Conservative judge likens Trump case in Pennsylvania to Frankenstein's monster
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann — a conservative jurist — on Saturday threw out yet another lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign seeking to block the certification of the presidential election results in Pennsylvania.
The campaign's attorneys argued Pennsylvania counties violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law by taking different approaches to notifying voters before the election about mistakes on their mail-in ballots — some counties allowed voters to fix the errors, while others didn't notify them at all. Brann dismissed the argument entirely. He wrote that plaintiffs "seeking such a startling outcome" should "come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption," but instead the campaign presented "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations." He likened the campaign's allegations of an equal protection violation to Frankenstein's monster, writing that it "has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent."
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
