Briefly Noted: Name Deficit In Pennsylvania?

I'm not mathematician, so I can't explain this. I'll let the Twitter threads speak for themselves--with a hat tip to TGP, where I found this.

You may recall that an Ivy League math professor, Steven J. Miller, previously testified about statistical anomalies in the Pennsylvania vote. Later, a "mathematician and expert witness" testified for the Trump campaign in Arizona, again pointing out statistical anomalies. This second mathematician is named Bobby Piton, but I've been unable to come up with his bio quickly. Twitter suspended Piton for his AZ testimony. At any rate, Piton has now examined the PA and GA votes from a rather novel perspective--a statistical analysis of Last Names. His research--if I understand it correctly--indicates that votes were deducted in PA. LOTS of votes.

What follows is my editing of Piton's new Twitter thread, which explains his analysis of the PA vote. That is followed by his conclusions which correlate PA and GA. See what you make of it. My understanding of what he's saying about PA--and I may be mistaken--goes like this:

Piton identified 521,879 Last Names that were used in the PA vote. Of those, 47% belong to "one and only one person." So Piton then looked at the names that had multiple persons attached to them. By looking at just the 1000 most common Last Names and discovered that there were nearly 700K fewer of these people who voted than statistics would project. That's a pretty huge anomaly. 

Based on what he discovered, Piton concludes:

Based on my findings a sophisticated State Actor was able to optimize a desired outcome for both the State of Georgia and the State of Pennsylvania.

OK, so first we have Piton's summary of his PA findings:

UPDATED: SCOTUS Rejects Kelly's PA Suit Without Comment

Shipwreckedcrew has a good article commenting on how inadequate the PA response was: Pennsylvania's Response Ordered by Justice Alito Reflects Fear of the Defendants About What Might Be Coming. The article was written, of course, before the SCOTUS dropped that particular ball.

Here's how silly he finds the legal arguments, in a nutshell:

The idea that the Supreme Court should shrink from making difficult choices in reaching a decision in a case before it due to the claim by Pennsylvania that no court has ever done this before is moronic.  Yes, it’s never been done before.

Also yes — no State has ever conducted an election in a manner that violated the State’s own Constitution.

OTOH, he closes the article this way--and it reflects what probably happened:

The one issue raised by the Response which I think might resonate with the Court is that any decision which inserts the Court into the determination of Pennsylvania’s Electors runs contrary to “separation of powers” principles which place the responsibility for resolving disputes over the validity of named “Electors” with Congress. ...

This raises the point that I made in my article yesterday — how is the Court prepared to respond if it were to grant the injunction against the Pennsylvania state defendants, and on January 6, 2021, the Joint Session of Congress nevertheless counts the slate of Electors already certified and sent by the Pennsylvania Governor for Joe Biden?

There is no functional method I can envision where the Court would attempt to place itself deeper in this controversy between January 6 and January 21 if the Congress was to certify the vote of the Electoral College which included 20 Electoral votes from Pennsylvania in favor of Joe Biden. ... I think there is no question that the Democrats, in their overriding desire to be rid of Donald Trump and deny him a second term, will disregard the damage they would do to the Court by ignoring any Order and moving forward. ...

Damage to the SCOTUS? How about damage to the Constitution and the nation?

What this means is that the SCOTUS will be de facto acquiescing to a federal election system that it tacitly acknowledges is broken beyond repair. In other words, to a broken US Constitution.

That is, unless the SCOTUS tries to address this mess through the other cases.

UPDATE: Commenter aNanyMouse quotes SWC--after the news came out--saying:

"if the Court was truly seeking to “wash its hands” of all election controversies involving Pennsylvania, it could have said so today, in statements accompanying this Order. By playing “coy” in giving no reason today, it did nothing to “tip its hand” about the sentiment inside the Court, on the actions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and state officials, across a host of issues. 

That's a fair take, it seems to me. It also tells the many commenters who are asking, What does it MEAN? about all that we can say: They don't want to tip their hand. Most of the views expressed in the comments remain possible. It does seem that if the SCOTUS had really intended to "wash their hands" of all the election controversies, not only COULD they have said so, but really in fairness to all concerned parties--which would embrace the entire country--they SHOULD have said so.

My view, as already expressed, is that this is not simply a legal matter--it's a political matter in the big picture meaning of the word, involving all three Constitutional branches of government, co-equal and intended to balance one another. I believe that at least five of the justices truly want to reach a balanced resolution and are appalled at what they know has transpired. They know that our constitutional order is up for grabs. But as a constiutional institution seeking to preserve that constitutional order they can't simply go on gut convictions--as commenter EZ indicated, they're searching for the right way to come to grips with this crisis that is in harmony with the order they want to preserve. Is the Texas case the way forward? Maybe. Is there something else that we don't know about? Maybe.

It's not a satisfactory position for us to be in.

Status Update Re PA Case

I missed this development, and was wondering what was up with Alito. I wasn't alone. However, Shipwreckedcrew caught up with the procedural moves. It turns out that, like many others, the pro-Trump plaintiffs weren't aware that, per SCOTUS rules:

a party seeking a stay from the Supreme Court must first seek a Stay of the Order from the Court issuing the Order before an application for a stay to the US Supreme Court will be considered.

Got that?

After a few gear shifts, Rep. Kelly requested the PA Supreme Court to stay the effect of its Order dismissing his case.  Earlier today the PA Supreme Court obliged by denying that request. That should clear the path for Alito to take the application for a stay up.

As SWC explains (Penn. Supreme Court Denies Request to Stay Its Order Dismissing Lawsuit Challenging Mail-In Balloting):

There is no doubt that Justice Alito — and likely the entire Court — has been working on the response to the Emergency Application since shortly after it was filed.  They did not delay their work waiting for the Penn. Supreme Court to act.  We should have an answer from the Court sometime today or tonight.

As I said yesterday, there is no reason for Justice Alito or the Court to grant this Application if they do not intend to enter the litigation brawl that is currently being waged in several courts right now.  But if the Court does grant the Application, and enjoins Pennsylvania from naming electors, the chances are very high that the Court intends to take up all the challenges over the next couple of weeks.

Will The Rubber Meet The Road? We'll Know Very Soon.

Shipwreckedcrew has a quite lengthy article out on Pennsylvania development, but the implications can be briefly summarized for those who want the bottom line:

Case Challenging Penn. Mail-In Voting Seeks Emergency Injunction From Justice Alito To Prevent Naming of Electors

Yesterday GOP Congressman Mike Kelly, GOP congressional candidate Sean Parnell, and five others filed an Emergency Application for a Writ of Injunction with Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court, seeking to prevent Pennsylvania officials from taking any remaining steps to certify the election result or name Electors for Joe Biden to the Electoral College.

This is a very interesting development and will give us a strong indication as to the willingness of the Supreme Court to enter into the election litigation brawl.

Most people, including me, assume from Alito's past opinions regarding the actions of Pennsylvania Supreme Court in rewriting PA election law that Alito is very much in favor of the SCOTUS taking up this case. Those earlier opinions came in the context of an 8 member pre-Justice Amy SCOTUS, which deadlocked 4-4, thanks to Roberts. SWC gives a full account of those opinions and you can read all about it, but the point is this: It's a new game, now. There won't be any 4-4 opinion if the SCOTUS takes it on. How would that happen? Here's how:

Justice Alito has the authority under Supreme Court rules to issue the Emergency Injunction on his own authority, and then refer the matter to the entire Court for further consideration.  The Justices are individually assigned to the 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal for purposes of receiving matters such as this, and take action individually in order to act promptly in situations with time is of the essence. ...

SWC goes through all the legal ins and outs. It's complicated for non-lawyers but he does a good job. But here's his bottom line:

I expect Justice Alito will act quickly on this application — he might have done so while I’ve been writing this — and then refer the matter to the full court for further determination.

If Justice Alito denies the injunction, then that would be a signal that there are not five votes on the Court to enter into the fight over Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes in connection with any of the matters now pending or making their way to the Court.

If Justice Alito grants the injunction, preventing further steps at naming electors in Pennsylvania, and that decision is affirmed by four other Justices, then you can pretty well assume that it’s “Game On” in the SCOTUS with regard to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and State/County Election Officials.

IOW, if Alito denies the injunction it's very hard to see a second term for President Trump.

Special Agents From Attorney General's Office Visit GOP Poll Watcher

Attorney General, as in Bill Barr? I very much suspect NOT. I think it was Attorney General as in Josh Shapiro. Josh Shapiro is the Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Bill Barr doesn't have Special Agents attached to his office, to be dispatched to harass GOP poll watchers who give interviews. But I think Josh Shapiro does. Is it too much for Hate Barr First commenters to exercise a bit of discretion?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/wow-pa-election-observer-drops-bombshell-says-doj-showed-door-question-testified-video/

Illegalities In PA Pre-Canvassing Were A Thing

Shipwreckedcrew has been combing through the pleadings in the PA election litigation online--so the rest of us don't have too. He has discovered something rather interesting:

NAACP Motion to Intervene in PA Lawsuit Presents Evidence That State/County Officials Violated PA Election Laws

Here's what happened.

Under PA law, no pre-canvassing can take place before 7AM on Election Day. Pre-canvassing?

“Pre-canvassing” of mail-in ballots is defined in Pennsylvania election law as allowing ballot envelopes to be opened, the ballot removed, and the votes tabulated. The difference between “pre-canvassing” and “canvassing” is that the Election Board may not make any public announcement of the results of pre-canvassing.

 

The importance of this is that "pre-canvassing" is unofficial, and the results of pre-canvassing are not allowed to be disclosed to anyone.

SWC's Important Article On Pennsylvania And The SCOTUS

There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding the possible scope of the Pennsylvania case that is before the SCOTUS. In

The Revenge of Clarence Thomas -- Bush v. Gore and the Facts Underlying The Pennsylvania Court Cases

Shipwreckedcrew does an admirable job of setting the record straight in that regard. You can read the whole Who-Struck-John of the case by following the link--and I encourage you to do so. The election likely hinges on Pennsylvania, so it's important to firmly grasp the issues. Here, I'll skip most of the factual basis in Bush v. Gore, referring readers to SWC. Instead, I'll try to offer a brief summary that highlights the two issues involved.

Yes, there are TWO issues. Most readers will be familiar with one of the issues--the question of whether the PA Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in changing PA's election law--but there's a related issue we need to be aware of. Both the issues cropped up in Bush v. Gore in Florida.

In his presentation SWC leaves the more familiar issue to the end, but I'll put it up front. 

That issue is, in the context of Bush v. Gore, referred to as the "Article II" issue. The reason is because Article of the US Constitution gives state legislature's the authority to determine the time and manner for holding presidential elections. Here's the Wikipedia summary: