Last Updated on December 22, 2020
A lawsuit filed by Republicans seeking stronger, more uniform signature matching for the January 5, 2021, US Senate run-off elections has been dismissed by a District Court of Appeals court in Georgia.
The district court found the complainants lacked standing. This prompted an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The Georgia Republican Party was joined by US Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), and David Perdue (R-GA), in a lawsuit against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. The suit claimed that signature matching for mail-in ballots, as executed in the November 3, 2020, General Election was “unconstitutional, arbitrary, and inconsistent.”
The three-judge panel – consisting of Clinton nominee Charles Wilson, Obama nominee Beverly Martin, and Trump nominee Robert Luck, ruled Sunday that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege an injury that can be addressed to establish standing.
The Georgia #RepublicanParty, joined by @KLoeffler and @SenDavidPerdue, had sued @GaSecofState, alleging the signature matching for mail-in #Ballots was “unconstitutional, arbitrary, and inconsistent.”
Judges denied the motion for an injunction.https://t.co/euTAGq1iAy
— NTD News (@news_ntd) December 21, 2020
“Like in Jacobson, the campaigns sued the Secretary of State,” the panel wrote in its dismissal. “They alleged that the Secretary is the state’s chief election officer, that he has the authority and responsibility to manage Georgia’s electoral system, and that he, along with the election board members, has the duty to promulgate rules and regulations to obtain uniformity in the practices of election officials and to ensure a fair, legal, and orderly conduction of elections.”
“Jacobson” refers to Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, a precedent-setting case in the matter.
“But, just as in Jacobson, the absentee ballot statute puts the duty to ‘compare the signature’ and accept or reject a ballot on the ‘registrar or clerk’ – not the secretary of state.”
The judges explained that the motion for injunction before them asked them to do what they already stated they couldn’t do in the previous case, “order a nonparty county official to do something contrary to state law.”
The question that begs to be asked is this. Did the Georgia GOP and lawyers for Loeffler and Purdue do their due diligence in seeking the correct relief from the right litigant?
Judging from the language of the dismissal this appears to be a valid question.
