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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When one State violates its own constitution AND the U.S. Constitution in order to give one political party advantage over the other, that disenfranchises the voters in other States who do not do such things. In this case, FOUR States did precisely that which allowed vote fraud to skew the election results nationwide.

But that didnt happen. So no worries.

 

[meaner gene]

The Supreme Court is faithfully following the Constitution in saying states that want to amend their election laws need to go through their own legislatures to keep from tailoring their laws for short term partisan gains
as Pennsylvania did...,which sort of undermines the whole pretense that Pennsylvania just wants a free fair
election.

They let stand the decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme court, which extended the receipt of absentee ballots by three days to account for the warning by the Postal Service,

the state's high court had cited warnings that postal service delays could invalidate huge numbers of ballots

Even the Supreme Court knows that legislatures do not act with enough speed or clarity to respond to emergencies.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

His point stands. If one state can object to another state (or states) not following what they interpret as their election law, then any state can sue each and every state they view as not following their election law.

If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.

Either a state is following the Constitution or not. Are state election laws being altered by state legislative
bodies or not. That seems very straight forward and not open to interpretation.

And a state may not sue another state based on that one issue alone. Any state suing another based
on how it changed it's election laws (a real stretch to start with) must demonstrate harm... a high bar for any state to get over and not likely to set off an absurd chain of law suits among the fifty states.

 

[meaner gene]

When one State violates its own constitution AND the U.S. Constitution in order to give one political party advantage over the other, that disenfranchises the voters in other States who do not do such things. ....

Are you talking about the Texas gerrymandering case? Where the USSC said that what Texas did was illegal.



Supreme Court: Texas state House district is gerrymandered ...
www.star-telegram.com › latest-news › article213783304


Jun 25, 2018 — Fort Worth's state House District 90 is racially gerrymandered and "impermissible," the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday ...

 

[BlindBoo]

So the SC would need to vastly narrow is interruption, which would effect all 50 States who have used the broad interruption to make their election laws.

The Supreme Court is faithfully following the Constitution in saying states that want to amend their election laws need to go through their own legislatures to keep from tailoring their laws for short term partisan gains
as Pennsylvania did...,which sort of undermines the whole pretense that Pennsylvania just wants a free fair
election.

Assuming the SC isn't contradicting the Constitution itself, and I see no evidence of that, aside from the Gang of Four, I see no states unilaterally tailoring their election laws (the way Michigan did) for political gain.

PA argued that these adjustments and were necessary and legal because parts of the law was poorly written and left several grey areas that needed a clarifying ruling. I believe they were successful in all but one of the cases which was the deadline for mail in ballots, which was hard coded into the law.

 

[meaner gene]

If the supreme court grants certiorari in the texas case, they open the door to 50 states suing 50 states.

Either a state is following the Constitution or not.

It's not for a violation of the US Constitution, but they allege a violation of a states own constitution, or a violation of a states own laws.

They're just trying to make a federal case, out of a state issue.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The Supreme Court is faithfully following the Constitution in saying states that want to amend their election laws need to go through their own legislatures to keep from tailoring their laws for short term partisan gains
as Pennsylvania did...,which sort of undermines the whole pretense that Pennsylvania just wants a free fair
election.

They let stand the decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme court, which extended the receipt of absentee ballots by three days to account for the warning by the Postal Service,

the state's high court had cited warnings that postal service delays could invalidate huge numbers of ballots

Even the Supreme Court knows that legislatures do not act with enough speed or clarity to respond to emergencies.

I can't comment on that without seeing the reasoning of the Pennsylvania Supreme court.
And then the US Supreme Court.

I only know if I had a vote in the issue I would deny voting
extensions.
If voting is a priority for you you will make sure to get your ballot in well in advance
of any deadline.

If you can't be bothered then maybe your vote isn't that important to you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It's not for a violation of the US Constitution, but they allege a violation of a states own constitution, or a violation of a states own laws.

They're just trying to make a federal case, out of a state issue.

That's not my understanding. Only a state legislature can change or amend voting law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Trump supporters are the dumbest people on the planet.

Except for diehard leftist drones like you.

I know everyone who disagrees is a diehard leftist drone. I suppose Arizona and Georgia are filled with leftist drones. You are so far to the right that Ronald Reagan would be a leftist drone to you.

I know you want to believe I think that, so that you can dismiss any criticism as "Oh, you just don't like opposition, it's not because I'm an idiot or a bad person at all". Fortunately for you, you're enough of a diehard leftist drone that you can avoid any glimmers of reality that your masters haven't told you to notice.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

PA argued that these adjustments and were necessary and legal because parts of the law was poorly written and left several grey areas that needed a clarifying ruling. I believe they were successful in all but one of the cases which was the deadline for mail in ballots, which was hard coded into the law.

I can't comment without knowing a lot more about Penn. law and their adjustments.

It seems to me though the state legislature would be well versed in all this and address it all if need be.

The state legislature didn't address any of that, however. It seems to me the goal was getting more mail in ballots which would prove to be (A) very difficult to vet and, (B) more likely to be democrat voters.

As a matter of principle in the states I've lived in (California, Oregon, Washington) mail in ballots are all
promoted hard because of points A and B.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do you remember this one?

Yes. They are both true. I find it hilarious to discover that you are so stupid that you believe that's a contradiction.

I'm not. Stupidity is standard Libtard OP.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's not for a violation of the US Constitution, but they allege a violation of a states own constitution, or a violation of a states own laws.

They're just trying to make a federal case, out of a state issue.

That's not my understanding. Only a state legislature can change or amend voting law.

The broad view is that since the legislatures gave the right to determine the Slate of electors to the peoples popular vote, they delegated the power to the states elections laws and all of those who make and carry out the law. At least that's how I understand it and how governor Abbot was able to alter the dates for mail-in ballots here in Texas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fortunately, reality and the knowledge of the rest of us is not dependent on your memory and what your masters have allowed to you put in it. Leftists "remember" a lot of things that didn't happen, and draw a blank on what actually did, based on what their talking points were.

You left out Trump "remembering" thousands of people celebrating 9-11 in New Jersey.

No, I didn't. Unlike you, I don't have a psychotic obsession with hating Trump, and therefore every topic in the world exists only in the context of, "Orange Man BAAAAADDD!!! The sun came up this morning, and it must be because I HATE TRRUUUMMMP SO MUUUUUUUCH!!!"

Seek professional help, because I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with your insane babbling.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It seems to me though the state legislature would be well versed in all this and address it all if need be.
The state legislature didn't address any of that, however. It seems to me the goal was getting more mail in ballots which would prove to be (A) very difficult to vet and, (B) more likely to be democrat voters.
As a matter of principle in the states I've lived in (California, Oregon, Washington) mail in ballots are all
promoted hard because of points A and B.

The PA Constitution gives specific means and methods to mail-in ballots, to which the PA legislature agreed to change, but not by ammendment to their own state Consitution, which they needed to do, started but then abandoned that effort.


What the Texas case is citing are the administrative and judicial changes to the law PASSED by the legislature that were not agreed to by the legislature. I think these include an extended deadline, easier signature matching, that sort of thing.

So their changes were illegal by their own state constitution, and the rest not agreed to by the PA legislature but implemented via court orders and administrative fiat, "COVID! says we can!"

 

[plant]

All Trumptards

y’all have been played!! But do keep playing it’s enjoyable

 

[meaner gene]

\

I can't comment on that without seeing the reasoning of the Pennsylvania Supreme court.
And then the US Supreme Court.

I only know if I had a vote in the issue I would deny voting
extensions.
If voting is a priority for you you will make sure to get your ballot in well in advance
of any deadline.

How far in advance. Absentee ballots go out 45 days in advance of the election, and the post office said there could be weeks of delay.

 

[Hellokitty]

Violations of Election Law:

The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.

The SOS said this is FALSE.... He presented the law and his case, and won I believe, but might be on appeal.


PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.

The US Supreme court ruled on it. The voters could vote by mail thru election day...but they were separated in case they were disputed at a later time.

Citizens in the State, voted via absentee theu election day BECAUSE the Supreme court, ruled they could.

Some states gave 9 days to get to them....every state is different.


Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.

That was proven, in court, FALSE. Only 1 poll watcher from each party, R, D, I are allowed at polling vote count station. Those slots were all filled, no other poll watchers could be in those slots.


The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots. This was done only in Democrat majority counties.

The courts ruled on this in appeal, and basically it did not break their law or constitution to cure ballots in one county or another, counties manage their own elections, and the PA election law describes how and what to check, but does not state those votes not meeting muster SHALL BE discarded or SHALL NOT be cured... or something of the sort, if memories serve?

Regardless, they ruled it was NOT illegal... it did NOT usurp legislative power.

( and if anyone should be admonished it's those counties not trying to ensure their citizen's constitutional right to vote, by giving them a way to cure their ballot that is being discarded for simply missing a hand written date....in many cases)


Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots

FALSE
They did segregate the ballots received after 8pm election night, ordered by the Secretary of state before Alito told them to.

The changes made removed protections and safeguards against voter fraud, along with making it impossible to conduct any form of a meaningful audit.

 

[meaner gene]

That's not my understanding. Only a state legislature can change or amend voting law.

The USSC defined "state legislature" to include anyone the legislature cedes that authority to. And many states cede to the chief executive the power to change laws during a declared emergency.

And the pandemic has been universally declared an emergency.

 

[OKTexas]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!

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

Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.

www.breitbart.com

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.​

Yuh huh.

And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing? Hm?

The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<

Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".

This clown should be disbarred.

So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.

Maybe this post comes in English.

Maybe not.

Poor commie, did I use too many big words? LMAO.

Sorry Tovarich, I don't speak 1949. Today we use what we call "verbs".

But hey, if you wish to remain oblique, have fun.

Oh boy, another commie being stupid. Your comrade posted about the powers of a governor in an emergency. I asked a simple question about a SOS illegally entering into a consent decree to alter the legislature directed operation of their election. If you are too stupid to read simple english, well, that's on you.

.

 

[meaner gene]

It seems to me the goal was getting more mail in ballots which would prove to be (A) very difficult to vet and, (B) more likely to be democrat voters.

As a matter of principle in the states I've lived in (California, Oregon, Washington) mail in ballots are all
promoted hard because of points A and B.

Actually the mix of A and B, was based not on inherent party preferences, but on the parties response to the pandemic.

Had Trump told his voters to vote by mail, you would be making the exact opposite argument.