Legal News for Thurs 10/31 - SCOTUS Doesn't Explain VA Voter Removal Decision, Trump's Mail-in Ballot Lawsuit in PA, Musk in Philly Court and a Legal Dispute over Attorney Fees

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Nevada Joins the Union by Telegraph

On October 31, 1864, Nevada was admitted as the 36th state of the United States, a remarkable feat as the entire Nevada state constitution was sent to Washington, D.C. by telegraph. This move, a workaround to secure swift approval, resulted in the longest and most costly telegram of its time, spanning over 16,000 words. Nevada’s expedited entry into the Union was driven by urgent political motivations: President Abraham Lincoln, up for re-election, sought the state’s support for his war policies and for the proposed 13th Amendment, which aimed to abolish slavery nationwide. The telegram cost nearly $4,000, a vast sum at the time, equivalent to over $65,000 today, underscoring the importance of Nevada’s statehood in the context of the Civil War and the Union’s priorities.

Nevadans had moved quickly to draft their constitution, striving to meet the requirements for statehood by the October deadline. Officials feared delays from the traditional route of sending documents by train or stagecoach, so they opted for the more reliable telegraph, despite the high expense. On the eve of Lincoln’s re-election campaign, Nevada’s admission helped solidify the Union's stance and reflected Lincoln’s strategy to add states sympathetic to his policies. With the telegraphed constitution, Nevada became a “battle-born” state, joining the Union at a time when its allegiance to the Union cause was invaluable.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently allowed Virginia to remove around 1,600 voters from its rolls just before an election, stirring criticism from voting rights advocates who called it a misuse of the shadow docket. The decision stayed lower court rulings that found Virginia’s policy violated federal law by not respecting a required 90-day "quiet period" before elections, during which systematic voter removals are prohibited. Although the court’s conservative majority approved the purge, neither the majority nor dissenting justices explained their reasoning, leaving observers unclear if the decision was based on a legal disagreement or if it was influenced by the Purcell principle, which discourages election-related changes close to voting.

The case stemmed from an August executive order by Governor Glenn Youngkin mandating daily voter roll updates based on DMV citizenship data, shifting from a monthly process. Lower courts had sided with the Biden administration and voting groups in blocking this purge, but the Supreme Court’s quick, unexplained intervention left little clarity. Critics argue that such opaque, rapid rulings—typical of the shadow docket—are problematic, as they provide no legal guidance and can cause voter confusion, particularly given that such actions seem to contradict the Purcell principle, meant to avoid last-minute electoral disruptions.

Justices Cause Confusion With No Voting Purge Ruling Explanation

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit against Bucks County, Pennsylvania, alleging that election officials turned away voters attempting to request mail-in ballots. According to claims circulated by Trump supporters on social media, some voters left empty-handed after waiting in long lines. County officials attributed the issues to a "miscommunication" and said that people briefly were told they couldn’t be accommodated. Pennsylvania Judge Jeffrey G. Trauger granted a preliminary injunction extending the deadline to apply for a mail-in ballot to November 1, finding that the county’s actions violated the state’s election code.

In Pennsylvania, there is no early in-person voting, but voters can apply for mail-in ballots in person, which led to long lines at Bucks County application sites. The lawsuit, supported by the Republican National Committee, the Pennsylvania GOP, and Senate candidate David McCormick, is part of broader efforts in the key battleground state, where polls show close competition between Trump and Kamala Harris. County officials clarified that voters in line by 5 p.m. would be accommodated and assured voters they could pick up their mail-in ballots later in the week if needed.

Trump Campaign Sues in Philly Suburb Over Mail-In Ballots (1)

Elon Musk has been summoned to a Pennsylvania court regarding Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s attempt to halt Musk’s $1 million-a-day giveaway aimed at registered voters in swing states before the November 5 U.S. election. The giveaway, backed by Musk and America PAC, offers cash to randomly selected individuals who sign a petition supporting free speech and gun rights, as long as they are registered voters in key states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Krasner’s lawsuit claims the program constitutes an “illegal lottery” unauthorized by the state and suggests it violates consumer protection laws by allegedly misrepresenting the rules.

The legal challenge, set to be addressed by Judge Angelo Foglietta, focuses on state law violations, though legal experts note potential federal implications if the initiative is seen as incentivizing voter registration or influence. Although the U.S. Department of Justice warned Musk’s group about possible federal issues, no federal charges have been filed. The initiative has become a major component of Trump’s campaign, with Musk providing significant financial backing and voicing public support for the former president.

Musk due in court as $1 million voter giveaway faces courtroom test | Reuters

A new lawsuit reveals tensions over legal fee-sharing following a massive $5.6 billion settlement in an antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard over credit card swipe fees. Scott + Scott, a law firm involved in the case, is suing co-counsel Robins Kaplan for allegedly reneging on an agreement to pay Scott + Scott $5 million from its share of the settlement fees, ensuring the firm would receive $20 million. This dispute stems from a 2015 informal fee-sharing agreement tied to another case where Robins Kaplan received $50 million in fees.

Last year, the 2nd Circuit upheld the $523.2 million attorney fees in the Visa-MasterCard case, allocated to several law firms involved. However, Scott + Scott claims it was only allocated $15 million by Robbins Geller and that Robins Kaplan is now refusing to pay the agreed $5 million difference. The case highlights how class action firms sometimes rely on informal agreements to share fees, which are typically not disclosed. Legal experts note that courts prefer to avoid such disputes after approving settlements and fees. Additionally, Scott + Scott’s lawsuit may be complicated by the involvement of Patrick Coughlin, an antitrust lawyer who previously worked with Robbins Geller but later joined Scott + Scott.

Legal Fee Tracker: Lawsuit reveals fight over awards after $5.6 bln 'swipe fees' settlement | Reuters

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe