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.
Matthew Laiss, a man accused of double voting in the 2020 election, is not covered by a pardon President Donald Trump issued to allies who attempted to overturn his 2020 election loss, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
“This Court finds that Laiss has not yet applied to the Office of the Pardon Attorney, or received a certificate of pardon, which the plain language of the Pardon requires him to do,” U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson Jr. wrote.
Federal prosecutors charged Laiss in September with voting twice in the November 2020 election, alleging that he moved from Pennsylvania to Florida in August of that year and voted both in person in Florida and via mail ballot in Bucks County. Both votes were allegedly for Trump.
Trump issued the pardon in November to 77 people who were involved in efforts to subvert the election outcome in 2020, including members of his legal team and the so-called fake electors who attempted to submit alternative slates of electoral votes to Congress on Trump’s behalf. But the proclamation further said the president was granting “a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all United States citizens” for conduct related to the 2020 election.
Laiss’ attorney sought to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that the “plain language” of Trump’s broadly worded pardon applied to his client. He argued that others specifically named in the pardon had committed far more egregious acts.
“To read the Pardon Proclamation to intend such an outcome would be outrageous, particularly in light of its sweeping language,” Laiss’ attorney argued.
One of the arguments the U.S. attorney’s office made was that the pardon was targeted at activity that occurred after Election Day, whereas Laiss’ alleged crime occurred on or before Election Day.
At a hearing in early December, prosecutors also argued that the proper way for Laiss to make the claim that the pardon applied to him was to petition the U.S. pardon attorney.
Leeson agreed that it was beyond his authority to determine whether the pardon applied to Laiss.
“The Pardon Attorney can then determine whether the individuals are ‘eligible’ for a certificate of pardon—a decision initially to be made by the Pardon Attorney, not the courts,” he wrote in his decision. “This language is clear; therefore, this Court defers to and enforces the plain text of the Pardon.”
Laiss’ attorney argued that Trump’s January 2025 blanket pardon of those charged in connection with the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, showed that Trump has a habit of issuing broad pardons that needed to later be interpreted by the courts. But Leeson noted that pardon didn’t mention the U.S. pardon attorney as part of the review process, and his November pardon does.
Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.