Texas files suit in the Supreme Court over election | Beaufort County Now | This could be the case that tops all of the elections litigation. | Supreme Court

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Texas files suit in the Supreme Court over election

    This could be the case that tops all of the elections litigation. It puts the issue squarely before the Supreme Court. While the court has discretion whether to hear the case or not it is hard to imagine, considering the importance of the issue, that the SCOTUS would not hear it. It is important also for future cases that might turn on the legitimate "rule making" authority in election reform. Texas argues that it is the legislature that has exclusive authority to make election law and that would short circuit these Federal judges and executive branch officials making or changing election rules.

    Here is how Breitbart.com reports on the case:

    The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

    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.

    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.

    Click here to go to the original source where you will find a link to the actual filing in Texas v. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Sexual harassment allegations may be inundating Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) at the moment, but that痴 not the biggest scandal he is currently facing.
I was told late in the day today that I知 needed at work early in the day tomorrow so this one is going to be a quickie.
Public school systems in the Tar Heel State are experiencing the highest declines in student enrollment in decades.
Today, the state House approved House Bill 128 to increase the number of spectators allowed to attend North Carolina school sporting events and graduation ceremonies.
As a small business owner for most of my life I traditionally opposed raising the minimum wage on the grounds that it would trigger cost increases across the board for everything. Now I知 changing my thinking for several reasons.
The General Assembly has passed with a unanimous vote a new COVID relief bill that would direct nearly $1.7 billion in aid across the state.
Early in 2020 a group of frontline doctors talked about how they had successfully used Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an early treatment for the Covid-19 virus. Hydroxychloroquine is a safe, inexpensive anti-malarial drug that has been around for years and had been effective against the first SARS outb
Rob Crilly of the Washington Examiner dissects the 45th president痴 latest actions after the end of his White House term.

HbAD1

Today, Governor Roy Cooper received his first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine at WakeMed Raleigh Campus.
Over the last 30 years, federal courts have consistently ruled that restrictive speech codes and minuscule free speech zones on college campuses violate the First Amendment.
We will offer this allotment of three with more to come; some old, most new, but all quite informative, and, moreover, necessary to understanding that in North Carolina, there is a wiser path to govern ourselves and our People.
Colleges have been trying to stop COVID-19 from spreading on campus, and after a year of experimentation, failure, and success, officials may have found their way.
The State Board of Elections on Thursday received a 2020 Clearinghouse Award for Best Practices in Recruiting, Retaining and Training Poll Workers.
The N.C. State Board of Education passed a resolution Thursday, March 4, calling on all public school districts to give parents the option of in-person learning by the end of March.
When it comes to an inherent right, nothing is regulated quite like the Second Amendment.

HbAD2

 
Back to Top