One of the most pernicious phenomena of modern times is the collusive lawsuit. This is how it works: a left-wing organization sues a government agency that is also controlled by the left. The lawsuit alleges that the agency is obliged to do something that the agency would like to do, but the Democrats can’t get it passed. Then the parties–supposedly adverse, but actually in collusion–“settle” the case by having the agency agree to do what it wanted to do all along. If all goes well, a court enters an order enforcing the settlement. So the net effect is that a policy that the Democrats couldn’t get passed is now a court-ordered mandate. This happens often.
In Minnesota, Democrats are colluding to enable voter fraud in the upcoming primary election. This presumably is a warmup for the same effort they will make to enable fraud in the general election in November. With many believing that President Trump has a good chance to carry Minnesota after coming close last time, the Democrats are taking no chances.
The case is League of Women Voters v. Simon. The League of Women Voters, a solidly Democratic organization, is “suing” Minnesota’s Secretary of State, left-wing activist Steve Simon. The lawsuit seeks to suspend Minnesota’s election laws, ostensibly on account of COVID-19, so that persons mailing in absentee ballots won’t need to satisfy the statutory requirement of a witness to verify their identity. Without that requirement, voter fraud will be even easier than it is at present. If a Democrat finds a ballot lying around, as will happen many thousands of times in Minnesota, where the voter rolls include hundreds of thousands of names that are dead or otherwise not eligible voters, he can fill it out and send it in, no questions asked.
Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon, who consistently abuses his office to facilitate voter fraud, quickly agreed to the “settlement” that his party wanted.
If you think this is a scandal, you are right. Happily, the Trump presidential campaign and Minnesota’s Republican Party hired excellent lawyers to intervene in the case and seek to block the proposed “settlement.” I have embedded their Opposition to the Proposed Consent Decree below. Here are a few quotes that demonstrate how the Democrats tried to achieve an illegal result by “settling” a collusive lawsuit.
This voter fraud effort is part of a nationwide campaign:
Democrats now contend that, in light of COVID-19, their legislative agenda is required by the Constitution. The Democratic Party (through its law firm, Perkins Coie) has filed COVID-19 lawsuits in virtually every swing State, including Minnesota. See Where We’re Litigating, Democracy Docket, bit.ly/2V0rF7k. Allied groups have bolstered the Democrats’ effort by filing dozens of copycat suits across the country. For example, the League of Women Voters brought this suit in federal court, while the Alliance for Retired Americans (backed by the Democratic Party) and the NAACP (backed by the ACLU) brought overlapping lawsuits in state court.
The good news: “When these COVID-19 lawsuits face adversarial litigation, they usually fail.” Many citations at the link. This is why a collusive “settlement” is the easiest path to voter fraud.
In this case, the fraudulence of the “settlement” is obvious:
Defendant [the Secretary of State] filed an answer on June 9, 2020. Doc. 22. In it, he denied all Plaintiffs’ material allegations. Doc. 22 ¶¶7, 12, 62, 65, 80, 81, 87, 95, 100, 102, 109, 111. He also denied that heightened scrutiny applied to the witness requirement and argued that the requirement would survive any level of judicial scrutiny. [The cases cited by Intervenors indicate that this is clearly correct.] Doc. 22 ¶¶106, 107. And he asserted that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Doc. 22 at 40.
All of which were sound legal arguments, as the many cases cited in the Intervenors’ brief show. But the Secretary of State gave away the store, on purpose:
At some point in the next seven days, Defendant made a sharp U-turn. On June 16, the parties jointly submitted a proposed consent decree to the Court. Under that decree, Defendant would totally refrain from enforcing the witness requirement and concede to all four kinds of relief that Plaintiffs sought for the August primary. Doc. 24 at 6. Further, Defendant would concede that “Plaintiffs made a sufficiently strong showing on the merits of the claim”—a position directly contrary to the one he took in his answer a week earlier. Doc. 24 ¶20.
In short, Minnesota’s Democratic Secretary of State colluded with a Democratic plaintiff to rewrite Minnesota’s election laws to facilitate voter fraud for the benefit of the Democratic Party.
The Democrats’ motion to approve their collusive settlement will be argued in federal court tomorrow. Given the overwhelming authorities cited in the Intervenors’ brief, I assume the judge will disapprove the settlement. But this is an excellent example of the evils of collusive litigation. It is a huge problem that can be mitigated only to the extent that the courts are not controlled by Democrats.
By way of full disclosure, I perhaps should add that the lead lawyer for Intervenors in this case is not just a great lawyer but also a good friend of mine.