Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.
Maybe Tex asked for a jury trial too. LOL
 
Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!


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, 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.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.

Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.
 
It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.
Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws.

I agree with all of that.
I'm not sure what remedy will solve the issue though

Most likely it will be some version of yes the Democrats committed massive fraud, but we see no political remedy to repair that.
the court will find that Biden is illegitimate - but he will still be seated.
Some people will be found guilty of criminal charges - some of civil charges.

Mostly low level players.
 
Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!


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, 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.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.

Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.

Nope. Texas has a good case. Its on another thread on this board.
 
Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!


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, 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.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.

Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.
and the left has every plan to see biden finish his 1st term...
 
We cannot not allowing cheating democrats to ignore the Constitution

Biden cannot and will not cheat his way to the Presidency

Translation: we don't like the results of the election so we'll claim fraud without evidence and if the courts won't give us our way, we'll try and get the Republican state legislatures to install our candidate.
 
Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!


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, 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.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.

Just one more example of traitorous Republicans trying to overturn an election and install their candidate.

Nope. Texas has a good case. Its on another thread on this board.
10.gif
 
This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.

That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.

Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.

And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.

It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.

Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.

If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.

The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.

Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.

Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.

Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?

All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.

Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.

Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.

This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.

No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.

There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.

Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.

Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.

Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER

The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.

I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.

it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.

What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.

The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.

The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.

Yes, they have.

So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?

The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.

The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.

The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.

Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.

You're still stuck at square one.

It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.

You are just flailing now.

Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.

The case is being made, asking for a writ at this point is just trying to ignore the merits.

The petition for the writ has been submitted. The petition for the writ has not been granted.

We're explaining to you why.
 
Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.

Remember?

Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.

Try again.

Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.

Damn you're dumb

I'm rubber, you're glue, Billy.
 
Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!


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, 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.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.

Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Bull shit----------the dems making up thousands of fraudulent votes to steal election certainly harms everyone else in other states as it is used to steal elections and in this case puts a communist sell out Joe biden in to sell us all down the river not to mention allows him and his family to continue to rape little girls. It harms texas....and florida.....and alaska and everyone else.

The courts have found nothing to substantiate any claim Trump ia making.

Then it's fortunate that Texas' lawsuit isn't about Trump or his claims.
 
Don’t Mess with Texas!
Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures

Texas goes directly to the Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to order these swing states with voting irregularities to allow their legislatures to appoint presidential electors.

Don't Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for Unconstitutionally Changing Election Procedures | The Stream
8 Dec 2020 ~~ By Al Perrotta
~[snip]~

Just before midnight, the State of Texas threw its massive weight into the election fraud fight. Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds their ad-hoc changes to election procedures were unconstitutional. And as a result, violated the rights of Texans and those in other states that followed the constitution. Don’t mess with Texas, indeed.
What’s more, Texas isn’t fiddling around with lower courts. They marched straight to the Supreme Court. And they are requesting the Supreme Court order the offending states to allow their legislatures to appoint their presidential electors.
Dodging State Legislatures Was Dodgy
Breitbart was the first major outlet with the story, and breaks down the argument the Lone Star State is making.
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.​
In their lawsuit, Texas claims “certain officials in the Defendant States” presented the COVID pandemic “as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in balloting.” As streiff at RedState noted, “there’s no pandemic escape hatch in the constitution.”
~[snip]~
Going to the Supreme Court…a Long Shot, Perhaps
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly, Breitbart reports, “because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.”
Is the Supreme Court going to hear the case? Twitchy has collected the early reaction of legal types, and the consensus seems to be it’s a long shot the Supreme Court will hear the case, let alone rule in Texas’ favor. Several commentators note that the suit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, not the state’s solicitor general Kyle Hawkins, who would be the go-to person for suits like this.


Comment:
The Roberts court will either determine that it's none of Texas' business how other states do stuff or that the legistlatures were in session and aware of the changes and did not act, therefore they are implicitly the method determined by the legislature to be appropriate and so once again, buzz of Texas.
This case doesn’t require evidence, it hangs upon the law being changed illegally, before the election.
Every American voter in is being disenfranchised in this National Election by the States who were grossly negligent in their duties to conduct a free and fair election.
All States, who abided by their State Election Rules, should join with Texas and take the scoundrels to court.
 
Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.

Remember?

Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.

Try again.

Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.

Damn you're dumb

I'm rubber, you're glue, Billy.
oddly enough this is the most intelligent thing you've said yet.
 
Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!


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, 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.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.

Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.

Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.

The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.

The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.

We can also talk about the corruption of the Post Office. Trump deliberately tried to slow down the mail so a few days extension was more than justified.

No, he really didn't. I know your thought masters told you to "know" that, but that doesn't mean it isn't still bullshit.

Oh, and the law doesn't change based on "But I think it was a really, really good thing to do."
 
Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!


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, 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.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.

Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.
Bull shit----------the dems making up thousands of fraudulent votes to steal election certainly harms everyone else in other states as it is used to steal elections and in this case puts a communist sell out Joe biden in to sell us all down the river not to mention allows him and his family to continue to rape little girls. It harms texas....and florida.....and alaska and everyone else.

The courts have found nothing to substantiate any claim Trump ia making.

Then it's fortunate that Texas' lawsuit isn't about Trump or his claims.

Its a rehash of many of the legal arguments challenging the election in the State courts.

The State court rejected the legal arguments. The issue has been adjudicated. No violations have ever been found.
 
This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

They have not. There have been no illegal changes.

I just heard, "All the changes were legal, because I really, really like the results!"
 
Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.
Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.

Remember?

Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.

Try again.

Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.

Damn you're dumb

I'm rubber, you're glue, Billy.

Billie
 
Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court

"Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.”

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause."


Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law. It is not dependent upon disputed facts. Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.


Ha! Breitbart is so full of right-tard shit.

The Supreme Court will most likely refuse to hear the flimsy, empty case and go with what Bill Barr said, no fraud.

"The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear the case and has said in previous decisions that its “original jurisdiction,” which allows it to directly hear litigation between states, should be invoked sparingly.

Paul Smith, a professor and election law expert at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis for the suit.

“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said."""""


 
This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

They have not. There have been no illegal changes.

I just heard, "All the changes were legal, because I really, really like the results!"

And also "all the changes were legal because the people making the changes said they were legal"
 

Forum List

Back
Top