I think the argument is sound but I doubt SCOTUS will accept that Texas has standing.
The Electoral College was set up to give every State standing - any States rigging what happened with the Electoral Collège affects all the other States and disenfranchises the whole process.
If the States don’t have standing, then the Electoral Collège has, in-fact, been gotten rid of and is only a sham.
Texas voters were disenfranchised. They have standing. Who represents us? Stacey Abrams?
This is brilliant
“I think the argument is sound but I doubt SCOTUS will accept that Texas has standing.”
I know it’s not for us to settle, but this is a NATIONAL ELECTION and Texas is directly (and massively) affected by what happens in DC.
So Texas would have standing in my book...although, yes, the cop-out response is to say ‘no standing’.
I made the argument yesterday in another thread that voter fraud in Georgia violates MY civil rights because it devalues my vote. I as a voter in Alabama should have standing in Georgia to sue over voter fraud for that reason. Same principle on Texas suing these states. Millions of Texas voters had their votes disenfranchised because of the unlawful actions of these states. The court may rule that Texas does not have standing, but by God they definitely DO have standing!!!!
“I think the argument is sound but I doubt SCOTUS will accept that Texas has standing.”
This almost certainly guarantees that Texas will object to those states electors during the count of the Electoral College on Dec. 14th.
Under the current rules, the EC vote immediately stops and the objection must be handled by a joint session of congress.
I have no faith that a joint session of congress could decide anything. But without that decision, the EC count stands in limbo. We’d be in uncharted territory.
• The EC count is suspended with no candidate having a majority
• Congress is hung decision wise
• Stalemate, with no end in sight
The Supreme court would have a case in front of them that would allow them to cut the gordian knot and throw the election into the house (by invalidating several state’s electors). Would they do it, or would they allow the deadlock to go past the Jan. 20 date and leave us without a president?
Correct. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction covers “controversies between two or more states.” “Controversies” includes the concept of standing. It’s hard to see how Texas has standing to assert a claim that the power of another state’s legislature was usurped.
“I think the argument is sound but I doubt SCOTUS will accept that Texas has standing.”
Well, yes, it does. Texas is a co-equal state that has to live with the consequences of unconstitutional acts of other states.
>>I think the argument is sound but I doubt SCOTUS will accept that Texas has standing.<<
Sure we do. By these boneheads in the swing states altering voting rules w/o the legislative body as prescribed by their own state constitutions as well as the U.S. constitution...it’s a more solid case than all this other crap I’ve read about.
If the Solicitor general of the great state of Texas moved forward...he’z confident the SCOTUS will schedule a hearing of oral arguments.
My first ?? also.
The SC will hear this case and side with Texas.