On January 6, 2021 Donald Trump and Republicans tried to steal the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election by delaying the Vice-President's constitutional duty to determine the winner of the election by counting the electoral ballots from each state and announcing the winner.

Problem for Trump was, Vice-President Pence didn't want to delay counting the electoral ballots; and instead, Pence fulfilled his constitutional duty to count all the state ballots on January 6 and he announced the winner of the U.S. Presidential Election as Joe Biden.

Trump should have been immediately prosecuted for his crimes, but he was not prosecuted nor investigated for two years, thanks to Federalist Society moderator and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Thanks to Merrick Garland and the institutionalized conservative Federalist Society belief that U.S. Presidents and U.S. Supreme Court justices are literally above the law and should not ever be prosecuted under any circumstances, career criminal Donald Trump is back for more, running for President AGAIN, FOUR YEARS LATER after having executed the greatest attack on American democracy in U.S. history.

Only this time Republicans have had four years to come up with a better plan to steal the election, and this time Republicans won't need a Vice-President to cooperate with their plan to overthrow the Will of the People - Trump and Republicans are going to delay the Jan. 6 counting of the ballots by refusing and failing to certify the election results in their red states.

The 12th Amendment says if for some reason the Vice-President is unable to count the ballots and determine the winner of the election, the winner of the U.S. Presidential election is determined by whichever party has the highest aggregate number of state delegations in the House of Representatives; and in 2020 and 2024, the party with the most state delegations (electoral votes) is the Republican Party.

This is how Trump and Republicans plan to steal the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election WITHOUT COUNTING ANY VOTES.

Further, on January 6, 2025, when Vice-President Harris attempts to fulfill her duty to count electoral ballots mailed in from the states, Kamala won't be able to count all the ballots and declare a winner, precisely because red states are going to intentionally refrain from certifying the ballot count and refrain from sending their ballots to Washington to be counted by the sitting Vice-President, Kamala Harris.

At that point I predict that Democrats will file a federal lawsuit seeking a court order to force the non-compliant red states to comply with the federal court order to certify the vote count and turn over the electoral ballots to the U.S. government.

Republicans are going to appeal that order up to the U.S. Supreme Court, who will select the winner of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election while sipping wine, eating sushi and writing their opinion for the unwashed masses below them.

Again, you can thank conservative Merrick Garland for personally and officially serving Donald Trump and allowing Republicans to execute TRUMP INSURRECTION 2.0.

'Nightmare scenario': Expert shows how latest Georgia moves could hand presidency to Trump

Recent activity in the state of Georgia could wrongfully hand the 2024 election to Donald Trump, according to a voting rights expert.

Ari Berman, Mother Jones' national voting rights correspondent, appeared on MSNBC on Saturday to discuss the situation in Georgia, where far-right MAGA allies have been throwing wrenches into the gears of the state's vote-counting processes. Requiring extensive reviews and hand-counted ballots are among the MAGA proposals that could delay the vote being certified.

The host, Jonathan Capehart, asked Berman, "How could delaying the results in Georgia hand the presidency to Donald Trump?"

"So what would happen is that Georgia would not certify its electoral college votes in time," Berman said. "No candidate would get a majority in the electoral college as a result and that would then throw the election to the House of Representatives, which has not happened since 1824."

He continued, saying that "the House would vote, but it would not be a majority of members of the house voting. It would be a majority of state delegations, where Republicans would have an advantage."

"And that is really the nightmare scenario," he added. "You could have a presidential candidate who loses the popular vote, who does not win a majority of the electoral college, but who then could be selected by House Republicans who don't even represent a majority of that body. And it might be a far-fetched scenario, but under the Constitution it is a possible one."

Ron Harold: "Does that sound like democracy to you? A minority of voters electing the President of the United States instead of a majority of voters electing the President of the United States?

What's the lesson learned BEFORE this happens on January 6, 2025?

The historical lesson to be learned is that the capstone of American democracy is, MAJORITY RULES, while protecting the individual rights of all, including the minority.

The tactical lesson to be learned is that federal criminals can only steal a U.S. Presidential Election if the sitting U.S. Attorney General and President STAND DOWN any federal prosecution of the democracy thieves.

Merrick Garland had four effin' years to stop Trump from executing TRUMP INSURRECTION 2.0 and giving Trump a 50-50 chance of dismissing all his criminal cases against him by becoming President again - BUT NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Recognize the fact that Merrick Garland never had any intention of investigating Trump's role in the Jan. 6 insurrection and only opened up a DOJ investigation AFTER the January 6 Commission uncovered Trump and his co-conspirators crimes so well, the American people demanded that Merrick Garland and the DOJ open a DOJ criminal investigation into Trump and his co-conspirators.

Now in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland is going to do the same thing he did last time Trump executed INSURRECTION 1.0 - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!"

Lawsuit Challenges New Rules for Election Certification in Georgia

The plaintiffs say the rules are meant to delay or prevent certification of accurate and fair elections.

By Erin Geiger Smith

Published: August 28, 2024

Last Updated: September 19, 2024

UPDATE: A bench trial is scheduled for October 1 in Fulton County Superior Court in the Democratic National Committee-led challenge.

On September 11, a former Georgia legislator, who is a Republican, along with his nonprofit organization and a Chatham County election board member, filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the same rules that are the subject of litigation brought by Democratic National Committee.

he new lawsuit also challenges new rules passed by the Georgia Election Board relating to absentee ballots returned to drop boxes.

On September 9, a state court judge in Georgia dismissed the lawsuit brought by Fulton County election board member Julie Adams, saying she sued the incorrect party and that such claims must be brought against the state. Adams can refile the lawsuit against the correct party, the judge said.

A lawsuit filed on Monday challenges new Georgia election rules that may be interpreted by rogue county officials to refuse or delay certifying election results in the state.

Under two rules passed by the five-member Georgia Election Board this month, certifying election officials must conduct a “reasonable inquiry” prior to certification (the process of signing off on the completion of election results) and individual county board members can examine “all election related documentation” when reviewing a precinct’s returns.

The changes were enacted 3–2 by board members Rick Jeffares, Janice Johnston, and Janelle King. Jeffares and King joined the board this year, and Johnston was appointed in 2022.

The new rules depart from long-standing law and practice that the role of certifying officials is nondiscretionary and, critics say, open the door to unfounded claims of election fraud, delays in certification, and demands for time-consuming investigations by county boards.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit — including the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party of Georgia, individual county board members, and Democratic candidates for state representative — are asking the trial court in Fulton County (home to Atlanta) to hear the case ahead of this fall’s election.

Jeffares, Johnston, and King have suggested that certification of election results is discretionary and that the new rules will ensure that county board members are confident that election results are accurate.

County election boards are required by Georgia law to certify an election once the many steps to aggregate, count, and cross-check the results have all taken place, the plaintiffs say.

According to the plaintiffs, once these processes are complete and the totals verified, state law leaves certifying officials with no discretion to refuse to certify the results.

Nor are certifying officials meant to look behind the results to resolve allegations of fraud or misconduct, the plaintiffs argue. Such allegations are, by law, heard by the courts.

Moreover, the lawsuit claims, the new rules are in fact intended to allow election officials to delay certification or not certify at all — in violation of Georgia law.

The new rules have been criticized by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who suggested the state board does not have the authority to make such changes.

He added that he believes county election boards will “follow the law” and certify elections on time.

Election experts have stressed that courts are able to handle any attempts to disrupt the certification system.

However, they have also expressed concern that Georgia’s new rules could delay the certification process, which is supposed to occur shortly after an election.

Unfounded inquiries and investigations could also stoke doubt about an election that was accurate and secure.

The challenge to the new rules is related to an ongoing dispute in the same court filed by Fulton County election board member Julie Adams, who is suing her own board and asking the court to declare that election certification is discretionary.

(The Brennan Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the local League of Women Voters and NAACP chapters in support of the defendant election board’s motion to dismiss in that case.)

Adams’s lawsuit arose after she refused to certify the county’s May 2024 primary elections, claiming, without evidence, that there were “discrepancies.” The other board members voted for certification.

Both lawsuits raise questions over whether a practice that has long been rote and ministerial — and usually garners little fanfare or attention — can be altered in defiance of existing law.

Election certification has become increasingly politicized since the 2020 presidential election, when then-President Donald Trump lost his reelection bid and claimed that the election had been “stolen” from him. His claims have been widely exposed as untrue.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit over the rule changes note that “[a]t least 19 election board members across nine Georgia counties have objected to certifying elections during the past four years.”

And election officials in states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania have refused to certify local election results.

In each case, the elections were certified after litigation or state officials’ intervention.

Trump, who is running for president again, this month praised the Georgia board members who voted for the rule changes, calling them “pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory.”

Erin Geiger Smith is a writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Erin Geiger Smith, Lawsuit Challenges New Rules for Election Certification in Georgia, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Aug. 28, 2024),

https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/lawsuit-challenges-new-rules-election-certification-georgia.