Alex Macris contemplates how election fraud might be litigated with A Deep Dive into Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of New York:
Let’s summarize what we’ve learned:
- The Federal Courts do have jurisdiction to resolve claims of state and city ballot fraud that causes ballot dilution, even in Presidential elections.
- The Federal Courts can order a new election if necessary to address fraud, even in Presidential elections
- The Trump campaign will need to prove (a) specific acts of misconduct (b) involving willful or knowing ballot fraud (c) by state officials or private persons acting with state officials (d) that changed the outcome of the election.
- The Trump campaign can use expert testimony and statistical evidence to prove its case, but it needs some direct evidence too. (Remember that in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is considered direct evidence.)
Does the Trump team have the facts on its side to meet (a)-(d)? I don’t know. No one does yet. We’ll find out tomorrow when we see what his legal team files. It’s going to be one hell of a week.
But don’t take his conclusions at face value. Read the whole thing there and see if you agree with his legal reasoning in this regard. And if you disagree, take it up with him….