Texas Court of Appeals Rules State Cannot Prosecute Vote Fraud

Bannon's WarRoom ^ | 1/18/22 | Ken Paxton / Steve Bannon

[Wallace T.]

The statute dates back to egregious voter fraud in South Texas under the Parrs. I wonder if there is a possibility of appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, as Texas has a dual appeal system, and criminal matters usually go to the Court of Appeals.

Three of the nine justices on the Court of Appeals, all Republicans, are up for reelection this year. Hopefully they can be taken out in the primaries.

[bitt]

p

[BiglyCommentary]

So the law was unconstitutional and the justices followed the law. What on earth is the problem? We want “our” judges to be activists?

[DesertRhino]

“Texas Court of Appeals struck down a statute from 1951 allowing Texas Attorney General to prosecute vote fraud if local officials fail to do so.”

A clear anti-corruption measure meant to ensure a corrupt local LBJ type machine could not be protected by the local DA.

[Golden Eagle]

Texas is chock full of prosecutors. The AG just happens to not be one of them.

Unless the Texas constitution strictly forbids the AG from prosecuting cases, which is not what you said, a subsequent law could give the position that power, which is what the law appeared to do.

[PatriotarchyQ]

Nope. The separation of powers clause in the Texas Constitution prevents that.

[DesertRhino]

“The Republican court ruled 8-1 in a shocking ruling.”

LOL, yeah, a real shock for Texas Republican officeholders to protect voter fraud. Go one step further and ask why people holding office are ok with voter fraud.

Bush sucks.

[CrosscutSaw]

The statute stood since 1951. If the Soros backed local DA’s don’t prosecute voter fraud, now the Texas can’t.

This was all planned by Soros and the Leftists bent on undermining the US Constitutional form of government.

[Amendment10]

If I understand this action of the Texas Court of Appeals correctly, the ruling obstructs the due process of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (14A) imo, that section a penalty for states that weaken the voting power of qualified voters in any way.

Excerpted from the 14th Amendment;

"14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced [emphases added] in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

In fact, if this were a better world, the judges who made this decision probably should be removed from office under Section 3 of 14A for open rebellion against Section 2 above.

"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Corrections, insights welcome.

[DesertRhino]

“If it was 8-1, it appears the problem is a bad law. Justices don’t makes laws; they interpret laws.”

Not in ratchet law. In rachet law, they make law if favors the left, they “interpret” law when it favors the right.

[JonPreston]

If the Soros backed local DA’s don’t prosecute voter fraud, now the Texas can’t.

Bush Republicans don't care. They never have.

[CrosscutSaw]

Soros pours millions of dollars into local elections to get these subversives elected.

[bigdaddy45]

So Soros somehow got his hooks in 8 Texas Supreme court judges?

[Revel]

“It appears that Soros planted these stealth judges on the court as “Republicans” over the past decade. “

Now there is someone who gets it. Everything is infiltrated.

[Golden Eagle]

The separation of powers clause in the Texas Constitution prevents that.

Separation of Powers? Aren’t the AG and the Prosecutors all in the same Executive Branch?

Now if you’re saying the Constitution is ironclad in saying that the AG can do exactly nothing more than what is listed in the Constitution, then maybe, but one would have to look at all the listed duties and even something that said “make sure the laws of the state are faithfully executed” could be expanded by subsequent law to include prosecuting those that don’t follow the law.

[Jane Long]

Which three are up for re-election this year? Which districts?

TIA.

[JonPreston]

So Soros somehow got his hooks in 8 Texas Supreme court judges?

Hell, he got his hands in the Presidency.

[CrosscutSaw]

The statute dates back to egregious voter fraud in South Texas under the Parrs. I wonder if there is a possibility of appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, as Texas has a dual appeal system, and criminal matters usually go to the Court of Appeals.

According to Paxton, there is no higher court to appeal this to. The only recourse is a rehearing by this court.

Three of the nine justices on the Court of Appeals, all Republicans, are up for reelection this year. Hopefully they can be taken out in the primaries.

Paxton said this case was filed some time ago but the court waited until 2 days after the deadline to file as a candidate for judge in the primary to announce the ruling.

[PatriotarchyQ]

If you read the case, you will see they did quote the duties from the Texas Constitution and there was nothing in there close to granting the AG prosecutorial powers. The AG is basically the state’s chief civil lawyer. The Texas legislature had no authority to grant him prosecutorial powers. The solution is a Constitutional amendment.

[Ancesthntr]

“These judges must hear from the people of Texas and be persuaded to rehear the case and rule correctly. They must feel the heat of public opinion until they correct their error.”

---

That will never happen - it isn’t about politics; NO court can possibly bow to public pressure like this and still retain any credibility (even if it is credibility on a bad decision).

I do, however, find it absolutely incredible that a state law permitting the government to challenge elections which impact the state directly (like legislative races) or indirectly (like federal elections) could be considered unconstitutional. Is there something in the TX Constitution that forbids this?

Also, regardless of the present TX Constitution, there should be IMMEDIATE action to get an amendment to the Constitution that *specifically* authorizes the state to challenge such election results for any election decided by less than, say, 2% of the *legitimate* ballots cast (including a challenge of which particular ballots cast are legitimate under state law, vs. those that may not be). THIS is what people should spend their time doing - calling their local legislators and Senator and making sure that such an amendment is on the ballot ASAP.