A Thomas County judge has thrown out an election lawsuit brought by an “election integrity” advocate who has a history of spinning electoral conspiracy theories.
District Judge Glenn Braun dismissed the lawsuit after lecturing Melissa Leavitt about what constitutes evidence in court as she argued against the use of voting machines.
He also explained to her that a court was not an investigative body and that she would best take her claims to the Legislature or the executive branch.
Leavitt, who brought the lawsuit without a lawyer, helped fund a recount of the abortion amendment totals two years ago and failed to get a federal judge to remove ballot boxes and voting machines for the 2022 election.
In this case, Leavitt asked a judge to require the hand counting of votes. She also wanted the judge to declare Election Day a holiday.
Braun ruled that Leavitt had no standing to bring the lawsuit and could not demonstrate that she suffered any harm.
“The machines that are being challenged have been qualified by the chief election officer for the state of Kansas who is the secretary of state, that they are being conducted properly, that they are not in violation of either the Kansas Constitution or the statutes,” Braun said.
He noted that existing case law that Leavitt didn’t answer in court ran contrary to her position, including the federal case in Kansas City where a judge said the plaintiffs were were long on hypothesis and short on facts.
During a Zoom hearing on Tuesday, Braun ruled that Leavitt had “absolutely” no evidence to support her claims, which the judge had to get her to clarify in court.
Under questioning from the judge, Leavitt agreed that she was claiming that election machines used in Thomas County had the ability to be connected to the internet.
“You don’t have any evidence that these machines can, in fact, be connected to the internet,” Braun said.
“Printings and attaching to briefs are not evidence,” he said.
“Evidence requires that items must be submitted under oath, that there be testimony, that there be an opportunity for that information to be challenged by the other side,” Braun said.
“Simply printing stuff from the internet and attaching it to a brief is not evidence,” he said.
Braun said that while one of Leavitt’s motions was 88 pages, most of it was material printed from the internet and could not be considered as evidence.
Braun took the time to explain how a “mandamus action” that Leavitt thought she was seeking was different from what she actually seemed to be requesting from the court.
“Mandamus is a very specific action, which mandates that an elected official do something,” Braun said.
“This is an action, as I’ve read it and you’ve agreed with my summary, where you’re saying, ‘I want somebody to investigate these machines.’
“That’s not what you do in a mandamus action,” he said.
Appearing virtually with an American flag as a backdrop, Leavitt said she tried to undertake her own due diligence.
She said that she believed the attachments to her briefs documented her claims even if the court didn’t accept them as evidence.
“Even though I don’t have something in an evidentiary standing with the court at this time, they are factual and I would be more than glad to have an opportunity to bring it as evidence,” she said.
After the hearing, Leavitt posted a response to the judge’s decision on Facebook.
“I fought for the Kansas Constitution today and the judge said that I had no standing,” Leavitt posted.
