The equal protection clause. But asking this court to invalidate more than 6. 8 million votes, thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified . Your honor, we are not asking you to invalidate 6. 8 million votes. We are asking [indiscernible] approximately 680,000. [indiscernible] it is somewhat unfair for the isson, but if there something wrong with the ballots, [indiscernible] case, itis particular was a claim, two different and it was that uniformly republicans had no opportunity to observe. And on that basis, the conduct was egregious, premeditated, the conduct was planned. It couldnt have just been done on the spur of the moment. The purpose was to have those ballots examined in secret so that only the democratic officeholder would get to see it. This was in two counties at no place else in the state. I heard a representative of chester county, i believe, say that that didnt happen in their county. If that is the case, we would consider dropping that county from the lawsuit. But the reality is, we are not asking for the entire vote to be canceled. We are asking for the remedy that is usually applied when there is a violation of the rules with regard to absentee ballots. And this is an egregious violation, a plan violation. Required. Is really their conduct was egregious. Of 600,000, seven hundred thousand absentee ballots not being examined . It is never happened in american intory has never happened american injury. So the scope of the remedy is because of the scope of the injury. We are not asking for the election to be reversed, but these ballots were not examined. At that is not just a state issue. We would contend that one of the fundamental tenets of a Fair Election of the United States is the ability to expect, particularly mailin ballots which are inherently difficult, fraudulent. You can go to all the authorities. We have been afraid of that for 20 years. Now we have it. The only way we can police the ballots, the one way, that is the inspection. To make a mockery of the inspection, as far as we are concerned your honor, [indiscernible] we have no idea. This has never happened before. The reason i pointed out that it happens in other states to which i was personally criticized, is because there was a connection. There is a connection between philadelphia and pittsburgh. And exactly the same thing happened in detroit, at exactly the same time, and exactly the same thing in milwaukee and exactly the same thing in nevada. Republicans were uniformly refused with the obvious right to inspect an absentee ballot. I have never heard that before, that an absentee ballot wasnt examined, and it was done for a specific purpose. Why wouldnt they have invited the 18 republican inspectors . There were 20 or 30 that they were keeping in a pen. Look at it. It is a good ballot. And where they were and where they started the process at a time per thousand votes. They were behind, and they caught up counting a lot of those ballots very furiously. Say of our witnesses will that they saw them not even look at the envelope, just throw it in the bin, throw it in the bin, throat and the bin. I also take exception to them saying that we didnt lead it and i didnt lead it didnt plead it and i didnt plead it. I was accused of not reading your decision and not understanding it. I have read your opinion and i do understand it. You were dealing with preelection and an argument that would be considered an injury that may or may not happen done a generalized grievance. We are not dealing with that. The election is over. Those two men just lost the right to vote. They lost the right to vote because they were treated differently in the counties in their counties that they would have been treated if they were in pittsburgh, where in fact the secretary buried the law. The law is clear. You cant cure a ballot. The legislature hasnt changed that. The secretary has no legislative power, your honor. That thethey say plaintiffs, our clients, should sue their counties. For what . For following the law and not violating the law like their counties . If i were in the county, i would look at the law and the law said, you you cant cure a ballot. In the secretary says, it is ok to cure a ballot. As a good lawyer, i say to my client, the secretary doesnt mean anything. She cant very the law. It isnt some technical law like, is it three days or four days, it is can you fix the ballot . And it is invalid. That is the substance of the law. And i would tell my client, dont do it. Goingt know what youre to accomplish by suing those two counties. They didnt do anything wrong. The counties that did something wrong are the counties that buried the law to make it easier to accumulate enormous numbers of illegal votes. They say we dont know how people voted. They do know that in philadelphia, the vote was for biden. It is ridiculous to say we dont know what would happen. It was equal over the entire state, what were they doing all over the state . The reality is this was a deliberate plan to do this. And to say that we didnt allege these voter violations of the inspections, your honor, from instance where a mailin ballot is opened or canvassed, poll watchers are supposed to be present. They didnt allow washington representatives to be present when the ballot envelopes were open and when such ballots are counted or recorded. Is that what i said . It is in the complaint. I wasnt making up the complaint and i feel aggrieved by them misrepresenting what i said. To say it is not in the complaint is just plain wrong. In delaware county, observers were denied access to a back room counting area. Other pennsylvania counties divided appropriate [indiscernible] defendantsthe counties, they were denied the opportunity to have observation and secure opacity. Im not sure what opacity means. Last point. Those allegations which take up five pages and also allege, as i said, we didnt love that we didnt allege a specific amount of ballots, but 680 thousand something sounds pretty specific to me. And all of that is incorporated by reference to the vote count and denial of due process. You asked me to be helpful to the court. Believe our equal protection claim is wellestablished and strong. It should not only survive the today, butismiss also awards the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction. That is why we are here today. Law [indiscernible] say,hat it cannot do is under the u. S. Constitution, count some votes but dont count other votes, depending on where you reside in this commonwealth. That is what happened here, and that is the simple issue. I know that today, it went off into other issues, but that is the issue why we are here today. Protectionthe equal violations are undeniable, and the fundamental question in front of you is, how extensive and how persuasive or pervasive are those undeniable violations . At this point, if you go through the pleadings, the defendants are askingg and simple, targeted questions. Them to be asking transparent. At the stakes are very high here. We are asking the defendants to be transparent immediately because there is irrevocable harm. We are sitting in talking about all of the votes. Today what we are talking about motions for a preliminary injunction to get us to a hearing on thursday, when your honor will hear what we want to present and then decide this question. Your honor, we are asking for a hearing. Once we have an opportunity to present evidence to you, you will decide whether or not the remedy is to broaden or to narrow, the right remedy, or you will decide whether or witnesses are not turning the truth. But we know longer have an stateunity to go to the court, the Supreme Court of pennsylvania has now decided they only need be in the room and not have an opportunity to observe, which is contrary to the law in other states. The man who was very angry at me, i forgot his name, he said it is not a good equal protection claim. It is a darn good goodue process claim. It used to be a fundamental right in this state. If that is the case commit that gives us another claim. The state courts have virtually does state courts are virtually closed us now. We cant make this argument in the state courts judge, i actually want to answer a question. Page 62 of the First Amendment complaint, plaintiff asked the court to enter judgment in their favor and provide the following, an order of injunction that prohibits the defendant county board of election, and Senate Secretary bookckvar from certifying the results of the 2020 general election in philadelphia. That means no certification of president , for attorney general of the state, auditor, local races and the house. That is what they asked for, judge. When they did not answer your question, that is problematic. I think mr. Giuliani would believe that he deleted the due process claim. When he talked about processing claims, he deleted it. It has nothing to do with the process of this case. It is not in the complaint. I do this because i want to bring this back to this pleading , judge. Theyre asking you forex ordinary relief they are asking you for extraordinary relief. Thank you. I will direct this to the plaintiffs counsel should he choose to respond, you repeatedly mentioned the dangers of voter fraud, in particular susceptibility of mailin fraud. To however, neither country in your complaint seeks relief from any fraud, correct . You on or the amended complaint as it was filed seeks the specific relief i mentioned earlier. So it is correct that you are not alleging fraud in the amended complaint . No, your honor. We incorporate by reference in 150 all the allegations that preceded it, which included long explanation of fraudulent process of, planned fraudulent process. So you are alleging fraud. Yes. So if you acknowledged at the beginning of the hearing that the only issue in the case is the equal protection claim procedure,the curing but you have repeatedly spoken now about claims related to alleged violations of your right to have poll watchers present during the ballot counting process, the poll watching claims were deleted. They are now not before this court, so why should i consider them now at oral argument when you deleted the claims and put them out of this action, something i think mr. Donovan just referenced. Remember what i am bound to look at at this point. That is what i am bound to, the plaintiff. We agree . Certainly, your honor, it has been amended. So since you claim you are alleging fraud in the complaint, putting aside for a moment whether or not i think that is an accurate description of a pleading, this complaint has to satisfy the pleading standard for both the federal rules and civil procedure 9, does it not, of which mr. Donovan is referencing. [laughter] private joke. [indiscernible] your honor. In adherence to the rules, i guess is what he is driving at, arent you, mr. Donovan . Yes, your honor. Isnt that it . Yes, your honor. I have to correct what i said because we have to interpret it we would have to interpret it to charge fraud. Charges what it charges is the conduct in 132149 without character. So the amended complaint, does it lead fraud with particularly . No, your honor. It does not plead fraud, it leads the plan or scheme that we 149 without132 characterizing it. Understood. I have questions in a standing. I understand the new theory is based on the claim that the individual plaintiffs were denied the right to vote. The injuryed this is your clients are suffering. Complaint, you allege that the plaintiffs tried to vote in lancaster and fayette but those countries rejected those individual plaintiffs votes. So why. Are you before me in this court suing the defendants from lancaster and Fayette Counties why didnt you just sue the county is that actually caused the clients injuries question mark it has been addressed by the defendant. Is no injuries . It has been addressed by the defendant but not by you. Honor, this issue was triggered when we learned after the election that certain votes were counted and certain votes werent. In terms of certain voters were given the opportunity to cure and certain voters were not. Those voters were in different parts of the commonwealth. We believe we have standing in this court, in a federal court, because the alleged violations turn not ontection transforming the state law into , other thanestion the Third Circuit case we have been talking about, but the unequal treatment of the voters regardless of what the state law says. We are not asking you about state law, we are asking about equal protection. Like i said before, state law does not say what to count and not to count, and that is not an that here, it cannot say under the u. S. Constitution that we are going to treat different differently, and that is what happened here. If you lived in philadelphia or in another county in the north, or the west of the state, your vote was treated differently. The gentleman from the naacp talked about a woman who would notify was notified she had sent in her ballot, and there was problems with it and she was able to get to the Voter Registration office and fix it. That was a compelling story. That we have a compelling story in our complaint, because our two plaintiffs did not even know there was a problem with their ballots until a couple of days after the election, so they didnt have the same opportunity as a plaintiff as a voter in a county where they were being preelection day review of the ballots that there was a problem. That is what the issue comes back to, the unequal treatment, and that is why we have standing in this court under a federal constitutional claim. Your honor, if i may . Interestingly, on page 64 numbers 127, i think the issue that she is describing is clearly laid out, because it says in Philadelphia County they were allowed to cure particularly a lack of the secrecy envelope. That is exactly why mr. Henrys boat was declined in, i guess it was Lancaster County mr. Henrys vote. Whether one is a legal or not, as you point out, i believe it is illegal to cure. The law of the state says that. I dont think the secretary has a right to bury that. Is irrelevant to what we are arguing right now. What we are going right now is they set up a system that allows cure, you cant have it for the northern part of the state but not the southern part of the state. You cant have it for Philadelphia County but not for Lancaster County. Vhat is exactly what bush bi gore is talking about. It is about a classic case of unequal protection. That is the point. The unassailable equal protection claim the two plaintiffs. Particularly mr. Henry, who happens to have done exactly in his county where he was denied the right to vote, what happened in philadelphia where they were given the right. And if the commonwealth it is the commonwealth that denies him the right to vote, not the county. You dont allege that she personally rejected the plaintiffs votes or had any authority to do so, so could you explain how the secretary of the commonwealths actions caused lancaster or free of counties to deny the plaintiffs the right to vote . sw did secretary bookckvar actions affect these individual voters in lancaster and Fayette Counties . Review ouror, if you motion for temporary injunction, you will see that the secretary she is not an elected official and does not have the authority to interpret the law or change the law. Periodically, she would put outside, in not all counties it appears might have followed that advice, in the night before the election, apparently and a mill went out to the counties from the secretary of States Office went outntly an email to the counties from the secretary of States Office, telling the counties during the precanvas the next day. Is one anyone who is counting ballots can look at them. That was the first time anyone would was ever supposed to look at these ballots. That triggers, will why was everyone looking at the ballots before election day . But then undersecretarys office put the email out first of all, it was 8 38 p. M. Some counties apparently followed it and some counties apparently didnt. Our plaintiffs are a great example because no one told them. No one asked them to come in and ballots, and they didnt find out until a couple of days after the election. When they went to their counties afterwards the issue here is hat the guidance nn is in the remedy ultimately in the court of pleas of Lancaster County or for your county or the appropriate judicial district . They make up their own judicial district, isnt that where you go . That would be a state law claim. That would be asking the county, telling the company you didnt treat my individual votes correctly telling the county. What we are here today for is an equal protection argument that all citizens were not treated equally. That is different than just simply taking into a county under a state law claim before the election. Actions of the secretary of state and various county boards of election, voters were treated differently. That is what is in this federal injunction. I want to talk now about the trump campaigns it protection claim which you just referenced. Can you clarify whether the campaign is bringing its own equal protection claim or whether the campaigns claim is derivative of the individual plaintiffs injuries . Follow my question . I think i follow. Judge brann in your argument just a moment ago served as a lead into that. So is the campaigns claim derivative of the individual you have two individual plaintiff injuries. My answer would be it would be both. That it is derivative of the individual voters. But the campaign is also suffering an injury. Remember. Judge brann what is injury . Of the voters are the campaign . Campaign. N the that because of the unequal treatment of the voters in the commonwealth, certain voters were counted properly and certain voters were not. That is why we needed that answered. If everyone wouldve had a chance to cure, equally had a chance to cure, if every voter in the commonwealth had a chance to cure, it is very likely that the result, and this is what we are alleging in our qrl, it is very likely that the results would have been very different. Or on the flipside, if no one had a chance to cure, if no county had a had implemented the procedure, the results would have been very different. That is an injury to the campaign. Kearns, arent. You happy that i cant do in this case ended not exclude you cocounsel . I think you are happy because you honored my judge brann i am asking if you are happy. I am a neutral player here. [laughter] why does the campaign have standing to vindicate the plaintiffs rights come when the individual plaintiffs appear to be capable and willing to vindicate those rights on their own . They can. Judge brann why does the campaign have standing when the individual plaintiffs have the ability, the willingness and the capability to vindicate those rights on their own, the two individual players here . Your honor, the campaigns raise denial of protection derives from the andntiffs, in one sense, that the campaign itself that was denied equal protection. So the net result of these two plaintiffs not being able to cure their ballot is that the inpaign was harmed because one part of the state, they would have been allowed to vote. In another part of the state, they were not allowed to vote. It just happens if you analyze the two parts of the state, that the part of the state where they are allowed to vote and allowed to cure, even in violation of state law, is a heavily democratic part of the state, that was 70 to the other side. Then you look at those other counties, and they werent allowed to, and they didnt. Why is the secretary involved . Because this happens because of inconsistent advice being given by the secretary in which she puts the elections judge brann the inconsistent advice or selective advice . Selective advice. Advice. Very ambiguous if you are sitting in one of those counties, whether republican counties, they get a memo from her, and you talk to lawyer, your lawyer is going to have a real problem because your lawyer is going to say, im sorry, but nobody changed the statute to allow curing, and you are allowing it. Judge brann we get into the nuances i look at it in Fayette County, Fayette County is a traditionally democratic county in the state. Lancaster county is traditionally republican. Now things are changing out there, i dont know, that i ould suppose that the counties registration is still heavily democratic, isnt it . Even if they did it in a president ial race . Not sure in this particular election that that is important if it is a very strong trump county. Judge brann but the democraticrepublican end of it is an event maybe we should say trumpbiden . Judge brann in a way that smears it together because you will have to additionally democratic counties, particularly in the western part Allegheny County is a heavily democratic county, but a lot of the neighboring counties are traditionally, in the modern history of the state, traditionally democratic counties and yet many of those counties are counties that voted for your man in the last election and did so for years ago in 2016. They are still democratic counties. I dont know if that is relevant in the modern world that we live in. The reality is this confusion is created because of whatever we want to call it inconsistent, ambiguous advice being given by the secretary, who doesnt clarify to anyone how is it that i can change the cure position of the legislature. So and running an election like that is in itself also a violation of due process, which is why i want to restore due process. Judge brann i went to have another question on standing here. In the briefing of the plaintiffssassertion that the campaign has competitiv standing, none of the cases you have cited in this proposition are from the Third Circuit, however. So is there any precedents that plaintiffs counsel can cite expressly addressing the theory of competitive standing . Well, mr. Marx. Judge brann he could help you. He leaned over and said marks v. Stinson. He was the plaintiff in marks. Your honor, if your honor looks to marks the stinso stinson case, we filed an injunction. Judge brann which court . District of pennsylvania. Judge brann which judge heard it . [indiscernible] what year was that . The election was in 1993. Tried. E was the for them in her february of 1994. The Third Circuit opinion reversed it in part, removing my opponent from saying that the judge had to go back and have more hearings to determine if i won. Than there was a final injunction decision entered in april of 1984, which was then affirmed by the Third Circuit in which the judge concluded that if you set aside illegal ballots, the absentee ballots, then i was the winner, and that my opponent was the loser in that case. Held under the judge thatqual protection clause the election board in philadelphia, the same board today, that they couldnt favor one candidate over the other. They can give a competitive advantage to the democratic i was a plaintiff you couldnt give a competitive advantage, let alone in violation of the state law to one campaign over the other. Judge brann this addressed competitive standards . Yes. Competitive standing. It held that i, the candidate i was not incorporated like donald trump. Judge brann understood. [laughter] our eye as a candidate had i as ag because that candidate had standing because the government could not put its thumb on the scale and favor one candidate over the other. That is what happened in my case because they were violating the law and giving absentee ballots to campaign workers. Judge brann understood. What is the case again . Stinson. We will look it up. So, i will step out of this. Thing int of the same this case because there were no observers. The people who run the elections from the seven defending counties knew that mailin ballots were going to be heavily in favor of candidate biden. They knew that from the registration of the voters who submitted them, and they also knew it from the publicized campaign strategies. They knew that the trump voters were going to go to the polls, they knew that the biden voters were going to vote by mail so they did not allow inspection and they allowed ballots that shouldnt have been counted because they didnt have a signature, or they did not have a date on them. Those are requirements in pennsylvania, no different than if you voted at the polls, you have to be there before 8 01, or it doesnt count. So that was the competitive standing determination in marks suggest thatd i analogy would apply here. Judge brann good. We will look that up. Thanks, sir. Beyond the competitive standing itself, is the Campaign Raising any other theories of standing, beyond competitive standing, any other theories on standing you want to address with me . Yes, your honor. We have standing having been agreed on the equal protection clause of the United States constitution, we were treated in all of the different respects in which we outlined in this complaint, not just curing ballots, we were treated differently than the candidate on the other side. Provisions, backdating provisions, you look at the individual allegations against the different counties, each of those treats our side, i will call it the trump side and the bad inside, rather than republican and democrat from side and the biden side, rather than republican and democrat side. The allegations about the watchers is not incorporated by in the equal protection claim. We are not alleging flawed, we are denying lack of equal protection. In several counties in the state there was no inspection. In other counties in the state there was very rigid inspection. In fact in most counties in the state there was rigid inspection. The difference between the two if you look at it, in the biden counties, 70 or 80 biden counties, there was no inspection. Then in the trump counties, there was the usual rigid inspection. If you look at the 680,000, 800,000 ballots that went into philadelphia and pittsburgh that inspected, expert testimony, which is allowable in an election case, the statistical improbability would be 82. If you had counties that had rigid inspection, the percentage would be more like 60 40, maybe 70 30 trump. When you have rigid inspection, more ballots are going to be rejected. That is another way in which we were treated in a disparate fashion and not subjected to the same standard. The reality is, on issues like this, counting votes, curing gentlemen if the think quite rightly said, youre not going to have rigid similarity in every single county. Different times, different rules. But were not talking about Technical Rules here, we are talking about whether an absentee ballot is accepted or it isnt accepted. We are talking about whether if you mess up a ballot and the rule has always been once you messed up on these ballots, your finished, you cant fix it. Pretty much the case around the country. All of a sudden the new concept is floated by the secretary that you can cure it. Nobody bothered to go to the legislature and have the legislature change the legislation. It is a situation of mass confusion. Describes your equal protection and due process. An election like this should be without confusion on whether you should cure a ballot or not cure their ballot, or what they should have inspectors are not have inspectors. Judge brann in his chair [laughter] something to add on that point, mr. Donald . Judge mark stinson, i just i dont understand how competitive standing is in the opinion since it doesnt appear. Judge brann we didnt find it. Sure. Judge brann i had difficulty finding it myself. Just wanted to put. A finer point that the word does not appear, hard to see how it stands for that. Judge brann competitive standing, the specific meaning, mr. Marx told me but i didnt find that in my research. Go ahead. Freelancinga little going on here. When the secretary issued it [indiscernible] use the guidance on mr. Giuliani, as you will see that the instructions did not go to specific counties. She issued guidance which is her role. Pennsylvania is a commonwealth. She cannot enforce guidance. She gave it to all counties at the same time, and it is still on the website today. Judge brann good. I want to turn to the merits now. What standard of review should i apply and why. , on the motion to dismiss . I think when all of them, which is that you have to deem the factual allegations to be correct and even if they are correct, you have to find that there is no merit, no legal merit, no legal theory. Judge brann are you arguing then that strict scrutiny should apply here . Yes, we had alleged fraud, but this is not a fraud case. Judge brann so if that is so [inaudible] what is it . Are you moving around again . [laughter] i want to say a couple of things at some point. Judge brann we will get back to you. We havent forgotten about you. Try not to move around. Back the case, why dont secretary bookckvar and the counties satisfy the standard review . Why dont their actions satisfy those . Sorry, i dont understand the question. Judge brann this is how i would look at it. I would think it is a standard review of strict scrutiny. You are not sure that is the case . I am not imposing my and and understand what you mean by strict. Judge brann for strict scrutiny to apply, how did secretary bookckvar bar the commonwealths right to vote . Based on issuing these opinions that are confusing, ambiguous, in several instances contrary to the law, is very abouto have consistency whether you can cure a ballot. Whether you can supply the information after the fact. Great deal of confusion about that and never clarified it so that she conducted, i guess the language in bush v gore would be an standards. Thout judge brann i follow that, but how does it make it easier for and bar theto vote plaintiffs ability for a right to vote . It isnt so much making it easier for someone to vote. It is exactly the same thing, at least in the case of mr. Henry. Mr. Henry made a mistake. Judge brann so his right to vote was burdened by the secretarys actions . His right to vote was denied by the way in which the secretarys advice was improper this was interpreted in part of the state and in his state it differently. Ed pennsylvania conducted an election in which people in different parts of the state had a right to vote under certain standards and other people did not. So in pennsylvania, as we allege in the complaint, when someone had a ballot in which he didnt use the secure envelope, that person in pennsylvania was allowed to vote. Judge brann mr. Roberts and mr. Henry are the individual plaintiffs. So how were they actually denied the right to vote . I understand they filled out their ballots incorrectly and then their individual county, Lancaster County in Fayette County, did not count them. But you are not saying that every ballot is encountered, for whatever reason. How does this constitute the denial of the right to vote . There is a perfect example from the gentleman from the naacp. Here, mr. Henry and mr. Roberts voted and their vote ultimately was, they did not have the ability to cure that vote. The state actor here did not give them the ability to cure that vote, where as other voters were given that opportunity, and you will hear this. Judge brann but is that a denial of the right to vote . Uh. Judge brann the actions of lancaster and Fayette Counties, that is a denial of the right to vote . Yes. Every county should have had the same procedure. Judge brann either they should have. Other they should have been allowed to cure or nobody should have been allowed to cure. Issue here is that the procedures were not all the same. From mr. Henrys perspective and mr. Roberts perspective, their ability to vote because had they simply lived in a different , they wouldve had the opportunity to cure their vote and therefore it would have been counted. , theirse two gentlemen vote was not counted so they did not vote for their vote was denied. Judge brann let me go in another direction, and that is a review ise that appropriate, why dont the actions satisfy this standard, the rational basis standard. Standard. Fferent why dont the defendants actions here satisfied that standard . Havew is it rational to state, two vastly different standards about how you are going to deal with what turns out to be 2. 6 million votes . And depending on the location of the state, which is exec they uses as a v gore violation of equal protection, how can that be possibly rational . Whatever you say about her advice and the advice of others, the result of it was a totally unequal, completely unFair Election in which one part of lindaate, if you did what just said, if you made a mistake, you dont get counted. The other part of the state, you make exactly that same mistake, your vote is counted. In bush v gore, they say you cant have different standards based on location. You cant have you cant say that somebody has a right to vote under certain circumstances in one place but then under the same circumstances in another place they dont have the right to vote, or in this particular case, the right to cure an absentee ballot. I dont see anything rational about that. Judge brann in order to violate theequal protection clause, defendants needed to have done more than simply violate state election law, so why is this constitutional question and not simply a matter of more appropriate we determine [indiscernible] question. Ly isnt a it so happens they violated state law, but we are not charging them with violating state law. It could have been some other way in which they did it. What they did was set up a system where you had two different fundamentally different sets of rights in one part of the state as opposed to another. Again, in one part of the state, if you make a mistake it gets fixed. In the other part of the state, you make a mistake, you dont get to vote. It doesnt matter if it is bush i mean, biden or trump or republican or democrat, the fact that you have two standards in different parts of the state means that they have set up a standard in which the standards are not uniform. That is important. How are you going to deal with an absentee ballot particularly in an era in which that will become a much more significant part of the vote . If anything, the uniformity of , the scrutinys applied to it should have been greater. And now became a much more meaningful part of how youre going to decide the election. Judge brann i have a question . Or the defendant shall i respond to these or am i going to get on your first question . On scrutiny, there is no scrutiny because. These two individuals were not denied the right to vote. They voted. What the secretary may have done is what you said, they tried to make it easier to vote. It doesnt fall under the auspices of a burden. And then what happens is there ofno vote its dilution the rational basis. That is one. Second, you keep referring to standards. The secretary issues uniform standards. Bush v gore, what they talked about in standards was at the florida Supreme Court told Different Countries that were in the middle of a recount to stop at different points, so the standard there was that they werent counting all the votes. There were no differences between the counties. Thank you. Youre watching cspan, your unfiltered view of government, created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. This week on the the communicators, it is a look at some of the smaller phone, broadband and video providers and the issues they face. We want to introduce you to patricia jo boyers, president of a Company Called boycom vision that is located in southeast missouri. Patty boyers, what is it that boycom does . Patricia oh my goodness, peter, thankou
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.