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 ...
Yes, you could have standing in a GA court even if you live in Alabama. You’d have to sue, I believe, in GA Federal COurt, but your issue would be the same as Lin Wood (who got booted out of Fed Court on the matter of standing), because your injury is not “particular” enough to you as an injured party. Yours would be considered a generalized injury because all Alabama voters, not just you, suffer the same injury from the GA election.
“You are assuming this is what Trump was referencing...I think Trump has his own boom coming. Just a hunch.”
Who knows, but his pretty big!
Corrupt. Sold GA out to China.
I have considered that for a few days. Since the suit is filed at the Supreme Court in DC, Chief Justice Roberts has administrative authority. My guess is that SCOTUS will grant/deny and injunction in the Pennsylvania case today, and the matters will be consolidated with the original action filed by Texas. I fully expect a briefing/argument schedule in the Texas suit to be issued today. Keep In mind that since this is a matter of “original jurisdiction“ the Court is able to receive evidence directly.
I have no issues with standing. Any person in another state would have standing. Certainly the Constitution grants SCOTUS jurisdiction over disputes between/among states.
My thinking is that SCOTUS will punt the matter to the House of Representatives under the 12th Amendment. It can not occur until after 12/14 when the Electoral College votes. Then the issue becomes whether RINOs will sway from the reservation and vote for Biden.
It is an historic and interesting time in which we are living.
BTW, I noticed that last night prior to the filing POTUS said that there will be several things happen “in the next couple of days.” Kraken is just being wakened, and will not be at it’s full fury for a week or so.
Stay safe. And, lock and load.
Gwjack
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Allowed voter fraud in other states in Federal elections effects everyone. IMHO it effects states and their relationships, thus is covered by the interstate commerce act. So, it does matter. The SCOTUS needs to decide, it’s that important. Further, for Federal elections, there has to be minimum standards to prevent disenfranchising other states voters.
Texas, and every State has standing, since it effects everyone when other states ignore election laws, for Federal elections.
Congress has to pass Federal election standards. States have rights to run elections via there State Legislation, but not if those laws violate other people’s Constitutional rights. The 14th Amendment ended slavery and indentured servitude. No fair election is at least indentured servitude to the Federal Government, taxation without representation.
There should be amicus briefs delivered to the USSC by every other state in the union this AM.
BIG QUESTION IS THIS: Will Texas have STANDING to make this suit?
**************
An ever bigger question is: Our elections are a mess and what are we going to do about it?
If the answer is ‘nothing’ we’re heading down a very destructive path.
>>Can you imagine Cruz and Dershowitz jointly presenting this before the supremes?<<
Powerful in that both ends of the political spectrum presenting. Symbolic in that it would be teacher/student teaming up.
Fantastic.
Regarding Standing
Because individual citizens may arguably suffer only a generalized grievance from Electors Clause violations, States have standing where their citizen voters would not, Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 442 (2007) (distinguishing citizen plaintiffs from citizen relators who sued in the name of a state). In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), this Court held that states seeking to protect their sovereign interests are “entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis.” Id. at 520. While Massachusetts arose in a different context — the same principles of federalism apply equally here to require special deference to the sovereign states on standing questions.
A corrupted election disenfranchises every Trump voter in every state.,,, including Texas.
FTA:
These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.
I agree ... this suit is extremely important -— dare I say HUGE!
If the Solicitor general of the great state of Texas moved forward...he’z confident the SCOTUS will schedule a hearing of oral arguments.
**************
Agree. Can’t imagine him going forward with something like this without setting the table first.
How?
...but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.
How?
PA violated the US Constitution because the latter gives ONLY the state legislatures the ability to set their election laws. PA violated this with the Sec of State’s extension to accept ballots; it further violist own Constitution by not passing Article 77 according to the procedures laid out there.
I'm hoping there are several amicus briefs being written this morning. :)
On the question of relief
Second, the relief that Plaintiff State requests — namely, remand to the State legislatures to allocate electors in a manner consistent with the Constitution — does not violate
Defendant States’ rights or exceed this Court’s power. The power to select electors is a plenary power of the State legislatures, and this remains so, without regard to state law: This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the States by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their State constitutions …. Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.
Doesn’t Texas have automatic standing as a member of the Electoral College?
Great point.
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.