(PDF) https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2930&context=vlr
The touchstone of a democratic nation involves the right of its citizens to vote and elect its leaders.1 Throughout the history of the United States, persons have fought to secure, maintain and utilize this right. The Fifteenth, Nineteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution embody the result of this struggle. People who conduct an election illegally, however, invalidate an individual's freedom of choice exercised through the right to vote. If fraud occurs in the election process, the candidate declared the winner may not represent the people's choice.
What if the government, responsible for conducting the election, taints the election results?
What protection exists for the candidates and the individuals who lose the right to vote and whose right to a fair election is effectively stolen?
Allegations of state election fraud present several difficult issues which a federal court must overcome to properly decide the case. First, the federal court must confront the abstention doctrine. This doctrine requires that federal courts refrain from examining cases that state courts
should review. State and local laws prescribe how to conduct their elections and the procedures for challenging those elections. Accordingly,
local and state governments should monitor the potential violations of these laws. Second, if the federal court hurdles abstention, the court must find a federal cause of action that provides the plaintiff standing.
If a federal cause of action exists, the plaintiff must then prove the election fraud. Finally, if the plaintiff proves election fraud under a federal cause of action, the federal court must select an appropriate remedy. Such remedies range from money damages to a new election.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently addressed these issues in Marks v. Stinson. The Third Circuit decided that
the abstention doctrine did not preclude it from examining the results of Pennsylvania's state senatorial election.
The court, upon finding fraud, adopted a new remedy. Because the winning candidate engaged in voter fraud, the Third Circuit removed him and certified the losing candidate as the winner.
Given the increasing accusations of election fraud, future losers of state elections will likely rely on Marks to remove the winner from office...
(cont)
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 26605506? 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Great post OP. Ty. I ran with it to spread the info