Read on Twitter
Goddamn it, Texas, I don't have time for this today.
Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).
Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).
OK. Texas filed a motion for leave to file a complaint against PA, GA, MI and WI in the Supreme Court. Someone else can lawsplain to you how that works, or you can google the highlighted rules, but briefly, this is a thing they can theoretically do
There is a MASSIVE contradiction at the heart of this complaint, and its doomed for other reasons, too (standing, laches, abstention)
They have three theories for why they can sue:
1) Violation of the Electors Clause of the Constitution ("the Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive control of the manner of selecting electors and judicial action can't change it)
2) "Counties applied different rules"
1) Violation of the Electors Clause of the Constitution ("the Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive control of the manner of selecting electors and judicial action can't change it)
2) "Counties applied different rules"
And 3) "you didn't have as strict voter ID requirements as we'd like, and that's unconstitutional for reasons"
That's it. That's the case
That's it. That's the case
They're also leaning into "every violation of state election law is a violation of the constitution" which will fly like a lead balloon
OK, on to the Complaint
And the contradiction.
The core of their complaint is that when the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to direct the "Manner" of appointing electors, that right is exclusive, and the "Manner" set by the legislature can't be varied *at all* by courts or executives
The core of their complaint is that when the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to direct the "Manner" of appointing electors, that right is exclusive, and the "Manner" set by the legislature can't be varied *at all* by courts or executives
So what relief do they want? "SCOTUS, please extend December 14th voting date for presidential electors, which Congress set by statute"
The 14th, btw, is NOT the deadline for "appointing" electors. The statutory deadline for appointing electors is Nov 3 (Election Day). (Everything that happens after election day, including later certifications, is just determining *who* was appointed that day, by the election)
The 14th is the day that Congress, by statute, set for the appointed electors to actually vote for President
But the Constitution - in the very same section that says State Legislatures decide the "Manner" in which Electors are appointed - also says this:
This creates 2 problems for Texas and Trumpian Dead-Enders.
First, Congress already set the day for choosing electors as November 3. No state can choose electors on any subsequent date
First, Congress already set the day for choosing electors as November 3. No state can choose electors on any subsequent date
Second, Congress set the date for the vote as 12/14.
And if the delegation of "Manner" to state legislatures means that state courts can't, for example, extend ballot receipt deadlines because the delegation is EXCLUSIVE and only state legislatures can set those rules, then ...
And if the delegation of "Manner" to state legislatures means that state courts can't, for example, extend ballot receipt deadlines because the delegation is EXCLUSIVE and only state legislatures can set those rules, then ...
The delegation of "Time" to Congress must - must, no way around it - ALSO be exclusive, meaning the Supreme Court would have no authority AT ALL to extend the December 14th date, either
Either they're both exclusive (in which case SCOTUS can't grant the requested relief) or they are both subject to judicial oversight (in which case Texas's substantive claim is doomed). There's no third option
Texas then adopts the crazy conspiracy theories that have already been presented to and repeatedly rejected by other courts around the country.
Holy fuck they didn't
They did. They fucking did
These fucking guys. The declaration is not yet available, but I guarantee - I fucking guarantee - that he calculated this as though the population of votes being tabulated after 3am in those states was identical to the population tabulated earlier. Assholes.
Cicchetti, btw, is a real guy.
In *finance*. He has no known expertise in elections or voting, based on his own expert bio page https://www.thinkbrg.com/people/charles-cicchetti/
In *finance*. He has no known expertise in elections or voting, based on his own expert bio page https://www.thinkbrg.com/people/charles-cicchetti/
I can't even begin to tell you how *professionally* incensed I am by this nonsense. Even aside from the damage to the country, how the fuck does any lawyer with a competent bone in their body sign their name to this garbage?
Also, what the hell is this nonsense?
This is the text of the Elections Clause they are referring to. It is *expressly and unambiguously* limited to elections for the House and Senate
How coked-up do you have to be to even conceive of making the argument that maybe it also applies to choosing Presidential Electors?
How coked-up do you have to be to even conceive of making the argument that maybe it also applies to choosing Presidential Electors?
"Textually applies"
"Textually"
Fuck out of here with that
"Textually"
Fuck out of here with that
Fade in to Texas AG's office:
Ken Paxton: What if we argue the Elections clause applies to choosing Presidential Electors? Then state legislatures get to choose Time, Place, AND Manner!
Associate AG: But it doesn't?
KP: But we can say it does!
Ken Paxton: What if we argue the Elections clause applies to choosing Presidential Electors? Then state legislatures get to choose Time, Place, AND Manner!
Associate AG: But it doesn't?
KP: But we can say it does!
AAG: How?
KP: Legislative history?
AAG *mumbling to himself*: It's the Constitution, not a statute, you moron
KP: What?
AAG: Nothing. Look, they're all textualists now, that's not gonna fly
KP: Perfect. We'll say it applies ... textually
AAG:
KP: Legislative history?
AAG *mumbling to himself*: It's the Constitution, not a statute, you moron
KP: What?
AAG: Nothing. Look, they're all textualists now, that's not gonna fly
KP: Perfect. We'll say it applies ... textually
AAG:
Second AAG, quietly, to first AAG:
Now Texas argues that voters across the country have standing to challenge any alleged election law violation anywhere in the country.
This is the #Squidigation standing argument on not steroids but fucking gamma rays
This is the #Squidigation standing argument on not steroids but fucking gamma rays
No, really, this is their argument
I'm not going paragraph by paragraph through this thing; like I said, don't have time today. But that's the intro and the foundation of their claim, which is absolutely insane. I'll come back with more analysis later if nobody else has
