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

[busybee01]

I don't have to. Not unless there's a reason for SCOTUS to take up this case with someone who has nothing to do with whether any other state acted in accordance with it's own laws.

Can another state force a state to follow it's own laws?

The DA has prosecutorial discretion in charging crimes. So how can another state force them to prosecute?

Sure they can. How about pollution laws where water pollution goes into states that are downstream.

These states are directly affected by pollution. That is not true in elections. Also we are talking about federal ;laws not state laws.

ROFL! In other words, you are wrong. Allowing wholesale fraud in your state cancels out the votes of people in every other state.

No wholesale fraud happened.

That is your level of intelligence. Every judge has stated that Trump has provided no evidence.

Wrong.

You are wrong as usual.

NOT.

Yes you are.

 

[busybee01]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

Which rules were changed illegally?

Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.

Nothing illegal about it.

 

[busybee01]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.

Plus, the gloating after.

Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.

Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.

I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
You tell me.

Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.

You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.

Deal?

I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
You're the one who claims you hate (a feeling) him and can't specify a reason.

When you start at your opponent's 5 yard line, it is not too hard to score. The unemplyment rats was under 5 when Trump took office. Trump has never hard a yearly GDP over 3%.

 

[Moonglow]

The Constitution has entrusted the states to determine their electors in a presidential election. Consistent with Michigan law, the State of Michigan has certified its presidential vote and the election in Michigan is over. The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis. This Court should summarily dismiss the motion to file the bill of complaint. To do otherwise would make this Court the arbiter of all future national elections.

The Trumpets can't stop breathing their own entrails without understanding the meaning of the actions of the AG's under Trump's spell...Trump's word is worthless to me and the Supreme Court will agree that these allegations are not a solid basis to disenfranchise millions of voters because one man is throwing a tantrum....

 

[busybee01]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

You just stated a logical impossiblity. How does one adjudicate "themselves?"

How does a State court adjudicate State laws? Using what's called 'jurisdiction' and the 'judicial power' granted by their respective state constitutions.

You see it exercised every day in State court when State laws are adjudicated. In fact, State law is the generally the only thing that State courts can adjudicate.

Remember, you have no idea what's going on or how any of this works.

This is a lawsuit between states, idiot. What you're saying is that defense attorney can rule his client innocent.

Federal judges appointed by Trump have ruled against him.

 

[Indeependent]

So now we have 17 states joining with Texas. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined with Missouri to file an amicus brief supporting Texas.

The Hilbilly states of America.

The Blue and Red States are 99% hillbillys.

There is a trend. Biden won Georgia because of the suburban vote which voted for a Republican governor just 6 years ago. It will only get worse as rural states lose voters while the suburbs gain voters. The states that went to Trump are at the bottom in education. The red states are hillbillies.

Teachers and non-MD Health Care Workers are not quite the most highly educated.
You Liberals flatter yourselves way too much but you can get away with that because you hang out with each other.

 

[Indeependent]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

The issues of whether or not the voting rules were changed 'illegally' has already been adjudicated by the States themselves. The answer was a resounding 'No'.

State voting laws, adjudication and implementation are self contained. They don't involve any other State. And no other State has standing in them.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

I'm not the target audience for this Theater for Dipshits. Nor am I laughing at the show.

I'm laughing at the audience.

So sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

Nah, I'm enjoying laughing at the audience of this Theater for Dipshits entirely too much.

Plus, the gloating after.

Fine...I'm sure that after Biden destroys all those new businesses in Black areas, you will help pay their bills.

Biden should probably be paying some bills to you.....as he's living rent free in your head.

I have to admit that I, unlike you, feel for the less fortunate who have started local businesses since after Trump's Small Business Tax Break.
Perhaps you are a self-serving scumbag?
You tell me.

Or....perhaps silly attempts at insults are all you have left as you abandon the topic of the thread.

You stick with your 'feelings'. I'll stick with mocking this steaming pseudo-legal turd of a lawsuit from Texas. And its intended audience.

Deal?

I deal with economic reality...every strata of America has done better under Trump than under any other President.
You're the one who claims you hate (a feeling) him and can't specify a reason.

When you start at your opponent's 5 yard line, it is not too hard to score. The unemplyment rats was under 5 when Trump took office. Trump has never hard a yearly GDP over 3%.

There is more to unemployment numbers than just the numbers.
What were unskilled workers doing other than serving food?

 

[bottlecap]

Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.

That's one of the many problems with this lawsuit, and many others.

They're not concerned about the law. If they were, they would have challenged it in court long before the election. But they didn't.

That's correct. They held on to it, knowing a day would come when they would lose an election that they could then play that card, hoping to reverse the will of the people.

Not the "Will of the People" but the will of the GLOBALIST Billionaires.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html

About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The CEOs of Asana, Twilio and Netflix were among the biggest contributors, and they all targeted Democratic groups and candidates.

Super PACs focused on flipping the Senate in favor of Democrats and winning in swing states received millions of dollars from tech execs.
-----------------
Add to that the following TRUMP HATERS; ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, most other newspapers and periodicals, college professors and Hollywood AND is it any wonder that many people did not vote for TRUMP.

Nevertheless, the Democrats still had to run a corrupt election to squeak out an advantage.

Uh, no, people vote; dollars do not.

I personally have never met TRUMP or Biden and must rely on different sources of media to make judgements between them.

During the MLB baseball season, 2020, the Los Angeles Dodgers were the best team in baseball, while the team with the worst record was the Pittsburg Pirates. But I think you would agree that one could make a video montage of defensive plays and hits that show the Pirates hitting home runs, stealing bases, making great defensive plays, getting outstanding pitching, etc. At the same that video time could show the Dodgers making errors, striking out and making baserunning gaffs. The conclusion of someone with no knowledge of the baseball season would be that the Dodgers stink and the Pirates are world champions.

Fortunately, baseball is a very public game so most people would know which team was really better. BUT in politics that is not the case and exposure and political analysis is SUBJECTIVE and videos are highly edited.

In 2020, the exposure TRUMP got was horrible, while Biden got little coverage, but when he did it was softball.
Granted, there were pro-conservative outlets, but when compared to the anti-TRUMP outlets it was a like a PRO Football team against a High School Football team.

No dollars count and information count and those who have money and control information have great influence on how people think and how people vote.

 

[busybee01]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

Which rules were changed illegally?

Mail-in voting, for one, asshole.

Nope, nothing illegal about them.

Where does the state law of Michigan allow mail-in voting?

here it is.
"A proposal to bring same-day voter registration, no-reason absentee voting and more sweeping changes to Michigan's election law was approved by voters Tuesday by a better than two-to-one margin.

With 99 percent of the vote counted, the tally was 2,724,234 yes to 1,353,653 no, a margin of 66.8 percent to 33.2 percent."

Michigan's Proposal 3: Voters OK changes to election law (lansingstatejournal.com)

 

[protectionist]

The Trumpets can't stop breathing their own entrails without understanding the meaning of the actions of the AG's under Trump's spell...Trump's word is worthless to me and the Supreme Court will agree that these allegations are not a solid basis to disenfranchise millions of voters because one man is throwing a tantrum....

That's not what's happening. It is PA, GA, WI, and MI that are disenfranchising all the voters of the USA by engaging in illegal UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions, which the other states are not engaging in. They have violated Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ("in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct")

As for Trump, he is merely reacting normally as one who has had something stolen from him. But it's not just Trump who is the theft victim. It is all of America.

 

[Moonglow]

The Trumpets can't stop breathing their own entrails without understanding the meaning of the actions of the AG's under Trump's spell...Trump's word is worthless to me and the Supreme Court will agree that these allegations are not a solid basis to disenfranchise millions of voters because one man is throwing a tantrum....

That's not what's happening. It is PA, GA, WI, and MI that are disenfranchising all the voters of the USA by engaging in illegal UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions, which the other states are not engaging in. They have violated Constitution Article 2 Section 1 ("in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct")

As for Trump, he is merely reacting normally as one who has had something stolen from him. But it's not just Trump who is the theft victim. It is all of America.

What exactly are they doing unconstitutionally to disenfranchise all the voters?

 

[protectionist]

Christ_on_a_croissant has clicked "Disagree" for my post # 5. Pleas tell us what you disagree with.

 

[busybee01]

"This is about Texas challenging state laws, BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE!!! FUCK EVERYTHING THAT HAS TOLD ME REPEATEDLY THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT THING!!!"

No, it's because they don't have standing, dumbass.

It's like CA suing TX for allowing fracking.

God you guys are stupid.

See page 15 for standing....

Scotus Filing | PDF | Postal Voting | Absentee Ballot

texas ag

www.scribd.com

"The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because [the right of suffrage is denied]."

The right to suffrage isn't denied. The folks in Texas got to vote.

The idea that you've lost your right to sufferage if your candidate loses is silly.

You aren't thinking if you think it is simple. I hope that is an exception for you, and not the norm.

If states illegally change their voting rules, such that the election outcome is changed, all of the people in other states who voted for other candidates have effectively had their votes nullified, illegally.

It's somewhat analogous to water rights of states that share the same river. If an upstream state builds a dam, the other states still have access to the river basin, but when they turn on their taps, they don't get as much water as before.

And the proper forum for recourse is the Supreme Court.

It's my opinion that the Dems in some states used the plandemic to illegally steal the election, in violation of their, and the US Constitutions. It's similar to stealing the river water that adjacent states share.

Virginia also changed its voting regulations this year, rather dramatically, but they did it through the legislature, consistent with the Constitution.

Regards,
Jim

Which rules were changed illegally?

All the ones that were changed, moron.

Fucking moron, you already answered that post of mine with, "Mail-in voting, for one, asshole." But you fail because there was nothing illegal about mail-in voting. So which other rules were illegally changed?

It is illegal if it's not a law in the state, and unless the legislature voted to make it a law, then it's illegal. The governor or state courts cannot change the law unilaterally. What part of that don't you get?

Untrue. The legislature can delegate that authority to other bodies such as in Michigan where voters can initiate a proposition that can be voted on by voters. The proposition won by a 2-1 margin. That allowed no-excuse mail in balloting in Michigan.

 

[busybee01]

The SCOTUS is going to throw out every ballot that did not meet the state's election laws & standards.

They may even order new elections, or a forensic evaluation of the 4 states ballots.

No they are not.

 

[Faun]

What federal election law?

3 USC 5 and 7

No one is trying to change it, moron.

Fucking moron, the Texas lawsuit seeks to change the date the presidential electors cast their votes. That date is defined by federal law. The very federal you obviously know nothing about based on your idiotic question, "what federal election law?"

Savvy?

 

[progressive hunter]

BREAKING: 106 House Republicans file Amicus Brief in Texas election case at Supreme Court

106 House Republicans have just filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court to hear the election lawsuit Texas is filing against four states: ⚖️JUST IN: New amicus brief from 106 Rep…

therightscoop.com

 

[busybee01]

are you suggesting people do not have to follow their own constitutional process?

I'm stating they did follow their own constitutional process. That's how these changes came about in the first place.

TX and 18 other states disagree. we will see what the SCOTUS says and i'm fine with that.

you keep whining about it, it's what you do.

The 19 Fascist States of America.

 

[Faun]

we keep breaking down authority when we don't like it but run screaming for their help when we're under attack. you act as if no one tried to stop the bullshit before the election.

not the case.

Actually in the Pennsylvania case, that's exactly what happened. Nobody objected to Act 77, for almost a year. With no objection to it's use during the states primary election.

Had there been an objection, the courts could not have used the doctrine of laches.

Even worse, they used the provisions from act 77 in the primaries and no one objected then.

Republicans literally waited until there was an election where they didn't like the results to try and change the results based on a law Republicans put into place to take away a victory from Democrats to give to Republicans.

Why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them? That's a bogus argument, just like all your other arguments.

LOLOLOLOL

You're such a fucking moron, you don't even realize you just propped up my point in a 24K golden frame.



Fucking moron, if it was unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Democrats or Republicans. If it was unconstitutional, it would have been unconstitutional for all political parties.

Here you are, accentuating my point that Republicans waited until there was an election which they lost to raise this issue -- which, by the way, was one of the reason Republicans lost this case. You can't sit on a lawsuit until it's politically expedient. Google doctrine of laches to get educated.

Who said it wasn't unconstitutional for all political parties? It was just as unconstitutional then as it is now. The only difference is that republicans didn't file suit then. There's no requirement to file such a suit at a specific time, moron. Your objection is that it should be ruled constitutional because Republicans didn't care if the DNC fucked its own constituents. That's not a legitimate basis for throwing a lawsuit out, you fucking dumbass.

Fucking moron, I already recommended you Google doctrine of laches. Had you educated yourself you wouldn't have posted that fucking moronic post.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

It was a dumb question. Because the answer is -- you did. When you asked, "why would Republicans object to a primarty that didn't affect them?"

So either you're asking because you think it affects only Democrats; or you asked because you know I'm right when I said Republicans sat on that lawsuit until they lost an election.

 

[Faun]

When it refers to election laws, it refers only to state election laws. Please quote anywhere it does otherwise. All elections in this country are run by states.

Article 2, section 1, Clause 4

Look it up. Tell me what it says.

That one is the biggest fucking moron on the planet.

ROFL! Your hatred for me only shows that you fear me.

LOLOL

Nobody fears a fucking moron.

Have you found that federal law yet that you don't know about which the Texas lawsuit seeks to have the Supreme Court change from the bench?

 

[busybee01]

Secondary ... The dictates were not followed/enforced equally by all precincts within each State in question.
That violates the Equal Protection Under the Law in regards to the vote and Articles in the Election Rights Act.

Actually the 4th and 9th circuit are dealing with that right now. The original judgement was that there was an equal protection argument. But that was overturned because there is no legal remedy to equal protection violations.

Example, if one town has an average police or fire, or EMT response time twice that of the town next door. Can they sue for equal protection. Force their town to give them the same protection as the town next door?

The court used the legal maxim, where there is no remedy, there is no right. If the court can't fix it, you have no right to it.

And demanding the votes in every county in the country be handled equally is beyond what a court has jurisdiction to order.

They aren't asking for excuses.
The Constitution is clear ... And no one gives a shit if a State cannot figure out how to follow their own laws correctly.
It's not a wild goose chase ... There is a case to be made.

It's not that these states, like Michigan, cannot figure out how to follow their own laws.
The Secretary of State there just didn't bother to involve the state legislature when she unilaterally
changed state election law. She was taking her guidance from other sources.

"Benson has received the endorsement and financial assistance of the Secretary of State Project (SOS Project), a 527 political organization whose purpose, according to its website, was to "wrestling control of the country from the Republican Party" through the process of "removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count," namely the office of Secretary of State in many cases. The SOS Project received its funding from the George Soros-backed Democracy Alliance." Jocelyn Benson - Ballotpedia

She did not change any election laws unilaterally. That is your first lie. The second one is that Republicans will do anything they can to make it harder for people to vote. She has served the people of Michigan well.