Intervenors for Democrats in PA Lawsuit Prove Trump

Quote:

In a stunning filing on Tuesday, November 10, potential intervenors in the Trump campaign’s lawsuit against the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, proved one of the allegations of illegality the Trump campaign brought forth in their initial complaint against the Secretary and several boards of elections.

The Trump Campaign alleges that in contravention of election law, certain precincts reached out to mail-in and absentee voters to “cure” their ballots before election day, or fix errors that would have otherwise made their votes invalid. On page 35 of the complaint, found in full here, the Trump campaign spells out election law that was recently affirmed this year in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, as it pertains to mail-in ballots.

A large part of the case filed by the Trump campaign explains in detail how the Secretary of State in Pennsylvania sent out guidance to election boards, instructing them to ignore the law. According to the lawsuit, there was no even adherence to the law; some counties followed it, while others, namely in Democrat strongholds, did not.

On November 10, a number of organizations filed a joint motion to intervene in the case, and along with their filing, which suggests that these ballots should remain or risk disenfranchisement, were several affidavits from voters who swear under penalty of perjury that they were, in fact, contacted by County Board of Elections officials before the election, in order to cure their ballots of errors. This is in direct violation of Pennsylvania law and is one of the arguments the Trump campaign makes in its complaint against the state.

Witness Natalie Price swore: “…Between Sunday and Monday, November 1 and 2, I received three calls from the Democratic Party notifying me my ballot had been rejected. I asked why and they told me they didn’t know. They instructed me to visit the voting center in Norristown to cure it. I never received a call from any election official to inform me that my ballot had been rejected. The first site I visited in Norristown was a drop-off only site. They told me that I had to go to another site to see and cure my actual ballot. At that second site, I learned that my ballot had been marked as defective because I did not write my name and address in non-cursive print. I was not aware that I was supposed to hand-write my name and address in non-cursive print, next to where the information was preprinted on the envelope. Because that exact information was already there, I understood it would have been redundant to write it out again. My ballot was signed, dated, and otherwise complied with all other ballot instructions. To cure my ballot I showed the county employee (emphasis ours) my ID, added my information next to where it was pre-printed, and left…”

Below are some more examples of the same, for witness Joesph Ayeni:

Witness Meril Lara

The examples continue. The Judge in the case has set a scheduling deadline of today for motions of injunctive release and motions to dismiss, with Oral Argument scheduled for 11/17 at 1:30 PM, and an evidentiary hearing on 11/19 at 10:00 AM.

Tracy Beanz is the Editor in Chief at UncoverDC. You can find her on Twitter @tracybeanz