Donald Trump and the Republican Party cannot “failedArgument to file a lawsuit alleging they conspired to deny black people the right to vote in the 2020 election, according to a ruling by a Washington DC federal judge.
“Before this court an argument is perhaps as unprecedented as it is absurd: the former president of this country denies that he lived in and had minimal contact with the nation’s capital and the White House during his tenure as president,” as Judge Emmet G Sullivan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in his ruling.
The controversy stems from a lawsuit filed in November 2020. The lawsuit, which names both Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee, alleges that the Trump campaign and its allies sought to quash black voting in cities like Detroit, Milwaukee and Atlanta. all have large color communities.
Mr Trump and the RNC have denied those allegations and on Friday were partially successful in getting the court to drop Voting Rights Act claims against them while others claimed Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan law claims remain intact for the time being.
“Under the specter of preventing ‘fraud’, defendants engaged in a conspiracy, conducted through coordinated efforts, to disenfranchise voters by interfering with vote counting efforts, filing baseless challenges during recounts, and attempting to have the certification of blocking election results by intimidating and coercing election officials and volunteers,” the lawsuit said conditions. “These systematic efforts — violating the VRA and the Ku Klux Klan law — have largely targeted large metropolitan areas with large black voter populations. These include Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Philadelphia and others. Defendants did not direct these efforts to predominantly white areas.”
In February, a federal judge in the same court allowed lawsuits by Democratic congressmen alleging claims under the KKK law.
In doing so, the DC court rejected arguments from the Trump camp that official immunity for the performance of his duties as president protects him from claims under the law prohibiting political intimidation.
“Denying a president immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court is aware of the gravity of its decision,” Judge Amit Mehta wrote at the time. “But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent and the court considers that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity.”