Trump violates stipulation by challenging Minn. consent decree

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Daniel Jacobson
@Dan_F_Jacobson
·
Oct 29, 2020
In the underlying state court case , the Trump campaign signed a stipulation saying they wouldn't challenge the consent decree "in any judicial forum." Yet the Trump campaign's electors then brought this case challenging the consent decree. Majority didn't even address it.

Rick Hasen
@rickhasen
#ELB: In Outrageous 2-1 Decision Ignoring Reliance Interests and Rejecting the Purcell Principle, 8th Circuit Panel Orders Segregation of Late Arriving Ballots in Minnesota, With Strong Hints Late Arriving Ballots Will Be Excluded from The Count https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117784

Daniel Jacobson
@Dan_F_Jacobson
Here's the stipulation the Trump campaign signed that they would not challenge the consent decree "in any other judicial forum." A federal court, of course, is another judicial forum.
Image

[Grasswire2]

1. now what? nt

[Nevilledog]

2. Didn't do Fed. Appellate work...but I think asking for whole panel to rule is next.

With the time crunch I hope they can bypass that and go to Supreme Court.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Frankly, I'd prefer they not even go to SCOTUS...

...since we've already seen how they're likely to rule.

Personally, I think it's better to get the word out about the earlier deadline and make sure people know they have to hand their ballots in rather than mailing them, instead of being told by SCOTUS "we'll accept ballots arriving later"...but then have them revisit the issue after the election and declare them invalid retroactively (which they certainly will do if they make a difference in the outcome).