close
close

Obama judge criticizes Marc Elias’ ‘absurd’ election legislation

The firm of the Democrats’ favorite legal artist – who was also the lawyer behind the Russia collusion hoax – was recently almost ridiculed out of court in an election integrity case in Wisconsin.

The D.C.-based Elias Law Group, founded by Marc Elias, a former Clinton campaign campaigner and attorney for the Democratic National Committee, filed a “novel” mail-in voting complaint against the state that an Obama-appointed judge called a “head-scratching.”

In dismissing the lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission, U.S. District Court Chief Judge James D. Peterson summarily rejected the left-wing legal group’s outlandish claim that a state law requiring a U.S. citizen to be a witness and sign a mail-in ballot stipulate is a violation of voting and civil rights.

“Absurd” interpretation

In a 37-page ruling, Peterson railed against the lawsuit’s core argument, concluding that “the most obvious problem with plaintiffs’ interpretation is that it simply makes no sense.”

“The absurd results that Plaintiffs’ interpretation would lead to are reason enough to reject this interpretation. “But the text, purpose and history of (Wisconsin Statute) § 6.87 also support an interpretation that a witness need only certify statements about the process of preparing the ballot,” Peterson wrote of the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court was for the Western District of Wisconsin.

“It is the plaintiffs’ interpretation that leads to startling results,” the federal judge wrote.

The Elias Law Group, practitioners of unbridled left-wing legal politics, is representing four Wisconsin residents who “want to vote by mail in the 2024 election but do not want to comply with the witness requirement,” the lawsuit says. They insist that the process of asking every U.S. citizen to vote and sign their mail-in ballots is “difficult or inconvenient for them.”

“They allege that the requirement violates two federal laws, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they seek to permanently prohibit enforcement of the requirement,” Peterson wrote in his ruling.

basic requirements

The law requires absentee voters to certify on their ballot envelopes that they are residents of the county or precinct in which they are voting, that they reside in the state and are eligible to vote, and that they are “unable or unwilling.” to appear at the vote.” Polling station … on election day.” The law also requires that the voter certify that he or she has followed the procedure for preparing the absentee ballot.

Witnesses must confirm that they are U.S. citizens and that the vote was conducted as stated. They must also certify that they “did not solicit or encourage the voter to vote for or against any candidate or measure.”

Quite easy. Not a big burden. And as Peterson notes, the law is intended to serve “legitimate and important purposes, such as deterring voter fraud, undue influence, and ballot harvesting.”

But the folks at Elias Law Group view the witness requirement as an attack on civil rights. One of the plaintiffs, Anna Haas, “plans to travel abroad around the time of the November 2024 election.” She will not have a US citizen with her, so who will witness and sign her absentee ballot?! Well, any U.S. citizen traveling abroad could, or Haas could, submit their ballot up to two weeks in advance, as Peterson notes. Plaintiff Anna Poi attends college in Minnesota. Poi prefers to use another Wisconsin voter as a witness so she can “locate and rely on the witness should the need arise to cure the testimony.”

Putting aside the plaintiffs’ ridiculous “burdens,” Peterson wrote that these poor, unfortunate souls “have failed to demonstrate that neither the Voting Rights Act of 1965 nor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a state from requiring absentee voters to cast their ballots.” Prepare ballot paper in advance.” of a witness.”

“In contradiction to the law”

But it was the lawyers’ bizarre interpretation of the state’s mail-in voting law that really left the federal judge scratching his head. Elias’ Legal Dream Team argued that the law requires a witness to do more than ensure that the voter follows procedure. According to their expanded interpretation, a witness would have to “certify that the voter is eligible to vote.”

“But this interpretation is inconsistent with the letter and intent of the statute, nor is it consistent with the interpretation of the statute since its enactment,” Peterson wrote.

The Elias Law Group’s interpretation, the ruling said, would effectively force the witness to be a private investigator who would examine the voter’s “age, location, citizenship, criminal history, whether the voter is unable or unwilling to vote in person.” , whether the voter has voted or plans to vote elsewhere, whether the voter is capable of understanding the purpose of the voting process, whether the voter is under guardianship and, if so, whether a court has determined that the voter is legally competent is. ”

The law doesn’t require that, and a lawyer who puts law above politics would know that.

“Plaintiffs’ broad interpretation of the law would impose arbitrary limitations on states’ powers to regulate elections and jeopardize any requirement for a voter to provide information on a ballot or related document, including a signature requirement or Wisconsin’s requirement, that a postal voter must certify that he or she is not voting at another location,” Peterson wrote in his appreciation of the Elias lawyers’ absurd legal argument.

“Plaintiffs have provided no reason why Congress would have restricted the states in the manner plaintiffs suggested.”

With that, the judge ordered the clerk to close the case.

Russia hoax architect

That’s what you might expect from a company “dedicated to helping Democrats win” and run by one of the main architects of the Russia collusion hoax.

Marc Elias and his fellow Democratic election deniers insisted that the 2016 election, in which Republican Donald Trump won the presidency, was rigged – thanks to Russia’s alleged collusion with the Trump campaign. They were so convinced of this concept that they paid for and promoted a dossier from Russia accusing Trump and his allies of all kinds of corruption. But the dossier turned out to be fake opposition research funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC she controls. But that didn’t stop Elias and his team from selling it to a willing deep state and a hungry media accomplice, who used the hoax to try to topple a president they loathed.

“The legal mastermind likely most responsible for the left’s push to undermine our democracy, overturn elections, and destroy election integrity is Marc E. Elias,” wrote John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky in their 2021 book Our broken elections. Elias “has become staggeringly wealthy representing Democratic candidates, political action committees and party organizations” and “seems to have a monopoly on the Democratic political machine.”

It was Elias who, as a partner at Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, hired Fusion GPS to smear her opponent.

“Fusion then asked former MI6 agent Christopher Steele to compile the infamous Steele dossier, which contained several salacious and now-debunked claims about Trump and his alleged ties to Russia,” Just The News reported in an article headlined “How a top. “The Democratic lawyer has undermined both sides’ confidence in the US elections.”

Eight years later, Elias’ legal group is engaging in legal action to manipulate election laws to benefit Democrats across the country and is spending millions to weaken election integrity laws ahead of the rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in November.


Matt Kittle is senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast and online journalism, Kittle previously served as executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *