the votes that came in that way in the 2020 elections would have to stand.

        Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | December 2, 2020 at 10:56 am

        You are missing the point. Federal courts can only intervene if there’s a question of federal law. Had the PA courts struck this act down because it contradicts the PA constitution, then federal courts would have to consider whether to uphold it anyway, on the grounds that it doesn’t have to obey the PA constitution. That is a federal question. But since the PA courts said that under state law it’s fine (and it doesn’t matter how they reached that conclusion), no federal court can say otherwise. It’s simply not the federal courts’ business whether the PA legislature violated their own constitution.

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 3, 2020 at 5:28 am

          1. May a legislature violate its state constitution’s restrictions on the lawmaking power when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections pursuant to Article I, § 4, and Article II, § 1 of the U.S. Constitution?
          2. Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violate Petitioners’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by dismissing with prejudice the case below, on the basis of laches, thereby foreclosing any opportunity for Petitioners to seek retrospective and prospective relief for ongoing constitutional violations?”

          If you actually bothered to read before pontificating, Milhouse, you might have noticed at least two federal law questions presented by the case.

Alito FTW!

I disagree that this could invalidate millions of PA votes. What this action does is to ensure the 100 million plus LEGAL voters are protected from fraud. THAT should be the only important question in play!

It appears that the USA is over; that our citizens have lost control of our elections and some self-appointed power center is now in control of our nation.

The nation’s future is riding on the slim chance that the executive and the judiciary join forces to overturn the coup. AG Barr is not on Trump’s side on this and opines that the coup is legal.

    Dathurtz in reply to stablesort. | December 1, 2020 at 6:56 pm

    Is there no answer other than submit to tyranny?

      Hexenjager in reply to Dathurtz. | December 1, 2020 at 10:21 pm

      There is. The question is actually fast approaching. I wonder how many are willing to water The Tree…..

      And while I hope it doesn’t come to that, me and my family stand ready.

    hbk314 in reply to stablesort. | December 2, 2020 at 9:18 am

    Imagine being this delusional.

    80+ million Americans voted to remove a corrupt, incompetent president from office after one term. How in the world is that a coup?

      stablesort in reply to hbk314. | December 2, 2020 at 9:49 am

      Laws require ethics if justice is to had. Eighty million people did not vote for a cipher hiding in a basement especially if that same cipher had already spent 47 years collecting an elected office’s paycheck while accomplishing nothing worthy of note.

      Having distributed millions of ballots throughout the nation with no chain of custody is not an election, it’s a fraud plain and simple. No plea to legality can salvage this affront to our nation.

      mailman in reply to hbk314. | December 3, 2020 at 5:19 am

      Easy on there darling…Obama actually had two terms, not the one you are talking about.

This is what winning sounds like:

That is why Lin Wood wins major cases (like the Nicolas Sandman lawsuits) even after our esteemed resident moot court declares winning is impossible because …. ????

Trump is going to win. We don’t know the half of what is really going on. The US Constitution is NOT a suicide pact regardless of what Milhouse claims.

    daniel_ream in reply to Pasadena Phil. | December 1, 2020 at 9:08 pm

    But Lin Wood didn’t win the Nicholas Sandmann case. It was settled, out of court, for an undisclosed and confidential amount. Nuisance suits are settled like this all the time when it’s clear that the plantiff will take less money than you’ll have to pay your lawyers.

      Mercyneal in reply to daniel_ream. | December 2, 2020 at 5:45 am

      Um, this was NOT a nuisance case. CNN had an enormous amount to lose by going forward. They didn’t want the damning stuff to come out.. Word is that Sandmann did well in the settlement.

      By the way: I had a male friend who was sexually assaulted by a child psychiatrist when he was 12. My friend sued the shrink as an adult. Just before the case went to trial, the doctor panicked.. He knew the evidence was coming out. He paid my friend a ton of money in the settlement. Most innocent parties do NOT pay out settlements if they are innocent.

        Katy L. Stamper in reply to Mercyneal. | December 2, 2020 at 10:07 am

        Love it when the victims of child abuse get justice. Which they never really can, because no amount of money will ever undo the damage to their psyche.

        Milhouse in reply to Mercyneal. | December 2, 2020 at 11:00 am

        “Word is”?! Are you serious? You’re basing an opinion on “word is”?! What the $#%^ is that supposed to mean? Whose word? The plain truth is that none of us have any idea at all how much he got.

      mailman in reply to daniel_ream. | December 3, 2020 at 5:20 am

      CNN SETTLED…in what gods fucking world do you live in where that is not a win?!?! Honestly pal, open both fucking eyes and maybe engage a couple brain cells while you are at it!

    You’re both an idiot and a liar.

    1. Lin Wood did not win Sandmann’s cases. He got settlements, and we don’t know for how much.

    2. I never claimed winning would be impossible. I made clear that Sandmann could not sue simply for having been painted as a racist, and that remains true. If that were his case he would have nothing, and WaPo and CNN would not have given him a penny. His case was based only on the false factual statements they made, and I pointed out that it would be difficult to prove that the damage he suffered was the result of those statements and not of the “racist” smear. We will never know whether he could have proved that, because they settled.

      That is called WINNING! Whether it is settled by a judge, a jury or the defendant CAVES! You can’t even tell the difference between winning and losing? What an idiot. An endless fountain of useless information.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Pasadena Phil. | December 2, 2020 at 8:40 am

    Oh please, it doesn’t matter what “stunning evidence” anyone might have concerning election fraud. The court(s) don’t give a damn (or are too scared the “mob” will go after them if they rule the wrong way) and will find any reason no matter how lunatic to dismiss any lawsuits filed concerning the issue. So don’t expect any great revelations or decisions from the court(s). They aren’t going to come in time, if at all, before the Electors vote Biden the winner and he is installed as the puppet president for the democrat party.

An embezzling traitor like Biden will never be my president. EVER.

Either will that opportunistic tramp, Harris.


Katy L. Stamper | December 1, 2020 at 8:39 pm

Like many people, my major in college was political science.

If you read some of the historical documents, you know the purpose of the electoral college electors voting in their home states was to keep them from being intimidated or influenced as a group. Back then, travel was slow and had been the same for millenia.

The next part of electors’ role was to act as a SAFETY on the presidential election. If a candidate was unsuitable due to bad character or being in the pocket of a foreign sovereign, they were to BREAK with the election result, and choose the wisest candidate for the office.

Those who have spoken of “faithless” electors ignore this fact.

I am not smarter than the Founders or the Anti-Federalists.

It is time to call upon the Electors to fulfill their role as designed by the Founders, and to refuse to cast their votes for the candidate that WE ALL KNOW IS IN CHINA’S POCKET.


Electors should vote for Trump, no matter how voters in their states voted.




China is a country that will remove your organs while you’re conscious to sell, and not think even once about it.

Electors must be asked to perform their obligation to their countrymen to save us from domination by China.

I have never criticized “faithlessness” by electors, though I have criticized their choices when I believed them unwise.

I hope others will sound off on the historical reason we have electors, and ENCOURAGE THEM TO FULFILL THAT FUNCTION WE NOW SEE IS ESSENTIAL.


The time has come for us to recognize the Founders’ tremendous design. It took a couple of centuries for this problem to appear, and here it is. Not counting Lincoln. They never should have selected Lincoln.

But China, this is a whole other ruthless barbaric threat.

    1. What were you saying four years ago when people were calling on Trump electors to vote for Clinton?

    2. Unfortunately the supreme court ruled a few months ago that states can compel electors to vote as they’re told to. I think that was a wrong decision, but it was a unanimous vote so the current law is their way.

      Katy L. Stamper in reply to Milhouse. | December 2, 2020 at 10:12 am

      Mr. Milhouse, I’m as consistent as this year has been too long.

      I never condemn “faithless” electors. I do condemn idiot electors.

      Again, anyone that thought Hillary Clinton was a good choice for America was a sick puppy.

      But the left is full of sick puppies. Most of them need therapy.

    Why do you hate America?

    The voters have spoken. You’re proposing the end of the United States as a nation with free and fair elections.

      stablesort in reply to hbk314. | December 2, 2020 at 10:04 am

      There is no proof that any ‘mail-in’ votes are legitimate. Using the legal standard of innocent until proven guilty should not apply to votes.

      An in-person election can be trusted must more than leaflets dropped by helicopter throughout the land.

      Katy L. Stamper in reply to hbk314. | December 2, 2020 at 10:13 am

      HBK314, are you speaking to me?

      If so, you are another of the sick puppies that need therapy.

      To all that were abused as children:

      it was not your fault. You can get better. Therapy helps.

The disenfranchise argument is a bit too rich. The states are required to mail out absentee ballots to military members who request them not later than 45 days prior to the election.

That isn’t a negotiable date. It isn’t up for discussion. That is the black letter requirement. In the previous decades there have been multiple instances involving a late change in the ballot by several states.

Where was the outrage then? These military members were not provided the election day ballot. They were disenfranchised.
In effect this 45 day requirement should be the brake on changes to a ballot. Your candidate died was indicted? Tough nuggies, that name stays on the ballot.

Even with the 45 day requirement getting the ballot in the hands of a service member in a remote location is iffy. I don’t recall voting other than using a federal absentee ballot which doesn’t include state, local, judicial or constitutional amendments. How did that not disenfranchise me and many others?

If one is truly concerned about disenfranchised voters then they have a CV reflecting their prior work to ensure Joe on some mountain in Afghanistan or some small village in Iraq received their complete ballot in a timely manner. For.those.without that…get bent you didn’t care then and you don’t care now. You want an excuse to retain political power.

caseoftheblues | December 1, 2020 at 9:50 pm

Basically then cheating and fraud are fine…doesnt matter if its blatant and provable and discovered…its just too “upsetting” to the system to not let the guy with the fake win be given the office…to hell with the actual 75 million voters who actually voted for the real winner. Seriously what use is our legal system from top to bottom at this point?

where there is no allegation that those mail-in voters did anything wrong

Why should that matter? The ballot pool is tainted because the ballots weren’t properly segregated. All of them need to be thrown out if you can’t ascertain how many improper ballots there were. That there are legitimate votes in the pool is irrelevant.

I recognize the double-edged sword here. If that’s the rule then there is incentive for Democrat vote fraudsters to very publicly taint the ballot pool in Republican districts.

    Milhouse in reply to randian. | December 2, 2020 at 12:20 am

    This case has nothing to do with segregated ballots. It’s about the validity of Act 77 and the voters who relied on it in good faith.

      I hope you have this response in a cut-and-paste document someplace so you don’t have to keep retyping it multiple times to respond to people who don’t understand it the first time(s) you post it. 🙂

      stablesort in reply to Milhouse. | December 2, 2020 at 9:57 am

      This judge is involved in both cases and both cases involve this election. A pint of blood here, a pint of blood there and soon the patient has passed.

At this point, the one thing I’m taking away from all this is that it no longer matters what the plain text of the law – any law – is. I think this has been true for some time, but it’s now reached the point where it is starkly and undeniably obvious to at least 50% of the US electorate.

I’m honestly not sure what could possibly be done to restore confidence in the rule of law. Increasingly it feels like there are only two ways forward: Chile or Venezuela, and I don’t think Trump has it in him to be a Pinochet.

The shear number of challenges ongoing make this whole election challenge universe very confusing.

This case is about whether thee PA Legislature can pass a law, effecting the running of an election for federal office, which may violate the provisions of the state constitution. IMHO, for the SCOTUS to rule in this case, would require that the legislative action taken was willfully taken to facilitate fraudulent activity in the electoral process. Otherwise it is a state issue.

That being said, there is still a case to be made that, because this is a nationwide office, the actions of a single state can result in a violation of the due process protections of citizens residing in the rest of he nation. We have seen this tenet applied in federal cases involving interstate commerce. Now, this is extremely unlikely to occur in this case. But, it is still a possibility.

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | December 2, 2020 at 11:08 am

    That being said, there is still a case to be made that, because this is a nationwide office, the actions of a single state can result in a violation of the due process protections of citizens residing in the rest of he nation

    There is no such case to be made. How PA chooses its electors is entirely up to PA.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | December 2, 2020 at 5:26 pm

      Yes and no.

      While the states are responsible for determining how electors are chosen is correct, the legislature can not change that procedure, mid election, in such a manner that it will likely affect the interests of the rest of the nation, especially if such action is a violation of the state constitution.

      The claim, in this case, is that the action of the legislature violated a clause of the state constitution. This would make the effects of this action null and void. However, the PA Supreme Court did not decide that Article 77 was constitutional. Its reasoning was that even if unconstitutional, declaring it so and discarding ballots not meeting the requirements of the constitution would violate the due process rights of voters who complied with these unconstitutional mandates. So, what about the due process rights of the voters in the rest of the nation? If their votes, made under constitutional rules, are to be disregarded in favor of unconstitutional votes, who is harmed? If these unconstitutional votes actually swung the election to Biden, then you are disenfranchising all of the Trump voters who voted under state rules which were actually CONSTITUTIONAL.

      You might not like it, but the USA is now a Federal nation, run by a centralized government centered in D.C. Statism died in 1865, with the end of the US Civil War. The power of the states was severely limited by that little dispute and is now secondary to that of the federal government. If WI enacts a law governing business which affects the activities of businesses in NV, then that action can be addressed by the federal government. It is a new age.

powell and wood are both experienced litigators so believe they know what path holds the best chance for success–the fraud is blatant with copious evidence to be sure but perhaps would be easier to prove that all the legal steps(id, signature verification, chain of custody,etc)were not followed in accordance with respective state law to insure vote integrity–would seem easier to argue as rather than having to prove fraud, make the perpetrators prove that, at every turn, they followed respective state law–if they cannot, then invalidate the votes/entire state count