Federal judge dashes Green Party's Pennsylvania recount hopes

US District Judge Paul Diamond said that suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election 'borders on the irrational.'

Ed Hille/The Philadelphia Inquirer/AP
Jill Stein holds a press conference at the federal courthouse in Philadelphia after a hearing on the Green Party's request for a statewide recount, Friday, Dec. 9, 2016.

A federal judge on Monday issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request to recount paper ballots in Pennsylvania's presidential election, won narrowly by Republican Donald Trump, and scan some counties' election systems for signs of hacking.

In his 31-page decision, US District Judge Paul Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party's lawsuit, which had been opposed by Mr. Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party, and the Pennsylvania attorney general's office. The Green Party has been successful in at least getting statewide recounts started in Wisconsin and Michigan, but it has failed to get a statewide recount begun or ordered in Pennsylvania.

Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election "borders on the irrational" while granting the Green Party's recount bid could "ensure that that no Pennsylvania vote counts" given Tuesday's federal deadline to certify the vote for the Electoral College, wrote Judge Diamond, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, a Republican.

"Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any 'hack' occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised," Diamond wrote. He also said the lawsuit suffered from a lack of standing, potentially the lack of federal jurisdiction and an "unexplained, highly prejudicial" wait before filing last week's lawsuit, four weeks after the Nov. 8 election.

The decision was the Green Party's latest roadblock in Pennsylvania after hitting numerous walls in county and state courts. Green Party-backed lawyers argue that it was possible that computer hackers changed the election outcome and that Pennsylvania's heavy use of paperless machines makes it a prime target. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein also contended that Pennsylvania has erected unconstitutional barriers to voters seeking a recount.

A lawyer for the Green Party said Monday the party was disappointed and unable to immediately say whether it would appeal.

"But one thing is clear," said the lawyer, Ilann Maazel. "The Pennsylvania election system is not fair to voters and voters don't know if their votes counted, and that's a very large problem."

It is part of a broader effort by Stein to recount votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, three states with a history of supporting Democrats that were narrowly won by Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Stein captured about 1 percent of the vote, or less, in each of the three states.

In Pennsylvania, Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by about 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast.

The Wisconsin recount was expected to conclude Monday. With about 95 percent of the votes recounted as of Sunday, Clinton had gained 25 votes on Trump, but still trailed by about 22,000 votes out of nearly 3 million cast in Wisconsin.

US District Judge Mark Goldsmith halted Michigan's recount last week after three days. Trump won Michigan by fewer than 11,000 votes out of nearly 4.8 million votes cast.

Three voters in Florida have also sued for a recount of paper ballots, as Ellen Powell reported for The Christian Science Monitor.

"With their call for a recount in Florida, a group of voters may hope to encourage a push for change in voting procedure – even if the recount itself is a long shot."

Associated Press writer Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Federal judge dashes Green Party's Pennsylvania recount hopes
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1212/Federal-judge-dashes-Green-Party-s-Pennsylvania-recount-hopes
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe