Republican activists have been trying to invalidate 127,000 votes cast in Harris County (Houston). Their case failed in the state courts. They are now in federal courts, arguing that votes cast at a drive-in location are invalid, even though the sites were approved by the Secretary of State of Texas.
ACLU Challenges Effort to Invalidate Nearly 127,000 Drive-Thru Votes Cast in Harris County, Texas
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 1, 2020
CONTACT:
Imelda Mejia, ACLU of Texas, 602–510-4534, imejia@aclutx.org
Inga Sarda-Sorensen, ACLU National, 347-514-3984, isarda-sorensen@aclu.org
HOUSTON — The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Texas moved to intervene tonight in a lawsuit that seeks to invalidate nearly 127,000 early votes cast via drive-thru voting in Harris County, the state’s largest county and the third largest county in the country. This is the third such attempt to discard these validly-cast ballots.
“The push to toss the ballots of nearly 127,000 Texans in Harris County is unconscionable and illegal,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, deputy director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “It appears to be an attempt to undermine a true and accurate vote count and improperly influence the outcome of the election.”
Tonight’s ACLU challenge was filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Texas and several individuals who voted using the drive-thru option, including:
- Michelle Colvard, a 45-year-old registered voter who lives in Houston. She has both spina bifida and monoclonal gammopathy. Because of these conditions, she uses a wheelchair and is more susceptible to severe illness from COVID-19. She chose to drive-thru vote as the option that would minimize her risk of COVID-19 exposure.
- Karen “Kim” Vidor, a 64-year-old registered voter living in Houston. She has been a registered voter in Harris County since she was approximately 18. She suffers from hypertension, cardiac issues, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis, all of which heighten her risk from COVID-19. If her vote is at risk of not being counted, she fears she will be totally disenfranchised. For Vidor, a Republican, this is “not a partisan issue,” but rather an issue of having her vote counted.
- Joy Davis-Harasemay, a 44-year-old registered voter who lives in Houston. She has both asthma and spondylitis, a degenerative spine disease that makes her unable to stand for long periods of time. She used drive-thru voting, and if her vote is not counted, she will be heartbroken and disenfranchised. As a Black woman, she likely will not vote again in this election for fear of breaking election rules and being accused of voting twice.
- Diana Untermeyer, a 58-year-old registered voter who lives in Houston. She routinely votes for Republican candidates during general elections, including voting for Sharon Hemphill — a plaintiff in the lawsuit seeking to invalidate the drive-thru votes in Harris County — over her opponent in the 2020 general election.
“This lawsuit is another desperate and ludicrous attempt by extremists to block the will of the people and disrupt democracy,” said Andre Segura, legal director for the ACLU of Texas. “Throwing out these votes would be patently unlawful and unprecedented. Texans have shown up in record numbers to make their voices heard, and we will fight to ensure that these votes are counted.”
“The attempt to disenfranchise more than 120,000 voters who lawfully cast their ballots during early voting is disgraceful and un-American,” said Grace Chimene, president of League of Women Voters of Texas.“Drive-thru voting was established as a safe early voting option for individuals, including many disabled voters who did not want to enter a polling site during this pandemic. It was tested with great success during the Texas run-off and special election in July. This last-minute attack on voters demonstrates a desire by some to silence Texas voters and we will not stand for it.”
A hearing is slated for Monday morning in Houston in front of U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen.
Prior to the federal court lawsuit seeking to invalidate the nearly 127,000 votes, some of the same plaintiffs filed a similar suit with the Texas Supreme Court. Earlier today, the Texas Supreme Court denied the request without an order or opinion. In late October, the Texas Supreme Court refused litigation attempting to shut down drive-thru voting in Harris County altogether.
Legal filings: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/motion-intervene-0 and https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/opp-pi
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If the Republicans in Texas thought the votes were mostly “R,” they’d be helping direct traffic. CBK
LikeLike
You’re correct, these are the actions of group that is afraid of losing and losing BIG.
LikeLike
The Repugnicans know that demographics are against them. They have to do everything they can to subvert Democracy in order to remain in power.
LikeLike
I’m reminded of April’s hilarious post about how Democrats were trying to rig the vote. I reminded her that it’s not Democrats
closing polling places in the neighborhoods of POC
removing all but one polling place in every country in Texas
suing to discount mail-in ballots
suing to stop counting ballots early
and so on
BTW, Trump vehemently denies that he has repeatedly assaulted Democracy. “She’s not my type,” he said.
LikeLike
And it’s not the Democratic nominee tweeting that the Supreme Court needs to step in and decide the election in his favor days after ramming through another troglodyte “Justice” just before the election
LikeLike
Bob Too bad Trump’s goon couldn’t close all of the Post Offices AFTER the votes were sent in and BEFORE they were delivered. Life is tough. CBK
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
Thank goodness for the League of Women Voters and the ACLU. Both organizations and others ar likely to be busy in multiple states.
Trumpsters are planning for a very close election, close enough to put the election results in doubt when the late ballots are counted.
If only the late-counted votes make a difference, then it is likely Trump’s army of lawyers will jump into to stall or subvert a final count and in multiple states.
“If the entire election comes down to mail-in or absentee ballots mailed prior to November 3 but received after the deadline imposed by the relevant state’s legislature, there will certainly be litigation over whether those ballots should count.”
“Unfortunately, and at least four (Supreme Court) Justices have already made the arguments for why the answer may end up being “no.” “
“In separate opinions in the Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina cases, four Justices—Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas—have endorsed arguments that could be used to change the rules for counting ballots after the election.”
“The nub of the argument is that the Constitution commits to a state legislature the power to fix rules for elections, and so when other state actors change the rules, even for the best of reasons…” “any otherwise lawful ballots received after the receipt deadline imposed by the state legislature is invalid, no matter what state authorities and state courts may conclude to the contrary.”
“Whatever one’s politics, there’s good reason for us all to intone the Election Administrator’s Prayer: “Lord, may it not be close.”
From https://www.justsecurity.org/73135/election-law-primer-what-to-expect-during-and-after-the-2020-election/
LikeLike
Laura Everyone knows they are just trying to suppress the vote and that, if the tables were turned, so would they turn. It’s the “finger-in-the-wind” principle, which is no principle at all and they don’t deserve to live in a democracy–they obviously don’t want one anyway. What they want is The State of Trump.
It’s sickening . . . in their manner and desperation they’ve lost all sense of whatever integrity they may have once had. CBK
LikeLike
If the election results are close enough for Trump to put his strategy of challenging the results into play, all the way to the Supreme Court, the Court, amidst the turmoil of it all, has to be aware that if Biden becomes President the possibility exists of a packed court, rendering the current majority ineffectual.
Will Trump’s three appointees cave and protect themselves by voting to keep their benefactor in office even if its clear Biden has won?
.
.
LikeLike
Darrell Trump knows his only option is a power grab. But Trump voters, the Republicans, and the Court wouldn’t let that happen.
So goes the common fare of thinking before Trump came on the scene. CBK
LikeLike
Darrell James Carville said this morning that we’ll know the election results quite early . . . on the argument that, when you try to keep American people, and particularly Black American people, from voting, they just say “Watch me,” and try harder.
BTW, it’s the same principle the anti-maskers are using, and smokers and anti-seat-belters before them: This’s America. . . you can’t tell me what to do.
Only in the case of anti-masking, it’s stupid and adolescent; while in the case of voting, it’s as close to the divine as we can get without dying. CBK
LikeLike
good news. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/us/politics/texas-harris-county-votes-republicans.html
LikeLike
It doesn’t seem likely that the Texas Supreme Court decision would be overturned.
LikeLike
But now the GOP has taken the case to the federal court, having lost in Texas courts. That’s where the ACLU is intervening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just got the news about the federal ruling. One for Democracy!
LikeLike
The absurdity of Brett Kavanaugh’s “to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election” covers what I interpreted to be an anticipatory statement reflecting Trump’s comments.
If one apple in the barrel is already rotten….
LikeLike
Laurence Tribe wrote in the Boston Globe yesterday that “Conservative Justices on Supreme Court Are Threatening a Coup D’Etat,” and he said that Kavanaugh’s recent opinion was wrong on the facts and wrong on the law.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/01/opinion/conservative-supreme-court-justices-are-threatening-post-election-coup/
LikeLike
It’s good to read a scholarly description of a citizen’s unscholarly creeping suspicion.
A possible packed court lurking in the background provides motivation enough to couch in legal terms just how to keep Trump in office.
Pray Biden’s victory is overwhelming, presenting an impenetrable shield against the thrusts of collusion.
LikeLike
Darrell If that’s an authentic quote from Kavenaugh, he doesn’t know the difference between the rule of law and the “rules” that govern social gatherings.
It’s passable to be an idiot . . . this is a free country. But it’s not okay to be an idiot on the Supreme Court. CBK
LikeLike
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen was nominated by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2002.
Who is Hanen?
Hanen was nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas by President George W. Bush (R) on January 23, 2002, to a seat vacated by Filemon Vela, who retired from judicial service. The American Bar Association rated Hanen Unanimously Well Qualified for the nomination.[2] Hearings on Hanen’s nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on April 25, 2002, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on May 2, 2002. Hanen was confirmed on a recorded 97-0 vote of the U.S. Senate, and he received his commission on May 10, 2002.[1][3]
Hanen was nominated by President George H.W. Bush (R) to serve on a federal district court on March 20, 1992, filling a new seat created by 101 Stat. 650. Under Rule XXXI, paragraph 6, of the standing rules of the United States Senate, Hanen’s nomination was returned to the president on October 8, 1992.[4]
https://ballotpedia.org/Andrew_Hanen
Andrew Hanen’s Ratings and Endorsements on Issues
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/118706/andrew-hanen/66/
LikeLike
Trump eliminated American Bar Association ratings of Judicial nominees.
Probably because he nominated so many unqualified judges.
LikeLike