The response by Texas to these arguments is tantamount to a smackdown
.....A State’s Electors are to be appointed “in
such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.â€
U.S. Const, art. II, § 1, cl. 2. “[T]he state legislature’s
power to select the manner for appointing electors is
plenary.†Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000) (“Bush
IIâ€). A precursor to Pennsylvania’s argument was
addressed by Justice Rehnquist in Bush II, when he
pointed out that the Elector’s Clause did not permit
the Florida Supreme Court to modify the plain terms
of Florida law. He acknowledged this Court’s general
deference to state courts in interpreting state law.
“But, with respect to a Presidential election, the
[state] court must be both mindful of the legislature’s
role under Article II in choosing the manner of
appointing electors and deferential to those bodies
expressly empowered by the legislature to carry out
its constitutional mandate.†Id. at 114 (Rehnquist,
C.J., concurring). As he observed, “This inquiry does
not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a
respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state
legislatures.†Id. at 115 (emphasis in original).
Because the state court “significantly departed from
the statutory framework,†its holding could not stand.
Id. at 122. In the instant case, the Pennsylvania
legislature’s statutory deadline was expressed in
unmistakably plain terms: “a completed absentee
ballot must be received in the office of the county
board of elections no later than eight o’clock P.M. on
the day of the primary or election.†25 P.S. § 3146.6(c).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s addition of three
days after the election was a direct and significant
departure from the statutory framework.
Acknowledging that I'm a legal layman, this seems to be a very clear cite of both the US Constitution and directly relevant SCOTUS precedent. I don't see how SCOTUS could refuse to consider the case, nor how they could ignore Constitution and precedent in a decision.
The Ds worked themselves into high dudgeon over precedent during recent USSC Justice confirmation hearings, when they wanted to make
Roe the context. If R operatives had any sense they'd be showing videos of those D Senators appealing to the sanctity of precedent superimposed on a summary of the specific precedent cited here.
