Legal News for Tues 11/5 - SCOTUS Braces for Election Litigation, Musk's $1m Voter Giveaway in PA, GA's Ruling on Absentee Ballot Deadlines

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Saddam Hussein Sentenced to Death

On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein, former President of Iraq, was sentenced to death by hanging by the Iraqi High Tribunal. This judgment followed a lengthy trial process in which Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity, including the 1982 mass killing of 148 Shiite Muslims in the town of Dujail. The Dujail massacre was carried out in response to a failed assassination attempt on Hussein, leading to mass arrests, torture, and the destruction of local farmland. Hussein’s trial, held in Baghdad, was one of the most closely watched and controversial trials of its time, bringing international focus on Iraq's fledgling judicial system and the challenges it faced in balancing fairness with the demand for justice.

The trial faced various disruptions, including assassinations of defense lawyers, allegations of bias, and criticisms regarding procedural flaws. Hussein himself was often defiant in court, questioning the legitimacy of the tribunal and claiming that his actions as president were lawful under Iraqi sovereignty. Despite these defenses, the court concluded that the atrocities committed in Dujail warranted the ultimate penalty. Hussein’s sentence and subsequent execution on December 30, 2006, marked a historic moment, as it was one of the few instances in modern history where a former head of state was tried, sentenced, and executed by his own country’s judiciary.

While some viewed the trial and execution as a symbol of justice for Iraq, others criticized it as a rushed process influenced by U.S. political interests in the region. The execution, carried out on a holy day for Muslims, further polarized public opinion and left a complex legacy, both within Iraq and internationally.

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election nears, the Supreme Court is preparing for a potential influx of election-related litigation, echoing the post-2020 legal battles when Donald Trump and his allies challenged his loss to Joe Biden. Although the Supreme Court largely dismissed Trump’s 2020 appeals, legal experts anticipate another wave of lawsuits if the upcoming race, currently tight according to polls, results in a Trump loss. Already, some cases have reached the Supreme Court, including one involving Pennsylvania mail-in ballots—an issue also contested in 2020.

The court’s conservative majority, which includes three Trump appointees, may face pressure to rule on election-related disputes. Although the Supreme Court recently provided Trump some legal wins, including reversing a Colorado ruling disqualifying him from the ballot, experts doubt it will intervene to decide the election outcome unless it is extremely close. Nonetheless, lawsuits have proliferated, with the Republican National Committee leading numerous pre-election suits, ostensibly for election integrity, though many have not succeeded in court.

The 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act also limits post-election legal disruptions by refining the process for certifying election results in Congress. Experts suggest that, despite the possible involvement of the court in narrow-margin scenarios, the current legal activity may be more focused on influencing public perception, potentially to undermine acceptance of the election’s legitimacy.

US Supreme Court girds for rush of election-related litigation | Reuters

On November 4, 2024, a Pennsylvania judge ruled that Elon Musk’s $1 million-a-day voter giveaway could continue despite allegations that it might constitute an illegal lottery. Musk's pro-Trump America PAC launched the giveaway to voters in key swing states, offering daily payouts to those who sign a petition supporting free speech and gun rights. However, during court proceedings, America PAC's director admitted that winners were selected based on their suitability as spokespeople, rather than by random drawing as initially claimed by Musk.

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner argued that the selective nature of the giveaway constitutes fraud and sought to block it, citing vague rules and potential violations of federal law prohibiting payments for voter registration. Although the judge denied Krasner's request to halt the contest, he did not immediately provide a detailed explanation.

Legal experts are divided on whether this promotion violates election laws, particularly given the Department of Justice’s prior warnings to America PAC. Critics argue that the payouts could distort the election process, as Pennsylvania’s electoral votes are pivotal in this closely contested race.

Pennsylvania judge allows Elon Musk's $1 million voter giveaway | Reuters

On November 4, 2024, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Cobb County cannot extend its deadline for counting approximately 3,000 absentee ballots sent out shortly before Election Day, a decision that aligns with the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) stance and benefits Donald Trump’s campaign. This ruling overturns a lower court’s extension that would have allowed ballots to be counted through Friday, limiting the count only to ballots arriving by 7 p.m. on Election Day.

Civil rights groups had sought an extension, arguing the county delayed ballot mailings due to high demand, potentially disenfranchising affected voters. However, the RNC argued that extending the deadline would violate Georgia law. Cobb County, a racially diverse area in Atlanta's suburbs, is seen as a crucial battleground, having leaned Democratic in recent elections.

The court also ordered that ballots arriving after the deadline be set aside, though affected voters can still vote in person on Election Day. Georgia’s decision may significantly impact the presidential race, as the state is critical in the close contest between Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

Georgia top court won't extend ballot deadline in win for Trump | Reuters

Election Op-Ed

As you head to the polls today, I'm not here to tell you who to vote for. You have to decide that for yourself. Instead, I'd like to offer a few brief anecdotes from the past to think about.

This election cycle, debates over sporting events and who gets to participate in them have taken center stage in a way that feels unprecedented. Yet, the arguments for exclusion are far from new—they have a long and disturbing history. Time and again, appeals to "fairness," "tradition," and "protecting the game" have been used to justify keeping certain groups out of sports. In the full light of history, it is clear: among right minded individuals, these arguments have consistently aged poorly, serving only to reveal the bias and fear underlying them, and the misguided thoughts of the time, rather than any genuine concern for the sport itself.

In short, concerns about "outsiders" or "unqualified" individuals entering sports aren’t new. Over the years, similar arguments have been used repeatedly to exclude certain groups from competing, often with claims about preserving the integrity or "purity" of the game–usually by folks that care little about sport and are more interested in using it as a cudgel against the vulnerable.

I wonder if these arguments sound familiar:

* Some argued that a new group would "ruin the quality" of the game;

* Others that their participation would be "unfair" to other players;

* Still others insisted that they would "lack the skills" needed to succeed at the highest level;

* Some insisted their presence would "change the culture" of the sport;

* Or their presence would be a “distraction” to fans and players alike.

Those were all arguments made before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball. I wonder if they sound similar to arguments made today.

When a politician runs on a platform that they will keep a given sport “pure” — ask yourself, what is more likely: are they great patrons of women’s sports or are they using them as a weapon to attack the vulnerable and achieve their own ends?

I don’t know about you, but when I heard Jackie Robinson’s story as a kid I always envisioned myself, in my most ambitious moments, as one of the players that would have embraced him. When I was a bit more introspective regarding my own talents and abilities, I envisioned myself as a fan that would cheer when he took the field – not a heckler. And I can honestly say I never pictured myself as a baseball executive that would have actively worked to exclude him, and players like him.

If history doesn’t repeat itself but rhymes, it may be worth considering what from history rhymes with the political positions of your chosen candidate when you go to vote today.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe