We contacted Counsel Press for further clarification and spoke to Liebman, who reiterated that under 20 percent of distributed petitions even rated discussion during the conferences.Liebman added that the Chief Justice directed the Court to take note of cases they believed merited discussion, and the vast majority of distributed cases didn’t rate.Well into the latter part of 2017, social media users continued to circulate an image touting a petition seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 U. presidential election due to purported Russian interference, even though the information it referenced was long outdated. Our Supreme Court set the case for Conference on Friday, March 17th to put the petition in front of all of the Justices. There has never before been a case about the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (which obliges the federal government to protect states from foreign invaders) like this decided in front of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court to nullify the presidential 2016 election was covered in an Occupy Democrats article of 23 February 2017: A longshot legal petition to nullify the 2016 federal elections based on the Constitution’s “Guarantee Clause” just moved forward at the Supreme Court this week, after last week the Trump administration declined to reply. Additionally, the three Massachusetts women who petitioned the court have asked for the appointment of a Special Master, which is a special officer to weigh the evidence and make findings to the Court.Although technically the term 'electoral fraud' covers only those acts which are illegal, the term is sometimes used to describe acts which are legal, but considered morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of an election or in violation of the principles of democracy.Show elections, containing only one candidate, are sometimes classified as electoral fraud, although they may comply with the law and are presented more as referendums.What constitutes electoral fraud varies from country to country.
Electoral fraud, election manipulation, or vote rigging is illegal interference with the process of an election, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both.
(see below) According to a career prosecutor interviewed for this story, four of the eight justices must then vote that Blumstein vs. Three extraordinary citizens from Massachusetts filed this court action, seeking to nullify the election late last year.
They cited the actions of Austria and Ukraine who held revotes after unfairly held elections as legal precedents.
With this case, the court of Michigan decided that in cases of extreme irregularity the courts can overturn an election without regard to the actual effect of the irregularity.
This generally happens when ruling on the validity of votes during recounts.