Why can't we, the disenfranchised voters, sign on to this Texas law suit? If we can, let's do it!

[nikos1121]

Bingo!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.”

Interesting point indeed! But (tho IANAL) there appears to be wiggle room in that. I read it as saying when, as, and if there is an "election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,” I have a right to vote in such election. It doesn’t say when, as, or even if there will be such election.

If SCOTUS takes up Texas v. Pennsylvania and holds for Texas, SCOTUS should probably parse that for Pennsylvania et. al.

Because IMHO Pennsylvania et. al. should be told by SCOTUS only that, under their own laws and the US Constitution, an "election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States” did not occur on November 3. And that conducting a do-over election by the book in the state is one way for a legislature to correct the defect but (under my interpretation) that a state legislature can cast lots as a means of “appointing” Electors for all SCOTUS cares.

But (“shall appoint”) each legislature is duty-bound to appoint the requisite number of Electors (and therefore must promptly convene for the purpose, any state laws allowing governors to control the convening of their legislatures to the contrary notwithstanding).

The funny thing is that the Journalcrats are loosing the dogs of scandal on Biden now, as a way (apparently) of pushing him aside for Harris at the earliest possible moment. But what they are setting up is a context in which the (Republican!) state legislatures of the defendant states, tasked with expeditiously naming Electors, could easily justify dismissing outright the idea of appointing Biden Electors.

But it has to be said that existing legislative and state constitutional law - which was turned on its head - requires an "election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States.” But it required it on Nov 3 - and that didn’t (legally, IMHO) happen. And that contingency, I suggest, legally allows the state legislatures to decide on Plan B - whether a new election day, casting lots, or whatever.