This is an excellent question, and it's something that I've thought about some over the last couple of months.

Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.

The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.

That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.

Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
The federal cases were the ones with standing issues. The federal courts are supposed to have a limited role in state elections. That role is primarily in protecting the right to vote, and as many judges noted this year, these post-election cases weren't about the right to vote.
They were, instead, challenges based on the premise that "my vote should count, that other person's shouldn't." Finding a lack of individual voter standing for a challenge to thousands of other voters is very much in line with existing law.
The Electors Clause cases made new standing law, but that's a relatively novel theory that's never been the basis for such aggressive litigation.

The theory Trump was advancing was that any deviation from state election law could be litigated in federal courts.
I can understand why having that as an option would be something welcomed by some on the left, but I'm conservative enough (at least when it comes to federal jurisprudence) to think that would be a bad thing.
I don't think the federal courts should be ruling de novo on whether (eg) it violates Pennsylvania law to make observers stand 10 feet from tables instead of 6 feet, or on whether it violates Georgia law to make an election clerk get a second opinion on a signature question.
Meanwhile, there was considerable pre-election litigation (on many of the same questions) where there weren't issues because the right parties brought cases in the right court at the right time.
So I'm pretty much OK with the way the courts - especially federal - handled the post-election litigation this cycle.

More from Mike Dunford

Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.

No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.

If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.

Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of


Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.

Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
I went over the dismissal on my stream, but a few thoughts on where things are at:

1: The Notice of Appeal doesn't shock me; I figured Louie would be this dumb.
2: As was the case with the case at the District Court, it doesn't really matter how vigorously Pence defends this.


3: The lack of standing is so spectacularly, glaringly obvious that it doesn't really matter whether Pence raised certain arguments; they will get noticed by the court.
4: That's because federal courts have an independent duty to ensure they have jurisdiction.

5: Standing is a jurisdictional requirement; no standing means no case.
6: The rules for standing are clear and nothing in the opinion dismissing the case was the least bit controversial in any universe except the alternate one inhabited by Louie and the Arizonan cosplayers.

7: "But it's the 5th Circuit" will be raised both by Trumpistians and those who are exceptionally nervous. There is exactly as much reason to be concerned about the 5th as there was the trial court: ie none at all.

So - my expectations:
Given the timeline, I suspect that Louie will be granted an expedited appeal and will lose on an expedited basis. I also expect that he will appeal to SCOTUS and the appeal there will not be expedited.
Election Litigation Update: DC - the "let's sue the Electoral College" case.

This is a bit surprising, given that as of last time I checked nobody had been served and no appearance had been entered. I suspect it's an effort to make sure the case isn't "pending" on the 6th.


And, sure enough, still no proof of service on ANY defendant, still no appearance from defense counsel. And this is denying the motion for preliminary injunction but does NOT dismiss the case - which is potentially ominous for plaintiff's counsel.


This isn't a "happy judge" kind of first paragraph. Not even a little bit. Nope.


Y'all, this isn't even directed within a few hundred miles of my direction and I sill just instinctively checked to make sure that there's room for me to hide under my desk if I have to - this is a very not happy, very federal, very judge tone.


Also - the judge just outright said there's a bunch of reasons for dismissal. And not in "might be" terms. In definite fact ones. But the case isn't dismissed yet.

If I was plaintiffs counsel, I'd definitely be clearing under my desk right now, and possibly also my underwear.

More from Government

Canada is failing to act on Climate Change. @wef @WorldBank @IMFNews @IPCC_CH @UNDPGAIN @AntiCorruptIntl @Pontifex @JustinWelby @OCCRP @StopCorpAbuse @TaxJusticeNet @FairTaxCanada @ecojustice_ca @WCELaw @CanEnvLawAssn @envirodefence @IBA_Canada #cdnpoli


Covid recovery money is going to the oligarchy.

Ottawa and the provinces have put very little on the table to help clean-tech companies directly during Covid 19 while targeting fossil-fuel producers with more than $16 billion in aid.

Coast to coast people have demanded treaties be honored. We demanded climate action, divestment and land back but Canada is not listening. This video shows 10 years of rallies in Waterloo Ontario. City & regional council declared a climate emergency. 🚨

The Bank of China (BOC), SNC-Lavalin and WE Charity were recipients of taxpayer-funded the Covid 19 Canadian Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS)
Let me take a stab at this after years of reporting on Marine One, HMX-1, Continuity of Government, etc. None of this is definitive, but it could help explain what folks are seeing:

1.) HMX-1, which flies the VH-3D and VH-60N 'White Top' helicopters used to move... 1/X


the President and VP around, those helos being called Marine One or Two when either is onboard, need to train. The urban landing zones, including WH and VP Residence, are not simple to get in and out of. So, crews need some currency training. They are not just tasked with... 2/X

moving POTUS and VP to get them around the region and to Andrews AFB for long-haul flights, they are essential to Continuity of Government operations. This means that if a threat were to emerge, they need to be ready to snatch POTUS and VP in minutes. This is partially... 3/X

why they have a full forward operating location at Naval Support Activity Anacostia, just 3 miles from the WH. As such, practice is important and considering the state of things, it is critical now more than in any recent memory. 4/X

2.) Considering what happened last week, including mobs of Trump supporters screaming in unison to hang the VP for doing what the constitution states, absolutely despicable in every way, security has been tightened just as it has been all over. Using the helicopters instead.. 5/X

You May Also Like

प्राचीन काल में गाधि नामक एक राजा थे।उनकी सत्यवती नाम की एक पुत्री थी।राजा गाधि ने अपनी पुत्री का विवाह महर्षि भृगु के पुत्र से करवा दिया।महर्षि भृगु इस विवाह से बहुत प्रसन्न हुए और उन्होने अपनी पुत्रवधु को आशीर्वाद देकर उसे कोई भी वर मांगने को कहा।


सत्यवती ने महर्षि भृगु से अपने तथा अपनी माता के लिए पुत्र का वरदान मांगा।ये जानकर महर्षि भृगु ने यज्ञ किया और तत्पश्चात सत्यवती और उसकी माता को अलग-अलग प्रकार के दो चरू (यज्ञ के लिए पकाया हुआ अन्न) दिए और कहा कि ऋतु स्नान के बाद तुम्हारी माता पुत्र की इच्छा लेकर पीपल का आलिंगन...

...करें और तुम भी पुत्र की इच्छा लेकर गूलर वृक्ष का आलिंगन करना। आलिंगन करने के बाद चरू का सेवन करना, इससे तुम दोनो को पुत्र प्राप्ति होगी।परंतु मां बेटी के चरू आपस में बदल जाते हैं और ये महर्षि भृगु अपनी दिव्य दृष्टि से देख लेते हैं।

भृगु ऋषि सत्यवती से कहते हैं,"पुत्री तुम्हारा और तुम्हारी माता ने एक दुसरे के चरू खा लिए हैं।इस कारण तुम्हारा पुत्र ब्राह्मण होते हुए भी क्षत्रिय सा आचरण करेगा और तुम्हारी माता का पुत्र क्षत्रिय होकर भी ब्राह्मण सा आचरण करेगा।"
इस पर सत्यवती ने भृगु ऋषि से बड़ी विनती की।


सत्यवती ने कहा,"मुझे आशीर्वाद दें कि मेरा पुत्र ब्राह्मण सा ही आचरण करे।"तब महर्षि ने उसे ये आशीर्वाद दे दिया कि उसका पुत्र ब्राह्मण सा ही आचरण करेगा किन्तु उसका पौत्र क्षत्रियों सा व्यवहार करेगा। सत्यवती का एक पुत्र हुआ जिसका नाम जम्दाग्नि था जो सप्त ऋषियों में से एक हैं।
https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.

https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d


Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.


...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.


Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.