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

So much is made of the Cancel Culture, which is as real as Trump Derangement Syndrome; however, the Impeachment Culture, as an offshoot of this Cancel Culture, has NOW won the day for the religiously Woke.
Looking into January, state legislative sessions will begin across the nation. For many states, a critical focus point will be on the emergency powers those statesí governments have exercised in the wake of COVID-19.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will deliver an article of impeachment against former President Donald Trump to the Senate on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Friday.
He thinks it's clearly unconstitutional to try a man already out of office.
Victor Davis Hanson writes for National Review Online about the work of President Trumpís commission on American history.
Before he left office, former President Donald Trump ordered the Secret Service to continue protecting his children for the next six months.
The bass-playing younger brother of cultural icon Dolly Parton died of cancer, according to a statement from the Parton family.

HbAD1

Dan McLaughlin of National Review Online notes a recent abrupt change in Republican Party fundraising.
Although Twitter had not taken large-scale action against popular Antifa Twitter accounts during President Trumpís tenure, allowing Antifa more latitude to organize their efforts at creating chaos, this week, after President Biden was inaugurated, Twitter suspended some of those Antifa-related accou
Through one of Donald Trumpís final acts as president, former N.C. Republican Party chairman Robin Hayes became one of the most prominent North Carolinians to receive a presidential pardon.
Democrats have started to face backlash online after photographs emerged Thursday of National Guardsmen being forced to sleep in parking garages while also having minimal access to restrooms and other essential items.
The great gift this Christmas was that help was on the way. The vaccine was a welcome gift 10 months into the pandemic. It is no exaggeration that North Carolinaís vaccination rollout started poorly.
State health secretary Dr. Mandy Cohen updated N.C. residents on COVID-19 vaccinations Thursday, Jan. 21.

HbAD2

 
Back to Top