2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

[Seattle Husker]

Ted understands that election integrity is more important than some petty tweet during a presidential campaign 5 years ago...glad he has offered to assist.

Election integrity = lobbying the state houses to overturn the election. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Joe Fan]

It does appear states may bind electors but it is a state law question

Here is Thomas in a 2020 concurrent judgment dissent that goes to the idea of 'faithless electors'

"[T]he Constitution is silent on States’ authority to bind electors in voting."​

 

[Joe Fan]

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS (conflict among the states, first impression on subject of original jurisdiction) challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

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.​

 

[Joe Fan]

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS (conflict among the states, first impression on subject of original jurisdiction) challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

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.​

Cannot help but wonder if the Texas St AG lurks here, since we laid out this idea some time back -- "What starts here ...."

2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

I hope SCOTUS takes it up -- I want to see this idea fully vetted in public. If you like Con Law and federal court jurisdiction and procedure, this is juicy stuff. As mentioned in the original, our federal election system and procedures must be cleaned up. But the states need a kick in the butt first, apparently, before they are going to act. The SCOTUS could provide that needed kick with this

Here is part of what I wrote back on Nov 23 in here

.... Their first problem was the Constitution. Article II establishes that it is up to state legislatures to set election rules and policy. This was not a random idea. Just like with the Electoral College, they knew what they were doing.

The problem for Democrats is that Republicans control the state legislatures in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, Florida, Arizona and Texas. The Left was unable to get lax voting rules past these state bodies. And so this is why they started suing. And, despite the R-controlled state legs, many of these states have alot of Dem judges. You probably already know about the Penn state supreme court which is full of partisan liberal judges (reminiscent of the FL state SC being in the bag for Al Gore back in the day).

Republicans did not fight these lawsuits as hard as they should have, in part due to money issues. Dems get essentially bottomless funding from Soros, Bloomberg, Wall Street and Big Tech. And so all over the country liberal state judges were approving all sort of weird and lax voting rules. It was a big mistake for Rs not to fight back harder (even Texas threw in the towel on some items). It's a problem and that problem is eventually going to get dropped back in John Roberts' lap (his earlier refusal to take a strong stand directly led to the problem we have right now. Kavanaugh also wobbled).

What is that problem? It is that the judicial branches in the these states started making new election rules, not the state legislatures, as required by the Constitution. So here we have an Article II issue (and probably a Separation of Powers issue)..."​

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
If I am a patsy as you called me I would rather be that than a small minded hateful person always looking for the worst in people like you.
Can we stop with the personal insults please?
This is too important to be so petty.

 

[Crockett]

What's worse, that guys like him and Gates think they are so smart and their initiatives are what will make the country great, or the fact that so many people listen to them simply because they are wealthy?

Bill Gates gets listened to because he is a brilliant, caring, hard-working visionary. He reads books, engages the best minds of our times and cares enough to spend his earned billions to improve the lives of poor people the world over.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Husker
If I am a patsy as you called me I would rather be that than a small minded hateful person always looking for the worst in people like you.
Can we stop with the personal insults please?
This is too important to be so petty.

Did you raise your hand to argue on behalf of Trump to SCOTUS after he called your wife ugly? If not, then the insult wasn't pointed at you, clearly.

Jumping on the high horse after trying to make it personal is duly noted though.

 

[Phil Elliott]

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS (conflict among the states, first impression on subject of original jurisdiction) challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

Did not see that coming. Very strong move. If the Great State of Texas would be the one to ride to the rescue of our nation and save us from these cheaters, wow, that would make me very proud. I will immediately cease and desist in disparaging Texas as "California Lite".

 

[Seattle Husker]

It does appear states may bind electors but it is a state law question

Here is Thomas in a 2020 concurrent judgment dissent that goes to the idea of 'faithless electors'

"[T]he Constitution is silent on States’ authority to bind electors in voting."​

Paxton has gone fishing for a pardon.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It does appear states may bind electors but it is a state law question

Here is Thomas in a 2020 concurrent judgment dissent that goes to the idea of 'faithless electors'

"[T]he Constitution is silent on States’ authority to bind electors in voting."​

Here is one perspective.

My view in brief: this is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit. Texas doesn’t have standing to raise these claims as it has no say over how other states choose electors; it could raise these issues in other cases and does not need to go straight to the Supreme Court; it waited too late to sue; the remedy Texas suggests of disenfranchising tens of millions of voters after the fact is unconstitutional; there’s no reason to believe the voting conducted in any of the states was done unconstitutionally; it’t too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not).

What utter garbage. Dangerous garbage, but garbage.

He also pointed out that TX's Solicitor General didn't sign the motion.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS (conflict among the states, first impression on subject of original jurisdiction) challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

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.​

Another lawyer's perspective. You'll need to click through to read the entire thread. It's not a positive response.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The GOP needs to purge it's extremists. Seriously Arizona GOP? Time for Trump to take his sycophants to start his "own" party and allow the GOP to rediscover fiscal responsibility.

 

[Seattle Husker]

This appears to be a badge of honor among Trump's inner circle. Flaunt the recommendations then try to quietly beat the virus. Guiliani is currently taking up a hospital bed.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

The GOP needs to purge it's extremists.

May I assume that you would also like to see the Democrats purge themselves of their own extremists (The Squad, for example, as well as Elizabeth Warren)?

 

[Seattle Husker]

May I assume that you would also like to see the Democrats purge themselves of their own extremists (The Squad, for example, as well as Elizabeth Warren)?

Why yes, yes I would. I'd love to have 3-4 viable parties. Push the extremists into their own parties then allow room for Center-right/Center-left parties to emerge.

 

[Joe Fan]

Cannot help but wonder if the Texas St AG lurks here, since we laid out this idea some time back -- "What starts here ...."
2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
I hope SCOTUS takes it up -- I want to see this idea fully vetted in public. If you like Con Law and federal court jurisdiction and procedure, this is juicy stuff. As mentioned in the original, our federal election system and procedures must be cleaned up. But the states need a kick in the butt first, apparently, before they are going to act. The SCOTUS could provide that needed kick with this

Here is part of what I wrote back on Nov 23 in here

.... Their first problem was the Constitution. Article II establishes that it is up to state legislatures to set election rules and policy. This was not a random idea. Just like with the Electoral College, they knew what they were doing.

The problem for Democrats is that Republicans control the state legislatures in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, Florida, Arizona and Texas. The Left was unable to get lax voting rules past these state bodies. And so this is why they started suing. And, despite the R-controlled state legs, many of these states have alot of Dem judges. You probably already know about the Penn state supreme court which is full of partisan liberal judges (reminiscent of the FL state SC being in the bag for Al Gore back in the day).

Republicans did not fight these lawsuits as hard as they should have, in part due to money issues. Dems get essentially bottomless funding from Soros, Bloomberg, Wall Street and Big Tech. And so all over the country liberal state judges were approving all sort of weird and lax voting rules. It was a big mistake for Rs not to fight back harder (even Texas threw in the towel on some items). It's a problem and that problem is eventually going to get dropped back in John Roberts' lap (his earlier refusal to take a strong stand directly led to the problem we have right now. Kavanaugh also wobbled).

What is that problem? It is that the judicial branches in the these states started making new election rules, not the state legislatures, as required by the Constitution. So here we have an Article II issue (and probably a Separation of Powers issue)..."​

Here is a nice long overview of the Texas complaint for those interested
It also offers good detail into how each state contravened state election law for this election
Texas sues four states for violating the Electors Clause: Initial summary and comment — Konrad S. Graf

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why yes, yes I would. I'd love to have 3-4 viable parties. Push the extremists into their own parties then allow room for Center-right/Center-left parties to emerge.

So long as races are decided by first past the post, winner take all elections, there's no chance of that happening. The "wasted vote" problem is too big. Wish it could, but it won't.

 

[Joe Fan]

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS (conflict among the states, first impression on subject of original jurisdiction) challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

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.​

Giddyup

There is only one court that can decide a State vs. State issue

 

[Seattle Husker]

So long as races are decided by first past the post, winner take all elections, there's no chance of that happening. The "wasted vote" problem is too big. Wish it could, but it won't.

What it would take is a powerful entity, like Trump, to take his ball and go home because the party tries to take back its own identity. Nobody on the far left has that power yet but IF Trump resisted conceding power within the Republican Party that could be a domino to the Sanders/AOC crowd that have always had a tenuous relationship with the Democratic Party. Essentially, they are Democrats because of the "wasted vote" problem.

It's clear that I think Trump views the Republican Party as simply a means to an end. He captured it as a method to get to the White House. The soon to be former POTUS has no loyalty towards the party other than it's a fundraising mechanism and useful to manage his power. If either of those ceased, he'd walk away and form his own party tomorrow, cleaving the party of his "my agenda is Trump's agenda" supporters.

This idea is still a longshot but with each breath he uses to extol his fraud accusations, each rally in which he's the spotlight and not who he's campaigning for that longshot chance increases.

Again, if the Republican Party is split then bye bye far left from the Democrats because they suddenly become a viable grass roots party.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Giddyup

There is only one court that can decide a State vs. State issue

Steve Vladeck is a UT Law School Professor.

 

[Joe Fan]

I actually flipped around cable news too see if any of them reacted to this news^ at the top of the hour
None did
Which to me means they did not know how to respond, they are waiting to be told what to say
American media is hot garbage

 

[Joe Fan]

As posted before, Justice Alito covers the 5th Circuit (TX), so this was him docketing the case
I also think the docketing suggests 4-5 Justices want to hear the Texas case, but we will see

 

[Seattle Husker]

I actually flipped around cable news too see if any of them reacted to this news^ at the top of the hour
None did
Which to me means they did not know how to respond, they are waiting to be told what to say
American media is hot garbage

Or they know it's another stunt that will go no where. There have been so many that most have lost count.

Paxson has been under indictment since 2015 for federal securities fraud charges and most recently is facing criminal allegations from 8 deputies for using the agency to do favors for a political donor. The FBI is actively investigating Paxson. Yes, there is a VERY real chance he's hoping to impress Trump enough to get a coveted pardon.

 

[Seattle Husker]

As posted before, Justice Alito covers the 5th Circuit (TX), so this was him docketing the case
I also think the docketing suggests 4-5 Justices want to hear the Texas case, but we will see

Again...the UT Law School professor.

 

[Horn6721]

Hmmm
Think an opinion that starts with "like Texas's preposterous new original suit"
is taken seriously by anyone but Haters?

 

[Captain9Dragons]

God Bless the Republic of Texas!

 

[Seattle Husker]

Hmmm
Think an opinion that starts with "like Texas's preposterous new original suit"
is taken seriously by anyone but Haters?

You're right. Trust in JoeFan because he doesn't have a bias...or has the same bias. I can never remember.

 

[horninchicago]

You're right. Trust in JoeFan because he doesn't have a bias...or has the same bias. I can never remember.

You're as biased as any of us around here. Why would JF or anyone else being biased be an issue? We are all on here trying to bolster our points of view and ideologies. Only someone full of crap pretends otherwise.

 

[Joe Fan]

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with SCOTUS (conflict among the states, first impression on subject of original jurisdiction) challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

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 now joined by Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota. I personally love the legal issue here (see long post above). But I doubt John Roberts feels the same way. Hopefully there are now enough votes to overcome his social posturing.

 

[Captain9Dragons]

Texas now joined by Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota. I personally love the legal issue here (see long post above). But I doubt John Roberts feels the same way. Hopefully there are now enough votes to overcome his social posturing.

benedict roberts wont be able to spin around this one