Texas Supreme Court rejects GOP bid to void 127,000 votes

[mystery-ak]

Texas Supreme Court rejects GOP bid to void 127,000 votes
By Justine Coleman - 11/01/20 02:58 PM EST

The Texas Supreme Court on Sunday rejected a GOP bid to void more than 100,000 votes in largely-Democratic Harris County.

The state’s all-Republican Supreme Court issued an opinion without comment two days before the election that denied Republicans' request to throw out almost 127,000 ballots cast at drive-thru early voting locations in Houston.

The court had denied a similar lawsuit last month.


But Sunday’s court ruling does not definitively resolve the matter since a federal judge will hear a similar case from the same group of Republicans in an emergency hearing on Monday.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, committed on Friday to hearing the case which could result in about 10 percent of all in-person early voting ballots in the county not counting, The Texas Tribune reported.

Both lawsuits revolve around Harris County’s creation of 10 drive-thru locations for residents to vote while staying in their cars instead of entering polling places and potentially spreading or catching coronavirus.

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/523861-texas-supreme-court-rejects-gop-bid-to-void-100000-votes

[libertybele]

Question -- suppose the contesting of ballots goes on beyond the time that either Trump or Biden is supposed to be sworn in -- does Trump remain in power until things are settled through the courts??

[Fishrrman]

bele asked:
"Question -- suppose the contesting of ballots goes on beyond the time that either Trump or Biden is supposed to be sworn in -- does Trump remain in power until things are settled through the courts??"

This will not happen.
Who will become the next president will be decided on December 14, when the Electoral College meets and casts its votes.

States will either have a slate of electors ready by that time to send to the E.C. or...
... they won't.

If they DO NOT present a slate of electors on December 14, the vote will still take place, but WITHOUT the electors from states that did not send them.

A question will then arise as to "what constitutes a majority of votes" by which to elect the president.
Will it be a "majority of those electors present"?
Or... must it still be "270" (which would be the majority if EVERY state presented electors).
This question is not resolved, and I sense it may need to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the electoral process gets totally bogged down in a state... let's say Pennsylvania... so that December 14 is approaching and there's still no resolution regarding "who won", then I'm wondering if the state legislature will take matters into its own hands and put forth a slate of electors in lieu of those that would have otherwise been determined by the election.

They have the right to do this under The Constitution.
The governor of a state has NO ROLE in such process.
Nor do the courts of that state.
It is strictly up to the legislature.

I can't remember this happening in my memory, but considering the way things are going this year with the mail-in ballot buffoonery, who knows...?