As ELB readers are aware, President Donald Trump pardoned Rudy Giuliani and others accused of election misconduct in the 2020 presidential election, especially surrounding disputes about slates of “alternate” or “fake” electors. This mostly symbolic, because it can only extend to federal crimes, the Department of Justice has dropped any cases it has against them, and the statute of limitations will likely run on any such conduct by the next presidential administration (although a few defendants had entered into plea bargains).

But take a moment to read the text of the pardon: it extends to “. . . all conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors . . . .” The sentence is not a model of clarity–it is a list of verbs with occasional prepositions, and it does not appear to have been drafted by a licensed attorney.

This broad language was picked up in a motion to dismiss an indictment by attorneys for Matthew Laiss, a man accused of casting a vote by mail in Pennsylvania and casting a vote in person in Florida in the 2020 presidential election–double voting. Laiss’s counsel points out that Laiss’s conduct was “support, voting . . . or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors.” That is, a vote for a presidential candidate on the ballot is formally a vote for a slate of electors.

In effect, Trump’s pardon appears to sweep in any acts of alleged voter fraud committed in the 2020 election.

The prosecutors have asked for an extension to respond to the motion as they discuss with the Department of Justice its position as to the scope of the pardon. But it’s a case I’m now watching carefully.