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
I admit I am no lawyer, but I don’t understand how the “lack of standing” that they claim “experts” believe will be declared can be declared.
Given that the argument is that these states behaviors violate the equal protection clause, and the outcome (who the executive of the US federal government will be) affects TX as well as all states, I don’t see how this could be dismissed for lack of standing...
Clearly the State or TX has a vested interest and is affected by who the Federal Executive (President) will be.
Can some lawyer here explain how the “experts” think lack of standing will be declare here.
You are correct.
But it preserves the perception that it was “out of their hands”, which is the main goal right now.
No judge wants to be the one who overturns a election, even with all the fraud. Much easier to just pretend that “Well, we can’t hear the case because you are not really injured and therefore have no standing”.
It is, as you say, a semantic difference but one often used. Perception is reality.
Thanks tarpit.
I just read the Texas reply to the four states. In relatively few words Texas has rebutted the arguments made by GA, MI, PA, WI in their responses to the lawsuit.
Having read the Texas complaint, the 18 State amici brief, the PA Response, the GA Response, and now this Texas rebuttal, I am more confident than ever SCOTUS will take the case and Texas wins.
If they punt it will be for lack of standing. Also, they could still grant the motion to file, and then deny hearing the case.
I don’t know if this is from you, or in the original, but Bullock is the governor of Montanta (”MT”), not Missouri (”MO”).
in which a state shall be party. However, with state v. state cases SCOTUS by tradition does not defer jurisdiction to another court. In those cases, other non-state litigants, such as POTUS, may be granted leave to inteverne at SCOTUS.
They have till Monday.
It is now mid day on Friday....
bookmark
Yes, my bad. I corrected it in my doc. Thank you.
They aren’t stupid. 17 states have joined them now. They know that a giant majority of the American people know the election was stolen. If the supreme legitimize this, they will kick off the Civil War.
Who is doing violence, seizing parts of cities, and being protected by the police?
Who are talking about rules, laws, and rights but doing anything?
And most importantly, where do the justices live, socialize, and move around?
The personal threat is from team blue, the theoretical threat is from team red.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It’s possible that at least Alito and Thomas would vote in favor of hearing the case.
“””In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls”””
Does this clause refer to Foreign Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls?
Or does the clause refer to United States citizens who are Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls?
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.