Posted on 12/11/2020 5:54:44 AM PST by tarpit
This is the updated list of SCOTUS motions in Texas vs PA, GA, MI, and WI. Newest motions are at the top. The original motion is Texas vs COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,STATE OF GEORGIA,STATE OF MICHIGAN,AND STATE OF WISCONSIN at the bottom of the table. Texas filed this as a State v State complaint arguing that SCOTUS has exclusive original jurisdiction. This means Texas is claiming there is no other possible venue to hear this case other than at the Supreme Court. The case was added to the docket, but has not yet been accepted. Remember, they filed a request for leave to file a Bill of Complaint. You will see many states have filed in support of Texas (the Plaintiff), and even more have filed in support of the Defendants. These filings are essentially presenting an argument for the Court to consider in deciding if this case should be heard by SCOTUS. In addition to the states, individuals have also filed motions. For example, 106 members of the House of Representatives filed in support of Texas. Other individuals filed in support of the Plaintiffs. So far, 6 States have filed a request to intervene which is essentially asking the Court, if they hear the Texas complaint, to make the them a party to the complaint. Ohio sums this up pretty simply by saying the States need this Court to decide whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted. Ohio does not agree with the relief sought by Texas but does believe this question is important. The arguments are plentiful both in support and in opposition. Those in support generally are asking exactly what Ohio wants to know. Those in opposition basically are saying Texas does not have standing, its not an exclusive original jurisdiction case since there are other venues in which the complaint could, and should be heard. In addition, the idea of one state telling another how to run their election (especially through use of the courts) is offensive not to mention hypocritical. President Trump’s attorney filed a motion to Intervene. This is a request to the court to add President Trump as a party to the original case. In his Prayer for Relief he is asking the Court to enjoin Defendant States and their respective officials from using the constitutionally-in-firm 2020 election results for the office of President to appoint Electors to the Electoral College, unless the legislatures of Defendant States review the 2020 election results and decide by legislative resolution to use those results in a manner to be determined by the legislatures that is consistent with the Constitution. Many legal professors (including one from Texas) and other legal pundits believe this case will be denied a hearing, possibly as early as this morning, primarily for lack of standing. If not today, they expect SCOTUS to rule after the 14th. Filed By Description Document Gov Bullock, MO In Support of Defendants source Governor Bullock, in his official capacity, has an important interest in governors and state executive branch actors retaining their key role in interpreting and implementing state election law. L. Lin Wood In Support of Plaintiff source Defendant's attempts to allow mail-in voting for a long period of time prior to election day or without signature verification violates both Article II. 1, cl. 4 of the Constitution and 3 USC. 1. State Sen. William Ligon et al In Support of Plaintiff source Georgia election officials committed acts that were contrary to Georgia statutory law. These acts described below usurped the plenary power granted by the U. S. Constitution to the Georgia legislature to prescribethe manner of elections held for federal officials in Georgia. U.S. Const., Art. 1, § 4, cl. 1 Ron Heuer, et al. Complaint in Intervention source By purporting to waive or otherwise modify the existing state law in a manner that was wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s legislature, Defendant States 8 violated not only the Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the Article II process of selecting presidential electors). Justice Freedom Fund In Support of Plaintiffs source Defendant States violated U.S. Const. art. I, § 4 (the“Elections Clause”) and art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (the “ElectorsClause”) by taking non-legislative actions that changedthe election rules governing the selection ofpresidential electors and ultimately the outcome of the2020 presidential election. City of Detroit In Support of Defendants source The allegations have already been deemed not credible by the Chief Judge of Michigan’s Third Judicial District and deemed not worthy of injunctive relief by theMichigan Supreme Court in two separate cases. Lt Governor Janice McGeachin et al In Support of Plaintiff source An elite group of sitting Democrat officers in each of the Defendant States coordinated with the Democrat party to illegally and unconstitutionally change the rules established by the Legislatures in the Defendant States, thereby depriving the people of their states a free and fair election—the very basis of a republican form of government.The Guarantee Clause places an obligation upon the United States to ensure that such an unlawful election not be carried to fruition. Rep Mike Johnson + 105 Members of the House In Support of Plaintiff source These amici appear as 106 Members of Congress and respectfully request that this Court uphold the plenary authority of the state legislatures to establish the manner by which electors are appointed, and determine the constitutional validity of any ballots cast under rules and procedures established by actors or public bodies other than state legislatures. Ron Heuer et al Complaint-in-intervention source Thus, this case presents a common question of law: Do Defendant State Legislatures violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by delegating wholly the post-election certification of election results to state election officials and judges as a ministerial duty? Cutler and Benninghoff, PA In Support of Plaintiff source ...since that legislative enactment, other actors have used COVID-19 as a pretext to eviscerate the election integrity provisions of the Commonwealth’s Election Code, such that the administration of the 2020 General Election bore no resemblance to the carefully considered procedures enacted by the General Assembly State of Wisconsin In Opposition source This Court should not exercise original jurisdiction; Texas’s suit is barred by principles of laches and the constitutional violations its desired remedy would cause; Texas fails to state a claim under the Electors Clause, due process, or equal protection, and its arguments about Wisconsin law are wrong on their face; and Texas cannot justify preliminary relief or a stay. State of Georgia In Opposition source Texas lacks standing; Texas raises nonjusticiable political questions; Texas’s claims do not meet the high standard for an original action against another state; and, Texas has not shown that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. State of Michigan In Opposition source This Court should decline to exercise original jurisdiction over this case, the doctrine of laches bars review of the bill of complaint; the bill of complaint should be dismissed because Petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to any of the alleged constitutional violations; and, Texas fails to satisfy the requirements for injunctive relief. Christian Family Coalition In Support of Plaintiff source Each of the four States violated 3 U.S.C.§ 2 by prolonging their processes of countingPresidential ballots long after election day without itslegislature’s expressly prescribing the “manner” of thepost-election-day counting of ballots, as required by 3U.S.C. § 2. It was during this unregulated post-election-day ballot counting – in violation of 3 U.S.C.§ 2 – that the serious electoral transgressions occurredin the four defendant States. DC + 22 States and Territories In Support of Defendants source The District of Columbia, together with the States and territories of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington(Amici States), submit this brief in support of the four defendant states. PA State Senators In Support of Neither Party source This Court should disclaim the “authority” of State and Federal courts and Executive officials from enacting their own election regulations in contravention of duly enacted state law and affirm the rights of State legislatures to do the same. Members of PA General Assembly In Support of Plaintiff/Defendants source Both the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the directive of the Secretary of the Commonwealth violated the prerogative of the state legislature to make election policy as prescribed under the United States Constitution. PA Opposition to Motion, Response of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. source Texas’s Claims Do Not Meet the Exacting Standard Necessary for the Court to Exercise its Original Jurisdiction, Texas Does Not Present a Viable Case and Controversy, Texas Fails to State a Constitional Violation, and Texas is Not Entitled to the Extraordinary Preliminary Injunction it Seeks. Ohio In Support of Neither Party source The States need this Court to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, the question whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted. Missouri et al To Intervene source The State of Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah filed to join Texas Arizona In Support of Plaintiff source Urges the Court to adopt a construction of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that recognizes “there must be a substantial regulation of elections including not just procedures but safeguards. Constitutional Attorneys In Support of Plaintiff source However, allowing citizens to vote almost two months in advance of Election Day, for any reason or for no reason, is another matter altogether. Such a scheme is preempted by 3 U.S.C. § 1 and is unconstitutional under Article II, § 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution. Carter Phillips etc al In Support of Defendants source The Electors Clauseand 3 U.S.C. § 5 contradict the Plaintiff’s unprecedented argument that a presidential election dispute is a controversy between two or more states. Missouri +16 states In support of Texas source Encroachments on the authority of state Legislatures by other state actors violate the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty. President Trump To Intervene source The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the Constitution makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors. The pertinent rules here are the state election statutes, specifically those relevant to the presidential election. The actions set out in paragraphs 29-134 of the Texas Bill of Complaint, as well as those set out in in paragraphs 4-7 above, constitute nonlegislative changes to State election law by executive-branch 17 election officials of the State, or by judicial officials, in Defendant States of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, in violation of the Electors Clause Texas v PA, et al Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed. source
Isn't that negated by Trump, the aggrieved party, attaching to Texas?
bookmark
Trump was not a party to the original complaint. In part, I believe it would not have been state v state if he was a party. He, like other states that have filed to intervene, has to wait for SCOTUS to decide if the case will be heard or denied. If accepted, then the courts decide who gets to intervene.
The way I understand it is the court will first need to determine if this is indeed a state v state matter, and if there are no other possible venues in which it can be heard. If there are other venues, the exclusive original jurisdiction would not apply, and the case would be denied.
So there was an expectation the court would take up fraud and voting machines instead ? Was there at least an effort by states and legislatures to handle these procedural issues before the election, or at least immediately following ? All rather confusing at the moment.
Bookmark
This is surely one of the most significant cases ever brought to the USSC. It goes to the core of our constitutional republic.
These four states through the executive and judicial branches have put their hand on the scale of free and fair elections that will impact the entire country.
If the USSC lets this stand, the republic could be at risk.
‘If there are other venues, the exclusive original jurisdiction would not apply, and the case would be denied.’
your understanding is absoutely correct; and, looking at this through the lens of reality, not likely that SCOTUS is going to delay the electors voting on Monday...
Incorrect. The Republic will be no more.
“ Many legal professors (including one from Texas) and other legal pundits believe this case will be denied a hearing, possibly as early as this morning, primarily for lack of standing.”
I find that statement nonsensical.
States have had lawsuits against other States in the past, and this one cites examples. The only venue that can adjudicate a lawsuit between States is SCOTUS.
That seems cut and dried. The only way SCOTUS could refuse to hear a State v State suit is if they think it isn’t important enough to be heard. Once again, in this case, that would be nonsense.
OK, legal beagles, tell me how that’s wrong.
if this is denied or ignored,
the consequence is that SCOTUS will have micturated
again on its ONLY purpose;
and will deserve to be shuttered and salted
with a sign warnings of China, Malta and MI-6, inside-below.
SCOTUS has exclusive original jurisdiction for state v state complaints. This means that the plaintiff *has* to bring it to SCOTUS because there is no possible alternative venue. So... if they do not agree that this is indeed a state v state complaint, and that there is no other possible venue, then they may accept it. Otherwise, it will get punted to a lower court to deal with it. This does not mean they think it is bogus, just that they are not the right venue.
I thought Missouri was supporting the plaintiff/s??
Again though, it means nothing about the merits. It simply would mean Texas filed the case with the wrong court. We shall see.
If this case is judged to not have standing, I don’t know what would.
How could a so called Constitutionalist even think that?
“ the idea of one state telling another how to run their election (especially through use of the courts) is offensive not to mention hypocritical.”
Hypothetical: If your state’s votes count as much as mine, and your state cheats then you’re damn right my state will have something to say about it. It amounts to your state cheating my state. Your voters disenfranchising mine. I love your state, and occasionally visit, but you won’t cheat me.
OK.
Let me put this plainly.
The SCOTUS will not be the start of massive social unrest. THEY LIVE IN GROUND ZERO.
So while you can argue the law, the reality is what it is.
People are by in large, corrupt and cowardly. In this post Christian landscape we need to realize that “law”, “duty”, and “rights” are words that have no meaning. “Ego”, “desire” and “force” still do.
The justices are not computers, they are living breathing individuals who are looking at a loaded gun pointed right at them. The easiest way out is to move aside of the gun, and deny standing. A path that is the legal equivalent of just laying back and thinking of England, but will by them time in their personal sphere.
Never mind what it does to the country.
That is why I believe, and many lawyers I have talked with, the Texas suit was nothing but theater. SCOTUS was never going to take it.
‘These four states through the executive and judicial branches have put their hand on the scale of free and fair elections that will impact the entire country.’
to name just one other state (there are many more) that changed procedures to account for covid was North Carolina, who extended the counting period for mail in votes to Nov 12, whee previously it was capped on election day itself; how come Paxton didn’t include NC in the suit...?
Their motion requesting to intervene has (I think) 5 states listed. This motion is a request to sCOTUS that if they agree to hear the case, then please add Missouri as a party to the complaint (on the Plaintiff side)
‘SCOTUS was never going to take it.’
true enough; but, theater or not, it did provide for some fun commentary for a few days...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.