19 State Attorneys General or five legal experts will end up with egg on their faces when the Supreme Court rules on Texas’s motion
Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By David Singer —— Bio and Archives—December 10, 2020
he Supreme Court has now ordered Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin to respond to Texas’s motion to file a complaint against them regarding their States’ conduct of the 2020 elections by 3 p.m. Thursday, December 10.
President Trump has indicated he will seek leave to intervene in the case whilst Attorneys General for Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, and Louisiana have issued statements in support of Texas’s action.
The Texas filing was initially met with scorn and derision by:
Rick Hasen – an election law expert and professor at the University of California:
“the dumbest case I’ve ever seen filed on an emergency basis at the Supreme Court. This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit,”
CBS News’ election law expert – David Becker:
“Calling this garbage might be generous.”
Steve Vladeck – a professor at the University of Texas’s School of Law:
“dangerous, offensive and wasteful. It looks like we have a new leader in the ‘craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election’ category,”
Texas appellate lawyer Raffi Melkonian:
“it doesn’t make any sense and is bad and has no chance of success at all. Just want to be clear on that”
Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law:
“This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable
Texas claims that:
- Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated several Pennsylvania statutes requiring signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots. Pennsylvania’s legislature has not ratified these changes, and the legislation did not include a severability clause.
- Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.
- Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification. Michigan’s legislature has not ratified these changes, and its election laws do not include a severability clause.
- Wisconsin Elections Commission and other local officials unconstitutionally modified Wisconsin election laws—each time taking steps that weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.
Texas has argued:
- The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the Constitution makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.
- Non-legislative actors lack authority to amend or nullify election statutes. Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104.
- The actions taken by the above officials constitute non-legislative changes to State election law by executive-branch State election officials, or by judicial officials in violation of the Electors Clause.
- Electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.
Texas has further argued:
- The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a State. Bush II, 531 U.S. at 107. 136. The one-person, one-vote principle requires counting valid votes and not counting invalid votes. Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 554-55; Bush II, 531 U.S. at 103 (“the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements”).
- The actions taken by the above officials created differential voting standards in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and violated the one-person, one-vote principle.
The constitutional issues raised directly affect the 2020 election results.
19 State Attorneys General or five legal experts will end up with egg on their faces when the Supreme Court rules on Texas’s motion.