The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge

[mystery-ak]

December 9, 2020
The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge
By Andrea Widburg

On Tuesday, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  The suit alleged that because these states conducted elections that violated their own laws, they tainted the integrity of the vote, something that damaged not only their own citizens, but also the citizens in other states.  Because this is an intelligent, powerful case, it's no surprise that eight other states have already joined the litigation.

To date, we've seen a multiplicity of lawsuits filed, although, significantly, none has come before the Supreme Court for substantive review.  Courts in various states, however, have proven resistant to these suits.

As I noted here, partisan judges are issuing what I will politely call "garbage" decisions.  Judges are refusing to consider the evidence, with only one Nevada court attempting to do so.  Instead, they make variations of the argument that, if courts were to consider Trump's claims, they would run the risk of "disenfranchising" Biden voters.

That is a singularly dishonest argument.  Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote.  No one was deprived here.  What Trump is doing, with his request that every legal vote count, is asking that courts invalidate illegal votes.  You cannot disenfranchise an illegal voter, whether that "voter" is dead, a computer algorithm, or a form filled out in a Chinese print shop.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/the_texas_lawsuit_in_the_supreme_court_is_huge.html

[jafo2010]

Suffice to say, if this election stands with Biden the winner, then the sovereignty of the USA no longer exists.  Elections mean nothing if our elections operate like the elections in Russia that keep a dictator in power.  There is no difference.  And this act should not have the Supreme Court hesitant to make a ruling on this extreme criminal act of treason. 

In a nation without justice, what does one expect? 

In Georgia, we have one of the Democommie candidates for senator running ads asking to release our children from prison.  Yes, all those good boys in prison for NO DAMN REASON!!!  What has happened to simple common sense?
 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Suffice to say, if this election stands with Biden the winner, then the sovereignty of the USA no longer exists.  Elections mean nothing if our elections operate like the elections in Russia that keep a dictator in power.  There is no difference.  And this act should not have the Supreme Court hesitant to make a ruling on this extreme criminal act of treason. 

In a nation without justice, what does one expect? 

In Georgia, we have one of the Democommie candidates for senator running ads asking to release our children from prison.  Yes, all those good boys in prison for NO DAMN REASON!!!  What has happened to simple common sense?
 

Ramification if election stands

[Victoria33]

@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
@libertybele
@Jazzhead
ALL

Texas does not have the right to challenge another state's election.  States set their own laws/rules.

NOW, here is what this lawsuit is about, and the states cannot do what they did, but they did it anyway:
Some state officials, mainly the Secretary of State since elections in most states are run by the Secretary of State, Elections Division, changed their rules for mail ballots, just before the election happened.  They cannot do that - the law must be changed by the state legislature in order for it to be law.  If you remember, the rules for issuing mail ballots, the time to get the ballots in, the order not to check signatures, etc., all these things were done illegally.

Honestly, the Secretary of State, Elections Division, cannot change the rules/laws on their own.  But, the State of Texas, cannot sue those states.  I have no idea how this will turn out but I see no way Texas can take these states to The Supreme Court.  Now, if the Supreme Court takes the case, then I am wrong; they can take any case they want.

[Cyber Liberty]

An argument can be made (but probably not in court) that allowing cheating by one state that gives people more than 1.000 votes violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Honest states that give people exactly one vote per citizen had their votes diluted by the outlaw states.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
@libertybele
@Jazzhead
ALL

Texas does not have the right to challenge another state's election.  States set their own laws/rules.

NOW, here is what this lawsuit is about, and the states cannot do what they did, but they did it anyway:
Some state officials, mainly the Secretary of State since elections in most states are run by the Secretary of State, Elections Division, changed their rules for mail ballots, just before the election happened.  They cannot do that - the law must be changed by the state legislature in order for it to be law.  If you remember, the rules for issuing mail ballots, the time to get the ballots in, the order not to check signatures, etc., all these things were done illegally.

Honestly, the Secretary of State, Elections Division, cannot change the rules/laws on their own.  But, the State of Texas, cannot sue those states.  I have no idea how this will turn out but I see no way Texas can take these states to The Supreme Court. Now, if the Supreme Court takes the case, then I am wrong; they can take any case they want.

Incorrect.  They set their own rules IF those rules abide by the US and State Constitutions.

And BTW, it already went to Scotus.

You sound a bit more authoritative than what you truly are.

[Victoria33]

Incorrect.  They set their own rules IF those rules abide by the US and State Constitutions.

@IsailedawayfromFR

Of course state election laws must abide by the US and State Constitution.

[Cyber Liberty]

@IsailedawayfromFR

Of course state election laws must abide by the US and State Constitution.

The US Constitution requires State Legislatures to set election laws, not single people like a Governor or top elections officials (most commonly Secretaries of State).  In the cases of the four Defendant states, election laws were changed without Legislative approval.

BTW, the SCOTUS has docketed the TX case, so it will be heard.  How fully is anybody's guess.

[libertybele]

@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
@libertybele
@Jazzhead
ALL

Texas does not have the right to challenge another state's election.  States set their own laws/rules.

NOW, here is what this lawsuit is about, and the states cannot do what they did, but they did it anyway:
Some state officials, mainly the Secretary of State since elections in most states are run by the Secretary of State, Elections Division, changed their rules for mail ballots, just before the election happened.  They cannot do that - the law must be changed by the state legislature in order for it to be law.  If you remember, the rules for issuing mail ballots, the time to get the ballots in, the order not to check signatures, etc., all these things were done illegally.

Honestly, the Secretary of State, Elections Division, cannot change the rules/laws on their own.  But, the State of Texas, cannot sue those states.  I have no idea how this will turn out but I see no way Texas can take these states to The Supreme Court.  Now, if the Supreme Court takes the case, then I am wrong; they can take any case they want.

I could be wrong but I don't think that they are challenging another state's election laws but are challenging the fraud and corruption that took place and perhaps even proving that there "practices" did not follow the Constitution, impacting the election results which obviously have an impact on the entire country, including TX.

I also have some doubt that they would file a lawsuit if there was not some validity to the suit, nor would other states follow suit.

I have not read the lawsuit that TX has filed @Victoria33 have you seen it??

[Cyber Liberty]

I could be wrong but I don't think that they are challenging another state's election laws but are challenging the fraud and corruption that took place and perhaps even proving that there "practices" did not follow the Constitution, impacting the election results which obviously have an impact on the entire country, including TX.

I also have some doubt that they would file a lawsuit if there was not some validity to the suit, nor would other states follow suit.

I have not read the lawsuit that TX has filed @Victoria33 have you seen it??

AFAIK, Texas is not making the case for fraud, but that won't stop Roberts from ruling against TX because fraud was not proven.  It'll be just like the O'Bastardcare decision years ago, when he revealed he's really David Souter in disguise.  He made up an argument that was not being made, and then he burned down that straw man.  That was blatantly unfair, because the parties never had a chance to argue if O'care is a "tax" and not a "penalty."  The Plaintiffs never got a chance to dispute it.  It's like going to court to fight a speeding ticket, and the Judge rules out of the blue you're guilty of Manslaughter because a murder happened on the street on which you were driving.

The case they are making is the Defendant States' election laws were changed in a manner that's unconstitutional, both US Constitution and the states' constitutions.

[Bigun]

@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
@libertybele
@Jazzhead
ALL

Texas does not have the right to challenge another state's election.  States set their own laws/rules.

NOW, here is what this lawsuit is about, and the states cannot do what they did, but they did it anyway:
Some state officials, mainly the Secretary of State since elections in most states are run by the Secretary of State, Elections Division, changed their rules for mail ballots, just before the election happened.  They cannot do that - the law must be changed by the state legislature in order for it to be law.  If you remember, the rules for issuing mail ballots, the time to get the ballots in, the order not to check signatures, etc., all these things were done illegally.

Honestly, the Secretary of State, Elections Division, cannot change the rules/laws on their own.  But, the State of Texas, cannot sue those states.  I have no idea how this will turn out but I see no way Texas can take these states to The Supreme Court.  Now, if the Supreme Court takes the case, then I am wrong; they can take any case they want.

That and this!

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...

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html

That does not say a damned word about Governors, or Secretary of States! And you are definitely wrong! Where else do you imagine states can go to get the Constitution enforced?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Honestly, the Secretary of State, Elections Division, cannot change the rules/laws on their own.  But, the State of Texas, cannot sue those states.  I have no idea how this will turn out but I see no way Texas can take these states to The Supreme Court. 

I could be wrong but I don't think that they are challenging another state's election laws but are challenging the fraud and corruption that took place

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.

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause of the US Constitution 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.

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. 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/


@Victoria33
@libertybele

[Victoria33]

I could be wrong but I don't think that they are challenging another state's election laws but are challenging the fraud and corruption that took place and perhaps even proving that there "practices" did not follow the Constitution, impacting the election results which obviously have an impact on the entire country, including TX.

@libertybele

The suit is due to some states not following their election laws.  They made up new rules for mail ballots, instead of writing new law for their legislature to pass or not pass. 

As I saw states doing this, I wondered what I would have done if I was told by one or more county officials, they were changing date for mail ballots to come in and told me not to have my Board compare signatures.  I would have raised hell, called the State Election Administrator in Austin, Texas, immediately (I knew her), and would have gone to the county newspaper for headlines about them (using their names) violating state law.  When I started as Judge of the Early Voting Ballot Board, all those county officer people were Democrats.  When I first became that Judge and the county courthouse Democrats, including the District Attorney, tried to remove me from that job, they found out I knew the law and they did not, so they left me alone after that one try to remove me.

The number of states signing on to this is 17 or 18 or 19 including Trump who has signed onto it.  I heard about this suit when only the Texas Attorney General was on the suit. The states signed on really fast, like last night and this morning, so the number is changing.  With many states on the suit now, the Supreme Court may be pressured to take this case.

I am just seeing Trump on TV right now going on about this lawsuit.  I wish he would shut up - he is likely to start calling the members of the Supreme Court nasty names.  Since he put new members on the court, he likely thinks they are his "buddies" to vote for whatever he wants.

I'll check now to see if the Supreme Court has made their decision to take or not take, it.

[Victoria33]

That does not say a damned word about Governors, or Secretary of States! And you are definitely wrong! Where else do you imagine states can go to get the Constitution enforced?

@Bigun

The question was, for me, can Texas sue states?  If the Supreme Court takes the case, then states can sue other states.

[Elderberry]

@Bigun

The question was, for me, can Texas sue states?  If the Supreme Court takes the case, then states can sue other states.

@Victoria33

https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-state-party

Jurisdiction: State as a Party

Article III of the Constitution extends the judicial power to "Controversies between two or more States, between a State and Citizens of another State . . ., and between a State . . . and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects," and provides that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in cases where a state shall be a party. The Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction only in suits between two or more states, with the remainder of state party suits left concurrent with other courts. The 1789 statute did not expressly include state party suits in the grant of jurisdiction to the U.S. district or circuit courts, however.

[Bigun]

@Victoria33

https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-state-party

Jurisdiction: State as a Party

Thanks @Elderberry saved me a bit of typing. But the Constitution itself is quite clear on the matter regardless of any legislative act.

Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2
The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make...

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/

[Elderberry]

States sue other states all the time.  California vs Texas over the ACA was recently in the news.

And I missed Texas vs California.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Bigun

The question was, for me, can Texas sue states? 

 @Victoria33 

Yes, States can sue States.  See:  Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution

Examples of previous suits between states include Border Disputes and Water Rights.  More examples can be found here:  https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII_S2_C1_2_4/

[Jazzhead]

An argument can be made (but probably not in court) that allowing cheating by one state that gives people more than 1.000 votes violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Honest states that give people exactly one vote per citizen had their votes diluted by the outlaw states.

That's how I would argue it, as a violation of the law's equal protection.    But whether the Constitution's equal protection guarantee applies to the States as sovereign actors is the $64,000 question.   I strongly suspect it does not, and like @Victoria33 says,  each state is free to devise its own laws.  If that's the case, the violation in Pennsy took place at the level of the Commonwealth's constitution,  not the federal one.  And the problem there is that the PA Supreme Court is demonstrably partisan.

[Right_in_Virginia]

and like @Victoria33 says,  each state is free to devise its own laws.

But those laws must comply with the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. @Jazzhead

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause of the US Constitution 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.

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. 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/

[Right_in_Virginia]

Motion to Intervene filed by States of Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah!!!

Here:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163322/20201210115500103_2020-12-10%20-%20Motion%20to%20Intervene%20and%20Proposed%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20-%20Final%20With%20Tables.pdf

Interventions:  6 states and POTUS

Amicus Briefs:  18 states

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR

Of course state election laws must abide by the US and State Constitution.

Then we are ok

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I could be wrong but I don't think that they are challenging another state's election laws but are challenging the fraud and corruption that took place and perhaps even proving that there "practices" did not follow the Constitution, impacting the election results which obviously have an impact on the entire country, including TX.

I also have some doubt that they would file a lawsuit if there was not some validity to the suit, nor would other states follow suit.

I have not read the lawsuit that TX has filed @Victoria33 have you seen it??

A detailed synopsis

Pennsylvania

Facts:

Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump - margin 81,597.
Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.
Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.
Violations of Election Law:

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

Ballots with no mailed date: 9,005 (no evidence they were sent to a voter)
Ballots returned on or before the mailed date: 58,221
Ballots returned one day after the mailed date: 51,200 (Perhaps not impossible, but highly unlikely for the average voter to receive a ballot, fill it out, place it in the mail and have it returned the next day.)
On Nov 2, the day before the election, PA reports that 2.7 million ballots had been sent out.  On Nov 4 that number had increased to 3.1 million -- an increase of 400,000 mail-in ballots at election time with literally no reasonable chance of them being used by legitimate voters.
Georgia

Facts:

Vote Tally: 2,472,098 for Biden and 2,458,121 for Trump - margin 12,670.
Mail-in ballots: 65.32% for Biden and 34.68% for Trump.
Mail-in ballots increased from 213,033 in 2016 to 1,305,659 in 2020.
Violations of Election Law:

The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
The Secretary of State authorized opening and processing mail-in ballots up to three weeks before election day when the law prohibits that until after the polls open on election day.
The Secretary of State materially weakened the security requirements for ballot rejection based on signature verification or other missing information.
Evidence of Fraud:

Mail-in ballot rejection rate for missing or inaccurate information or for non-matching signatures decreased from 6.42% in 2016 to .36% in 2020.  Rejecting 2020 ballots at the same rate as 2016 would have resulted in a net gain of 25,587 votes for Trump – twice the number needed to overcome Biden’s count.  With a six-fold increase in the number of mail-in ballots, reason would indicate that the rejection rate would increase, or at least stay the same, with so many first-time mail-in ballots.
Michigan

Facts:

Vote Tally: 2,796,702 for Biden and 2,650,695 for Trump - margin 146,007.
In 2016 587,618 voters requested mail-in ballots.  In 2020 3.2 million votes were cast by mail-in ballot.
Democrats voted by mail at a rate approximately two times that of Republican voters.
Violations of Election Law:

The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
Local election officials in Wayne County -- containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump -- opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.
Evidence of Fraud:

174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.
Wisconsin

Facts:

Vote Tally: 1,630,716 for Biden and 1,610,151 for Trump - margin 20,565.
Mail-in ballots increased from 146,932 in 2016 to 1,275,019 in 2020.
Violations of Election Law:

The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) positioned hundreds of unmanned illegal drop boxes to collect absentee ballots.  (The use of any drop box, manned or unmanned, is directly prohibited by Wisconsin statute.  Any alternate mail-in ballot site “shall be staffed by the municipal clerk or the executive director of the board of election commissioners…”  “Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election.”)
The WEC encouraged voters to unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely confined” in order to avoid security measures like signature verification and photo ID requirements.  Nearly 216,000 voters said they were indefinitely confined in the 2020 election, nearly four times as many as in 2016.
Strict laws requiring mail-in voters to certify by signature including the signature of an adult witness were ignored or circumvented by election officials.
Evidence of Fraud:

One hundred thousand ballots were supposedly missing and directed to be “found” after election day.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/a_summary_of_texas_election_lawsuit_.html

[Victoria33]

@Cyber Liberty
@Jazzhead

Yes, I know state boundaries and water/other natural resources between the states can be argued at the Supreme Court as that is our highest court. 

This case pursuit is different - it is about words and the actions those words cause.  In this case, words written and passed by a state legislature as an election law must be followed in an election.  Words written by a county individual or individuals, right before or after voting starts, are just that - words - not laws - but these counties followed these words instead of the laws passed by the legislature.  That is illegal.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Bigun

The question was, for me, can Texas sue states?  If the Supreme Court takes the case, then states can sue other states.

Of course they can sue each other.

Are you saying a state is immune from suits due to sovereignty?  If you are, then that is flat wrong.