This article is made possible through Spotlight PA’s collaboration with Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting. Sign up for Votebeat's free newsletters here.
A judge overseeing a criminal double-voting case in Pennsylvania appeared open to the defendant’s argument that a pardon from President Donald Trump should apply to him.
The defendant, Matthew Laiss, is accused of voting for Trump twice in the 2020 election — once in person in Florida and once via mail in Pennsylvania. At a hearing Monday in federal court, he argued that Trump’s Nov. 7 pardon of allies who attempted to overturn his 2020 loss should also apply to his alleged crimes.
While Trump did not directly name Laiss in the pardon, his attorneys argued it covers his case because of its broad language. The Department of Justice argues the pardon does not apply to Laiss, a view it says is shared by the U.S. pardon attorney.
“The pardon lays out how people not named in the pardon might get relief,” said Katrina Young, an assistant federal defender representing Laiss.
The defense’s argument
Young pointed out that the pardon said it applied to “all United States citizens for … 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.” Laiss, she argued, is a U.S. citizen, and his alleged crime is voting for a slate of electors, meaning he is covered by the plain language of the pardon.
Prosecutors argued in a filing late last month that the phrase “following the 2020 presidential election” in the pardon’s preamble means it applied only to post-election conduct of the type the 77 named individuals had engaged in. But Young said the fact that the pardon specifically mentioned voting “for” a slate of electors means it applied to Election Day and pre-Election Day conduct as well, since that is when voting for electors occurs.
If Trump had intended only to pardon the voting his electors did when the Electoral College convened, she said, he would have just said voting “of” electors.
In response, U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson Jr. posed a hypothetical: Would Young’s argument mean, in theory, that if there had been enough fraudulent voters to change the 2020 election result, Trump’s pardon would apply to all of them, even if they numbered in the millions?
Young responded that it would, and that it is not uncommon for Trump to issue broad pardons, pointing to his pardon of hundreds of people charged with crimes in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
The prosecution’s argument
Meanwhile, Mark Dubnoff, an assistant U.S. attorney, argued that if Laiss believed the pardon applied to him, he needed to petition the U.S. pardon attorney for relief.
“What the law is clear on is that the courts have very limited authority here,” he said.
Leeson asked if that administrative step was established by some rule, law, or case law. Dubnoff conceded it was not but insisted this was the way the process worked. Leeson appeared skeptical of that argument.
“You're talking about an administrative process for which I don’t see a legal basis, other than that ‘It is so because I say it is so,’” Leeson said.
Dubnoff responded that it is the president’s prerogative to decide how the pardon process is handled and pointed out that page 4 of the pardon says the attorney general, through the pardon attorney, shall "administer and effectuate certificates of pardon to eligible applicants."
But Young argued that language pertains only to issuing certificates of pardon, not making determinations of eligibility. She also said that the government had dropped its prosecution of individuals covered by the Jan. 6 pardon for crimes not directly related to the Capitol riot if the evidence of those crimes had been discovered as part of the investigations into their Jan. 6 cases. In those instances, the government had not required defendants to apply to the U.S. pardon attorney for relief, she said.
Leeson asked Young if she had applied to the pardon attorney on Laiss’ behalf. She responded she had sent the pardon attorney a copy of the filing in which she argued that the pardon applies, but the pardon attorney’s website made applying directly difficult.
Dubnoff said that, even if the pardon did apply because Laiss was voting for a slate of electors, it would apply only to the second count in the indictment, for double-voting, and not to the first one, for voter fraud, since that does not require actual voting to occur in order for a crime to be committed.
Leeson will rule on the applicability of the pardon in time, but he did not indicate on Monday when he will make his decision.
“This is a very interesting case,” Leeson said. “We’re going to take the matter under advisement and get a decision out.”