Posted on 12/08/2020 5:41:35 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.
Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:
Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.
"This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law..."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“SCOTUS has what’s called original jurisdiction between controversies between States.”
And especially concerning a direct constitutional matter (as opposed to say environmental regulations).
My general observation is that the question of whether Texas has standing proves the dilution of knowledge of why there is a USA in the first place. Recall the “several” states bonded together to form the union and the union is there to serve the states through the constitution which defines the limitations of the union as well as its responsibilities.
It appears we now think this is a nation of men and women (etc...) and not a nation of laws. There are very good sources on the constitutional convention and excellent books on the 14th Amendment that will clear up these, ‘I woke up this morning and I think so and so’ positions or the ‘how do you know’ questions.
The representatives from the states represent the people, the executive represents the “several” states. There is no right of the general populace to vote for the executive. The issue is the relative position of one state vs another under the constitution to have equal represetation under Article II (among others).
In this we are exceedingly fortunate because of all the brilliant people on the Left not one understood this in making this mess. They only want to subvert society to gain power...
The founders saw them coming from 245 years away.
So this Wolverine says, ‘God Bless TEXAS!’
You could actually change that to read "cities" instead of "states".
The case will be presented by the Texas Solicitor General, Ken Paxton, who most likely came up with the idea in the first place.
Yes cities !!
The logical consequences of the Reynolds v. Sims USSC decision ! Dirksen voiced a warning that would happen back in 1964.
I did think about that but decided that the states have allowed these corrupt cities to engage in voting fraud for so long the states are ultimately responsible for what’s going on. They could fix the problems if they wanted to.
Hey RR, I just wrote AG Steve Marshall about joining in on the Texas lawsuit. If enough “legal” states would join this lawsuit, it may help the cause. I, however, don’t trust the SC or any federal agency tasked to defend the American citizen.
All red states should join in this
*************
Any state with some semblance of voting integrity should join in. Those with rules shouldn’t have to effectively ‘compete’ with those who avoid and pervert rules.
My concern is that weak-kneed GOP state legislators will buckle under BLM-Antifa pressure and support Biden anyway despite facing sure losses in 2022.
Very real possibility. I don’t trust the GOP at all. On any level.
He's got something of his own up his sleeve that the rest of us aren't privy to yet. He's just waiting for the right moment to drop the hammer, IMHO.
Good idea. Thank you
Here’s hoping a couple of dozen other states jump on this with amicus briefs.
Yup Today.:)
Feast of The Immaculate Conception 2020
Tuesday, December 8
Thank you.
“Seriously?”
“yes, Seriously”
LOL, Mr. Right, let me introduce you to Doodledawg, I often refer to her as the most shallow thinker on FR.
She never fails to provide ample evidence.
Respectfully, I don’t think the analogy of the Voting Rights Act is relevant at all because conflating an act of Congress with a lawsuit misses the entire point of the standing doctrine, which is separation of powers. Under Article III, the judicial power of the United States extends only to adjudicating “cases” or “controversies.” Neither the Supreme Court nor any other federal court has the power to make rulings except to adjudicate a live controversy between parties with a legal interest in the dispute. Without that constraint, the judiciary just becomes another legislature.
Standing has nothing to do with what Congress does, because Congress is a legislature, not a court. It does not adjudicate disputes. It makes law. Also, Pennsylvania did not vote in Congress for the Voting Rights Act. States don’t have a vote in Congress. Representatives and Senators do.
I think you are conflating a couple things. First off, the election of electors is not a “federal election.” It is a state election governed by state law. There is a pretty critical constitutional difference between the election of electors and the election of members of Congress: The Elections Clause of Article I empowers Congress to at “any time by law make or alter” regulations for Congressional elections. Congress is given no corresponding power regarding the appointment of electors under the Electors Clause of Article II: the power to appoint electors is delegated solely to “Each state . . . in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
Texas does not have the right to complain of how Pennsylvania appoints its electors any more than Pennsylvania has the right to complain of how Texas appoints its electors. Pennsylvania, through its legislature, gets to decide how claims of fraud in its appointment of electors are resolved. If the Pennsylvania legislature does not want to adequately secure its elections against fraud, then that is between them and the Pennsylvanians who elected them. They are Pennsylvania’s electors, not Texas’s.
The legislature may be constrained by the Pennsylvania constitution, and that’s one of the arguments currently being litigated (that the legislature’s provision universal mail-in votes violates the Pennsylvania constitution). But Texas is not a proper party to that litigation.
Do we really want states suing each other over how they conduct their elections? What if, next time, California sues Texas because our Voter ID laws make it too hard for minorities to vote, or because we are violating the 14th Amendment by prohibiting illegal aliens from voting.
I’m not sure what you mean by “denies aggregation of Texas electors with Pennyslvania.” Pennsylvania has the power to choose its electors however its legislature sees fit, and Texas has the right to choose its electors however its legislature sees fit. Texas does not have any right to require that other states’ electors are chosen in any particular way so that they can “aggregate.”
Whether Pennsylvania’s election was “illegal” or the votes were “fraudulent” is decided solely with reference to Pennsylvania law, because the Constitution delegates the power to appoint electors solely to each state as directed by its legislature. With regard to its appointment of electors, Pennsylvania, through its legislature, gets to decide how claims of fraud or illegality are resolved. If the power of Pennsylvania’s legislature is usurped by other parts of its government ignoring its dictates, then that is a matter between Pennsylvanians, or between the Trump campaign and Pennsylvanians. Texas does not have a legally cognizable interest in that dispute.
Using the logic that States have sole rights over electors and elections, like the democrats did after the civil war, leads to blacks only having 4/5th the vote of say a white person.
This was the insanity of the Democrats after the Civil War, and I am certain you remember the SCOTUS ruling that this was a violation of their Constitutional rights. Indeed, conservatives are a minority in many places. Should you only give them 4/5th of a vote, or defraud them in elections, it’s the same violation, just not based on skin color.
Your argument that State’s can ‘do what they want’ failed in the post Civil War America. Race, Sex, Ideology, doesn’t mean you don’t have equality. So yes, I believe that they have a rock solid argument for the SCOTUS because they are ‘trapped’ by their previous decisions empowering minorities after the Civil War.
Yes, states’ powers to choose electors by popular vote, if their legislatures decide to choose electors that way, are constrained by their peoples’ rights under the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Those amendments confer rights on individuals, not on other states. Texas has no standing to sue over the violation of another states’ citizens’ right to vote.
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.