To: rxsid; RummyChick
This lawsuit is based on violations of the Eual Protection Clause. The issue of standing will arise. Not mentioned in the complaint is the Guarantee Clause, also known as, the Republican Form of Government Clause, Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Do note that that clause makes no limitation to a specific branch of government, meaning each branch has a responsibility to enforce it if a republican form of government is not present. Some of the lawsuits filed in the lower courts made reference to this clause, which was ignored. Personally, I think it is a better argument than the Equal Protection Clause argument for states to have standing to challenge the electors of another state.
316 posted on 12/8/2020, 9:14:09 PM by Dr. Franklin (”A republic, if you can keep it.”)
Nor should it be. That clause is to restrict the interference of the federal government in domestic and internal affairs of the State.
It may not be amiss further to observe, that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence is taken away, by that part of the provision which renders an application from the legislative, or executive authority of the state endangered, necessary to be made to the federal government, before it's interference can be at all proper.
George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (Annotated), 1803
This was repeated verbatim by >Joseph Story in ยง 1819 of his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833.
////////////
Trying to 'enforce' a Republican form of government it totally contradictory to the clause.