Emily P. Newman
Voter suppression lawsuits Emily P. Newman worked on
| Name | Filed On | Court | Finalized | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bowyer v. Ducey (Certification) | 12/02/20 | Federal | Yes | Trump Lost |
| Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (Certification) | 12/01/20 | Federal | Yes | Trump Lost |
| Pearson v. Kemp (Certification) | 11/25/20 | Federal | Yes | Trump Lost |
| King v. Whitmer (Certification) | 11/25/20 | Federal | Yes | Trump Lost |
People are saying
Remark: Out of state attorneys Brandon Johnson and Emily Johnson terminated as counsel of record for noncompliance with admission procedures; party or parties represented by other admitted counsel. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) -
Court Docket
"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election. The Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss this matter in its entirety." -
Judge Diane J. Humetewa
"The allegations they put forth to support their claims of fraud fail in their particularity and plausibility. Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume. The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections." -
Judge Diane J. Humetewa
"When contesting an election, any delay is prejudicial, but waiting until a month after Election Day and two days after certification of the election is inexcusable." -
Judge Diane J. Humetewa
"By any measure, the relief Plaintiffs seek is extraordinary. If granted, millions of Arizonans who exercised their individual right to vote in the 2020 General Election would be utterly disenfranchised. Such a request should then be accompanied by clear and conclusive facts . . .. Yet the Complaint’s allegations are sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence, and Plaintiffs’ invocation of this Court’s limited jurisdiction is severely strained." -
Judge Diane J. Humetewa
"And the plaintiff seems to have made up the 'quote' in his brief that purports to be from [a Wisconsin case]. . . . The court has read [the Wisconsin case] . . . three times and cannot find these words [from plaintiff's quote]." -
Chief Judge Pamela Pepper
"The plaintiff wants Donald J. Trump to be certified as the winner of the Wisconsin election as a result of the plaintiff’s vote. But what he asks is for Donald J. Trump to be certified the winner as a result of judicial fiat." -
Chief Judge Pamela Pepper
"The court is stymied by the plaintiff's assertion that his interests and injury are identical to that of President Trump . . . If his interest is solely in getting President Trump re-elected, as opposed to having his vote be counted as part of a valid election process, the court is aware of no constitutional provision that gives him the right to have his candidate of choice declared the victor." -
Chief Judge Pamela Pepper
"Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country. One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so." -
Chief Judge Pamela Pepper
"Plaintiffs . . . [bring] forth claims of widespread voter irregularities and fraud in the processing and tabulation of votes and absentee ballots. They seek relief that is stunning in its scope and breathtaking in its reach. If granted, the relief would disenfranchise the vote of more than 5.5 million Michigan citizens who, with dignity, hope, and a promise a voice, participated in the 2020 General Election. The Court declines to grant Plaintiffs this relief." -
Judge Linda V. Parker
"This case represents well the phrase: 'this ship has sailed.' The time has past to provide most of the relief Plaintiffs request in their Amended Complaint; the remaining relief is beyond the power of any court. For those reasons, this matter is moot." -
Judge Linda V. Parker
"Plaintiffs could have lodged their constitutional challenges much sooner than they did, and certainly not three weeks after Election Day and one week after certification of almost three million votes. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs' delay results in their claims being barred by laches." -
Judge Linda V. Parker
"[T]he closest Plaintiffs get to alleging that physical ballots were altered . . . is [a statement in an affidavit]: 'I believe some of these workers were changing votes that had been cast for Donald Trump and other Republican candidates.' . . . But of course, 'a belief is not evidence' and falls far short of what is required to obtain any relief, much less the extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request." -
Judge Linda V. Parker
"The closest Plaintiffs get to alleging that election machines and software changed votes for President Trump to Vice President Biden in Wayne County is an amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation that such alterations were possible." -
Judge Linda V. Parker
". . . Plaintiffs fail to show that a favorable decision from the Court would redress their alleged injury. Moreover, granting Plaintiffs' injunctive relief would greatly harm the public interest. . . . 'Moreover, it would disenfranchise millions of Michigan voters in favor of the preferences of a handful of people who are disappointed with the official results.'" -
Judge Linda V. Parker
"[T]he burden is on the Plaintiffs, and the relief that they seek is extraordinary. And although they make allegations of tremendous worldwide improprieties regarding the Dominion voting machines, those allegations are supported by precious little proof." -
Judge Timothy C. Batten
"In this case, the district court issued an emergency temporary restraining order at the plaintiffs’ request, worked at a breakneck pace to provide them an opportunity for broader relief, and was ready to enter an appealable order on the merits of their claims immediately after its expedited hearing on December 4, 2020. But the plaintiffs would not take the district court’s 'yes' for an answer. They appealed instead. And, because they appealed, the evidentiary hearing has been stayed and the case considerably delayed. For our part, the law requires that we dismiss the appeal and return the case to the district court for further proceedings" -
Judge Andrew L. Brasher
"[Regarding Plaintiff's motion] There was no indication that the plaintiffs gave notice to the adverse parties of the morning's motion, there was no affidavit filed with the motion, the complaint is not verified and there was no certification from counsel about the efforts made to give notice to the adverse parties or why notice should be required." -
Chief Judge Pamela Pepper