#SistersInLaw Episode 207: "The Million Dollar Question" Summary

Release Date: October 26, 2024
Host/Authors: Politicon's Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr

In Episode 207 of Politicon's #SistersInLaw, titled "The Million Dollar Question," the panel delves deep into the tumultuous landscape of pre-election litigation, the defamation lawsuits against former President Donald Trump, and the ongoing debates surrounding free speech and cancel culture within academic institutions. This comprehensive discussion provides listeners with expert insights into the current political and legal challenges facing the United States.

1. Pre-Election Litigation and Republican Lawsuits

The episode kicks off with an examination of the surge in election-related lawsuits filed predominantly by Republican entities, including the Republican National Committee (RNC). These lawsuits allege widespread voter fraud and aim to challenge the integrity of the upcoming elections.

• Joyce Vance highlights the strategic motives behind these filings:

  "These lawsuits are meritless and the emperor has no clothes on in this regard as they lose lawsuits one after the other." ([07:40])

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr elaborates on the underlying strategy:

  "It gives folks a little more... The majority of the lawsuits that Republicans are filing, I don't actually think that they'll win... they're doing them in order to create some sort of faux factual record of a need to clamp down on election security when this is a solution without a problem." ([08:27])

Barb McQuaid echoes these sentiments, suggesting that many of these lawsuits serve more as public relations maneuvers than genuine legal challenges:

"It's really an effort to sensitize the public that there are a lot of fishy rules and that kind of laying the groundwork... so people will believe it because they've been hearing about all these lawsuits." ([10:02])

2. Confidence in the Judicial System

The panel expresses strong confidence in the judicial system's ability to uphold election integrity. Reflecting on the 2020 election, where Barb McQuaid notes:

"In 2020, the courts held when 61 out of 61 lawsuits... ruled in favor of the elections and found no fraud." ([10:02])

3. Georgia Election Litigation

A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the legal battles unfolding in Georgia, a crucial battleground state.

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr provides a detailed analysis of Georgia's legal proceedings:

  "The state’s Supreme Court, which is majority Republican, made permanent the temporary rulings... The current order in place in Georgia directing election workers to proceed... stands." ([13:13])

This decision prevents the Republican-led efforts to impose new voting rules that could delay or challenge the election results.

4. Voter Suppression and Overseas Voting Challenges

The conversation shifts to attempts to disenfranchise specific voter groups, particularly Americans living abroad and military personnel.

• Barb McQuaid discusses recent lawsuits in Michigan and North Carolina aiming to invalidate overseas ballots:

  "The Michigan judge... called this lawsuit an 11th hour attempt to disenfranchise voters in the November 5th general election." ([17:07])

Both cases have been dismissed due to a lack of evidence supporting claims of voter fraud.

5. Post-Election Litigation Possibilities

The panel contemplates potential legal challenges that could arise post-election, drawing parallels to the infamous Bush v. Gore case.

• Joyce Vance advises caution against anticipating a repeat scenario:

  "Bush v. Gore happened in part because Florida's election procedures were a mess... That's not going to happen again because we do now have some safeguards." ([20:06])

6. Civil vs. Criminal Justice in Election-Related Cases

A notable segment contrasts the effectiveness of civil lawsuits versus criminal prosecutions in holding public figures accountable.

• Joyce Vance points out the strategic advantages of civil cases:

  "Civil cases do something very subtle. They expose the lies in a very real way that we are not seeing in other venues." ([35:31])

This perspective is underscored by the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by the Exonerated Five against Donald Trump.

7. Defamation Lawsuits Against Donald Trump

The episode delves into the defamation lawsuit initiated by the Exonerated Five—five individuals wrongfully convicted of the 1989 Central Park jogger attack and later exonerated.

• Barb McQuaid outlines the basis of the lawsuit:

  "They filed a defamation suit because they said their reputations have been harmed by these false claims made to 67 million people." ([29:58])

• Joyce Vance discusses the legal hurdles, noting the high burden of proof required for public figures:

  "They would have to meet the actual malice standard... it's just going to be hard to maintain that he didn't say this with absolute knowledge of falsity." ([32:06])

The panel remains optimistic about the plaintiffs' chances, given the nature of the false claims made by Trump.

8. Free Speech, Cancel Culture, and Academic Freedom

A contentious issue addressed is the disinvitation of historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat from speaking at the U.S. Naval Academy, juxtaposed with Elon Musk's keynote at West Point.

• Joyce Vance criticizes the Academy's decision, emphasizing its political motivations:

  "It's clearly not about her scholarship, it's about politics... When you are a public university, you do not have censorship as a tool available to you." ([43:20])

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr reinforces the importance of the First Amendment:

  "Universities listen... public universities cannot cancel based on what a speaker says." ([46:44])

The discussion highlights the broader implications for academic institutions and the preservation of free speech within them.

9. Audience Q&A

The episode concludes with a Q&A segment addressing listener questions:

• How do co-equal branches of government work, and how can the president be held accountable?
  Kimberly Atkins Stohr explains the system of checks and balances as outlined in the Federalist Papers, emphasizing impeachment, judicial accountability, and electoral mechanisms as means to hold the president accountable. ([54:57])

• Is Elon Musk violating the law by offering money to voters in Pennsylvania?
  Joyce Vance discusses the legal implications, noting that federal laws prohibit paying for votes and that Musk has been notified by the Justice Department of potential violations. ([56:31])

• Does presidential immunity cover co-conspirators in illegal actions?
  Barb McQuaid explores the uncertainties surrounding presidential immunity, suggesting that while the president may have certain protections, co-conspirators likely do not. ([58:02])

10. Closing Remarks

The panel reiterates their commitment to defending election integrity, combating misinformation, and upholding constitutional rights. They encourage listeners to engage civically, whether through voting or supporting civil liberties organizations.

This episode of #SistersInLaw offers a thorough analysis of the current political and legal challenges in the U.S., providing listeners with expert perspectives on election litigation, defamation cases, and the safeguarding of free speech within academic institutions.