Did Trump’s Broad Pardon Unintentionally Shield 2020 Voter Fraud?

A recent sweeping pardon issued by former President Donald Trump, intended for allies involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 election outcome, may have inadvertently extended protection to individuals accused of committing voter fraud during that same election cycle, according to legal analysts. The pardons, granted on November 7, 2023, included figures like Rudy Giuliani and others associated with the “fake elector” scheme. While these federal pardons were largely symbolic for many recipients, as the federal government had already dismissed most related criminal cases following Trump’s departure from office, their broad language could have significant, unforeseen implications for others facing legal scrutiny.

Sweeping Language Sparks Legal Debate

Many of those initially targeted by the federal government for their roles in the 2020 election challenges have since faced charges at the state level. However, the expansive scope of Trump’s federal pardon could now offer an unexpected defense for individuals like Matthew Alan Laiss. Laiss is currently facing accusations of illegally casting ballots in both Pennsylvania and Florida during the 2020 presidential election.

According to a federal indictment handed down in September, Laiss relocated from Pennsylvania to Florida in August 2020. He is alleged to have first submitted a mail-in ballot in Pennsylvania before voting in person in Florida on Election Day. Court documents filed by Laiss’s legal team confirm that both votes were cast in favor of Donald Trump. Laiss has entered a plea of not guilty, and his case remains in its preliminary stages.

The Laiss Defense: A Test Case

Just last week, Laiss’s public defenders, Katrina Young and Elizabeth Toplin, presented a compelling argument in court: the charges against their client should be dismissed because he is covered by Trump’s recent pardon. They contend that the November 7 pardon is exceptionally broad in its reach. The official language specifies that it “applies to any US citizen for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any state or state official, in connection with the 2020 presidential election.”

While the pardon explicitly names several individuals, it crucially states that its application is “not limited to those named.” This particular phrase, according to Laiss’s attorneys, is the linchpin of their defense. They argue that the language is so encompassing that it directly extends to their client’s actions.

Interpreting “Support” and “Voting”

In their court filings, Laiss’s lawyers elaborated on this interpretation. They asserted that by casting two votes for then-President Trump in the general election—one in Pennsylvania and another in Florida—Mr. Laiss was actively “support[ing], vot[ing for] … [and] advocat[ing] for [a] slate” of presidential electors. This interpretation, if accepted by the courts, would position Laiss’s alleged actions squarely within the protective umbrella of the pardon, potentially leading to the dismissal of the federal charges against him.

The outcome of the Laiss case could establish a significant precedent regarding the extent and interpretation of presidential pardons, particularly when applied to election-related conduct. Legal experts will be closely watching as the courts grapple with the far-reaching implications of Trump’s broad pardon on the landscape of 2020 election integrity cases.

Source: The Guardian