Van Hollen, SCOTUS, Ohio, and the GAB

Okay.

Yesterday we asked why JB Van Hollen filed his action against the mal/non-feasance (pick one, or both) GAB in a State of Wisconsin Circuit Court.

We asked because:

1) HAVA is a Federal law, meaning that a Federal Court may have some interest; and

2) A Madison-area Wisconsin judge will do everything possible to avoid taking an action which may harm Democrat vote-fraud in Wisconsin.

Both are true, of course.

The definitive answer, from SCOTUS, regarding the Ohio case:

The [US] Attorney General may bring a civil action against any State or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court for such declaratory and injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining order, a permanent or temporary injunction, or other order) as may be necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under sections 301, 302, and 303.

This means that Van Hollen does not have "standing" to file the case in Federal Court.

OTOH, VanHollen DOES have "standing" under Wisconsin law, which incorporates HAVA--and likely that's the only place he does have "standing."

Not to worry. #2 (above) will be operative.

HT: Ace

(Note: a commenter also left a URL to all the filings and actions in the Wisconsin case, if you're an insomniac...)