“Judge dismisses Nevada fake electors case over lack of jurisdiction”

Nevada Independent:

 A Clark County judge has dismissed the charges filed against the six Nevada Republicans who submitted an invalid slate of electoral votes for former President Donald Trump in 2020, ruling that the county was not the appropriate jurisdiction for the case. 

At a Friday morning hearing in Clark County District Court, Judge Mary Kay Holthus said she was unconvinced by state prosecutors’ arguments that Clark County was the appropriate county in which to hear the case. The electors’ attorneys had argued a more appropriate venue would be in Carson City, where the illegitimate signing ceremony took place, or in Douglas County, where the fake elector documents were originally mailed from. 

Clark County is more Democratic, meaning a jury could be less favorable to the Republican defendants.

“You have literally, in my opinion, a crime that has occurred in another jurisdiction,” Holthus said. “It’s so appropriately up north and so appropriately not here.”

Immediately after the ruling, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said the “judge got it wrong” and that his office will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. A trial set for January has been vacated pending the high court’s ruling.

The state is unable to refile the case up north because a three-year statute of limitations expired in December.

Share this:

“Trump Allies Begin First Line of Attack Against Arizona Election Case”


Allies of former President Donald J. Trump charged in a sweeping Arizona election case on Friday began filing what is expected to be a series of challenges, seizing on a new state law aimed at curbing litigation and prosecutions involving political figures.

The law was originally crafted by Kory Langhofer, a Phoenix lawyer who worked for the Trump campaign during the 2020 election but who subsequently fell out of favor with the former president. He said the 2022 law’s intent was to limit politically motivated prosecutions on both sides of the aisle.

The new challenges could have the effect of delaying the election case in Arizona for several months, given the timeline for decisions and appeals. The case was brought in April by the state attorney general, Kris Mayes, a Democrat.

Share this:

“Trump campaign seeks to head off convention revolt from its right flank”


Arizona delegates to the Republican National Convention gathered this month in a Phoenix suburb, showing up to get to know each other and learn about their duties.

Part of the presentation included a secret plan to throw the party’s nomination of Donald Trump for president into chaos.

The instructions did not come from “Never Trumpers” hoping to stop the party from nominating a felon when delegates gather in Milwaukee next month. They instead came from avowed “America First” believers hatching a challenge from the far right — a plot to release the delegates from their pledge to support Trump, according to people present and briefed on the meeting, slides from the presentation and private messages obtained by The Washington Post.

The delegates said the gambit would require support from several other state delegations, and it wasn’t clear whether those allies had been lined up. One idea, discussed as attendees ate finger foods, was for co-conspirators to signal their allegiance to one another by wearing matching black jackets.

The exact purpose of the maneuver was not clear — and left some delegates puzzled and alarmed. People familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, said perhaps the intent was to block an undesirable running mate. Most of the dozen GOP officials or activists interviewed by The Post even ventured that the aim may have been to substitute former national security adviser Michael Flynn for Trump if the former president is sentenced to prison time. Among some on the far right, suspicions have intensified that the former president has surrounded himself with too many advisers beholden to the “deep state.”

Share this:

“France’s ‘snap’ legislative elections are a warning”

New Common Ground Democracy essay with this subtitle: “The likelihood that extremist parties on the right and left will gain at the expense of the middle illustrates with hyper-polarization necessitates electoral reform.

The essay begins: “France is facing a political crisis that it could have avoided if it had adopted an electoral system of the type advocated by its most prominent theorist of electoral system design, the eighteenth-century mathematician and philosopher Marquis de Condorcet.”

Share this:

California Supreme Court blocks tax initiative from ballot as an unconstitutional “revision”

Unanimous decision in Legislature of the State of California v. Weber. From the introduction:

Petitioners — the Legislature of the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and elector and former Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton — filed this original proceeding seeking a writ of mandate or prohibition to bar the Secretary of State (Secretary) from placing an initiative measure on the November 2024 general election ballot. The measure at issue has been designated Attorney General Initiative No. 21-0042A1 and Secretary of State Initiative No. 1935, and has been named the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” by its drafters. We refer to it as the “TPA.” The petition primarily contends that the TPA is invalid because it attempts to revise the California Constitution via citizen initiative. Petitioners also argue that the TPA is invalid because it would seriously impair essential government functions. Petitioners named Thomas W. Hiltachk, the proponent of the challenged measure (Proponent), as real party in interest.

“We stress initially the limited nature of our inquiry. We do not consider or weigh the economic or social wisdom of general propriety of the initiative.” (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 219 (Amador Valley).) The only question before us is whether the measure may be validly enacted by initiative. After considering the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae as well as the parties’ oral arguments, we conclude that Petitioners have clearly established that the challenged measure would revise the Constitution without complying with the appropriate procedure. The changes proposed by the TPA are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact, but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative. It is instead governed by the procedures for revising our Constitution. We therefore issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Secretary to refrain from taking any steps to place the TPA on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.

Share this: