During a hearing on Thursday, a Georgia federal judge denied on multiple grounds a bid by an Atlanta attorney to halt the certification of Georgia’s general election results before the deadline on Friday.

In the suit, plaintiff L. Lin Wood took aim at Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and members of the Georgia Election Board over a March settlement agreed with the Democratic Party of Georgia to strengthen signature checks on absentee ballots. Wood claimed that this change in procedure was made without due authority and against measures approved by the state’s legislature, and urged a second recount of Georgia’s presidential votes.

Judge Grimberg described Wood’s “eleventh hour” motion for a recount as “a generalised government grievance” which would “breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement”.

"The settlement agreement was consistent with state law … if anything it achieves or seeks to achieve consistency among the county election officials in the state to follow the same procedure,” Grimberg said, “and in doing that it actually furthers plaintiff's stated goals of achieving fair and transparent public elections."

Georgia entered the international spotlight by swinging towards Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden during the US election, a surprise move in a state that has generally been considered a Republican stronghold.

In the aftermath of Election Day, Trump campaign affiliates sued in several key states in an attempt to prematurely halt the counting of ballots. When these states were called for Joe Biden, further lawsuits were issued to prevent the certification of the results, citing claims of widespread voter fraud. Most of these cases have since been dismissed.

[ymal]

Election results in Georgia must be certified by 5pm on 20 November. A recount held in the state recently confirmed Joe Biden’s victory by a margin of 12,284 votes.

In a ruling on Thursday, the Hong Kong High Court found that the government’s failure to establish an independent mechanism for the handling of complaints of ill-treatment by police officers violated the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

The court maintained that the government was obliged to “establish and maintain” this mechanism according to Article 3 of the 1991 Bill of the Rights, which states: “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The case was brought against the Commissioner of Police and Secretary for Justice by the Hong Kong Journalists Association, which alleged incidents of police brutality against protesters on 12 June, 2019.

The court’s finding comes in the wake of a report from international experts who quit a Hong Kong police brutality enquiry in 2019, which said that the police’s crowd-control tactics had worsened public perception of the force’s legitimacy and had a radicalising effect on protesters. It also follows a statement from Hong Kong’s leader, Carrie Lam, saying that there was no need for a complaints system outside of the existing police-overseen one.

Under Hong Kong’s current system, there is a two-tier mechanism for investigating complaints against police. The complaint is first sent to the Complaints Against Police Office – itself part of the police force branch – and then to the Independent Police Complaints Council, which is separate from the police force but does not have the authority to overturn decisions made by the Complaints Against Police Office.

[ymal]

An independent investigation into police handling of demonstrations in 2019 has been one of the main demands of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. Thursday’s court decision also comes after a senior Chinese official said that Beijing intends to review Hong Kong’s legal system, which pro-democracy groups fear could further damage the independence of Hong Kong’s courts.

The chief executive officers of Twitter and Facebook testified before Congress on Tuesday in a hearing during which several lawmakers raised the possibility of amending or repealing the protections that social media platforms currently hold under US law.

Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg were issued subpoenas in October to appear at the hearing on Tuesday in order to “review the companies’ handling of the 2020 election”. Throughout the hearing they faced challenges from Republican and Democratic senators on their platforms’ content moderation policies and what their users are allowed to post.

Republican lawmakers focused on the companies’ decisions to limit the circulation of an article from the New York Post about Hunter Biden in October. Twitter at the time blocked users from posting links or images of the report due to scepticism over the authenticity of “the origins of the materials” within the article, allegedly pulled from a laptop left by Hunter Biden at an independent computer repair shop in Delaware. The company later walked its response back, while Facebook placed milder limitations on the sharing of the article due to questions about its validity.

“When you have companies that have the power of government, have far more power than traditional media outlets, something has to give,” said Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham, adding that he hoped Section 230 could be changed.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers focused on the platforms’ policies towards violent speech, with Senator Richard Blumenthal attacking Facebook’s refusal to shut down the account of former White House adviser Steven Bannon after he suggested the beheading of two US officials.

[ymal]

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 holds that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider", effectively ensuring social media networks are not held liable for the posts of their users. President-elect Biden has said that he favours repealing Section 230, while Congressional Democrats have suggested reforming the law more deliberately.

During an October hearing, Dorsey and Zuckerberg indicated openness to some reforms in the law governing social media content.

Big Law firm Porter Wright has withdrawn its attorneys from representing President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign in a Pennsylvania lawsuit.

The lawsuit aims to stop the state from certifying the results of its election after President Trump’s Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, was declared the winner there on 7 November.

Porter Wright announced its withdrawal from the case in a court filing. "Plaintiffs and Porter Wright have reached a mutual agreement that plaintiffs will be best served if Porter Wright withdraws, and current co-counsel and such other counsel as plaintiffs may choose to engage represent plaintiffs in this case," an attorney wrote.

The move follows mounting public backlash to law firms representing President Trump or the Republican Party in post-election litigation. Another firm, Snell & Wilmer, also withdrew from election litigation in Arizona.

Following Porter Wright’s withdrawal, the Trump campaign’s case in Pennsylvania will be counselled by solo practitioner Linda Kerns. A central portion of the suit – the allegation that 682,479 mail-in and absentee ballots were illegally processed out of sight of the Trump campaign’s poll watchers – has been dropped. However, an allegation that “Democratic-heavy counties” violated the law by identifying technically defective ballots and then giving the voters who cast them a chance to fix their mistake, will still be heard in Williamsport on Tuesday.

[ymal]

Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh attributed Porter Wright’s withdrawal to “cancel culture” employed by “leftist mobs”.

Fellow Big Law firm Jones Day continues to represent the Republican Party’s legal efforts in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, though it has stressed that it does not represent President Trump or his campaign.

Jones Day has come under fire for representing the Republican Party in litigation over Pennsylvania’s extended deadline to receive mail-in ballots.

Several of Jones Day’s clients, including Verizon and General Motors, were tweeted at by critics urging them to drop the firm. A $500,000 campaign has also been launched by anti-Trump Republican group The Lincoln Project to pressure Jones Day’s corporate clients to cut ties.

Jones Day and fellow big law firm Porter Wright Morris & Arthur have filed multiple lawsuits on behalf of the Republican Party, including four in Pennsylvania. Jones Day has made more than $20 million in fees from Trump-affiliated groups since 2015.

Several cases brought by the Republican Party challenging the electoral ballot-counting process have been tossed out by courts on the grounds that the Trump campaign’s claims of voter intimidation or ballot fraud are based on hearsay.

Critics have alleged that the Pennsylvania lawsuits are not intended to produce a meaningful legal result, but instead are part of a strategy coordinated by President Trump and the Republican Party to undermine public confidence in the electoral process. The New York Times quoted several Jones Day lawyers, speaking anonymously, who appeared to corroborate these claims.

In a statement on its website, Jones Day pushed back against the notion that its suits are frivolous, noting that four Supreme Court justices have expressed support for Pennsylvania Republicans’ claims that the state’s decision to count ballots received after 3 November is unconstitutional.

[ymal]

“Jones Day is not representing President Trump, his campaign, or any affiliated party in any litigation alleging voter fraud,” the firm said. “Jones Day also is not representing any entity in any litigation challenging or contesting the results of the 2020 general election. Media reports to the contrary are false.” The statement stressed that its client in the mail-in ballot suits is the Pennsylvania Republican Party.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that Harvard University’s race-conscious admission processes did not violate civil rights law.

The two-judge panel found that the district court was correct in ruling that Harvard’s consideration of race in its admissions processes in order to achieve diversity did not violate Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights act and did not intentionally discriminate against Asian American applicants.

In her opinion, Judge Lynch cited the 2015 high court ruling in Fisher v University of Texas that Harvard had an “ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies”, and noted that the issue in question was whether or not its “limited” use of race to achieve diversity in its admissions process was consistent with the requirements of Supreme Court precedent.

“There was no error,” she wrote.

The group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) appealed the case to the First Court, arguing that the district court was unable to determine that Harvard’s admissions process treated Asian American applicants fairly. The group focused on Harvard’s use of a “personal rating” in admissions decisions, which it claimed rated Asian American applicants lower than their peers.

The SFFA’s suit was backed by the Trump administration, which claimed in oral arguments that Asian American prospective students were “unduly burdened by the expansive and pervasive use of race by Harvard.”

[ymal]

In a statement, SFFA President Edward Blum vowed to appeal the case to the US Supreme Court. If the case is taken up, the Supreme Court’s ruling could have the potential to ban affirmative action policies.

Harvard spokesperson Rachel Dane welcomed the First Circuit’s ruling in an emailed statement.

“Today’s decision once again finds that Harvard’s admissions policies are consistent with Supreme Court precedent, and lawfully and appropriately pursue Harvard’s efforts to create a diverse campus that promotes learning and encourages mutual respect and understanding in our community," she wrote.

MPs from both the Conservative and Labour parties have called for the government to consider raising the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales.

Speaking with the justice select committee, several child psychologists said that children’s brains are not fully formed by the age of 10, the current age at which they can be put on trial in England and Wales. The age of responsibility is 12 in Scotland, and in the teens for many other nations.

The justice committee recommended that the Ministry of Justice review the age of criminal responsibility and “report on the implications of raising the age in England and Wales to 12 and to 14”, with a view to assessing the likely effect this would have on reducing the number of children in custody and alternative methods of dealing with children beneath the proposed ages who have committed serious offences.

“Previously, it was thought that the most significant period of brain maturation was in the first five or possibly eight years,” said Dr Alexandra Lewis, chair of the adolescent forensic faculty at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, in a statement to MPs. “We now know that a second critical period takes place in adolescence and is a very dramatic development of the frontal lobes, which are, essentially, responsible for decision-making, planning, consequential thinking, getting ideas about ourselves and social interaction.”

The committee also raised concerns about the disproportionate number of children in custody who come from BAME backgrounds, which currently make up 51.9% of the entire cohort. “Race disproportionality is significant and fundamental, visible in every part of the youth justice system,” the MPs wrote. “We recommend that the Ministry of Justice set out what resource has been allocated to addressing disproportionality.”

[ymal]

Lucy Frazer QC, the youth justice minister, acknowledged the disparity between the current age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales and the conclusions drawn by the UN committee on the rights of the child – that children aged 12 to 13 are not mature enough to comprehend the impact of their actions. However, she added: “I do not expect that we will be changing the age of criminal responsibility.”

President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign filed lawsuits in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia on Wednesday, preparing to contest the voting results in these battleground states.

The campaign has sued in Michigan and Pennsylvania to stop the counting of absentee and mail-in ballots, and in Georgia to prevent the counting of absentee ballots that it claims were received after a deadline set for Election Day.

“President Trump’s campaign has not been provided with meaningful access to numerous counting locations to observe the opening of ballots and the counting process, as guaranteed by Michigan law,” wrote Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien. “We have filed suit today in the Michigan Court of Claims to halt counting until meaningful access has been granted. We also demand to review those ballots which were opened and counted while we did not have meaningful access.”

Ryan Jarvi, press secretary for Attorney General Dana Nessel, dismissed Stepien’s claims. “Michigan’s elections have been conducted transparently, with access provided for both political parties and the public, and using a robust system of checks and balances to ensure that all ballots are counted fairly and accurately,” he said.

The announcement of the Michigan and Pennsylvania lawsuits came shortly before Trump’s Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, became projected to win the vote in Michigan.

This latest development in the US election follows a vow from the incumbent president that he would ask the Supreme Court to end the counting of ballots after Election Day. The Trump campaign has also sought to intervene in a case heard by the Pennsylvania state supreme court regarding the counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election authorities up to three days later.

Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon issued a statement referring to moves to halt the counting of ballots as “outrageous, unprecedented and incorrect.”

[ymal]

“Nearly 100 million people cast their ballot before Election Day in the belief — and with the assurances from their state election officials — that their ballot would be counted,” she said. “Now Donald Trump is trying to invalidate the ballot of every voter who relied on these assurances.”

Dillon added that the Biden campaign has teams of lawyers ready to challenge legal action from the Trump campaign, and that “they will prevail”.

In an unprecedented move, President Donald Trump has stated that his campaign will ask the Supreme Court to bring an early halt to vote-counting while the results of the US presidential election are still being determined.

Trump made the announcement at the White House during a 2:12am post-Election-Day speech, where he declared victory over Democratic challenger Joe Biden despite several key states having not yet called for either candidate.

The president accused the Democratic Party of “fraud” as justification for the move. “This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity – for the good of this nation, this is a very big moment – this is a major fraud on our nation.”

“We want the law to be used in a proper manner, so we’ll be going to the US Supreme Court,” Trump continued. “We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at four o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. Okay? It’s a very sad moment.”

The statement appeared to throw doubt on the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, which Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly decried during the run-up to the election.

The Biden campaign quickly hit back against Trump’s statement, with campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon calling the move “outrageous, unprecedented, and incorrect”.

[ymal]

“Nearly 100 million people cast their ballot before Election Day in the belief — and with the assurances from their state election officials — that their ballot would be counted,” Dillon said. “Now Donald Trump is trying to invalidate the ballot of every voter who relied on these assurances.”

The Biden campaign added that they have legal teams standing by to resist any attempt by Trump to act on his statement and take a case to the Supreme Court.

Should the Court be asked to intervene, the decision would be put to a 6-3 conservative majority of justices – three of whom Trump himself has appointed to the bench.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has rejected a bid from Texas Republicans to block drive-through voting in Harris County, Texas.

"It is ordered that appellants' motion for injunctive relief to issue a preliminary injunction banning drive-thru voting on Election Day, November 3, 2020, is denied,” the three-judge panel wrote in an order. No further explanation was supplied.

The decision marks a loss for Republicans in Texas, who had sought to challenge the legality of votes cast at drive-through voting sites in the Houston area. US District Court Judge Andrew Hanen dismissed the suit on Monday finding that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to file suit, and the Texas Supreme Court blocked a similar challenge on Sunday.

Hanen wrote in his order that Texas Election Code permits early voting via drive-through sites, but does not authorise movable structures – such as the tents used as part of drive-through voting – as polling places on Election Day itself.

Harris County, which includes Houston and the surrounding area, is the third-most populous county in the US. Almost 9% of the ballots cast in Harris County in the election so far have come from drive-through voting sites, the county said on Saturday, totalling some 127,000 votes in all.

[ymal]

Several big law firms have become involved in the case, representing amicus parties and intervenors attempting to protect the ballots from being tossed. Attorneys from Dechert, Reed Smith, Haynes and Boone and Perkins Coie are representing organisations in opposition to the suit.