Read on Twitter
Re the Texas case -- consider what the options would be for states aggrieved by the following facts:
States 1-20 are all governed by elected officials of Party X.
States 1-20 collectively represent 280 Electoral votes.
Elected officials in States 1-20 meet as a group.
States 1-20 are all governed by elected officials of Party X.
States 1-20 collectively represent 280 Electoral votes.
Elected officials in States 1-20 meet as a group.
As a group they agree to adopt election procedures that are intended and designed to insure that Party X continues to have control over the institutions of the state, including control of each state's election apparatus.
With control of the election apparatus they adopt rules and procedures that maximize the accumulation of votes favoring Party X such that they are certain each state's electoral votes will all be cast in favor of the Presidential Candidate of Party X, including acting in secret.
What legal options are available to States 21 to 50 to compel States 1-20 to conduct an election process that is fair and transparent where the ability of States 21 to 50 to have a meaningful say in the outcome of the nationwide election of POTUS and VP?
Are States 21 to 50 forced to endure such a predetermined state of affairs in perpetuity -- where the uncontested facts are that the outcome every four years is being engineered by Party X to the benefit of Party X?
If not, then the Supreme Court has a role to play in managing a dispute between states over the fairness of each state's execution of its Constitutional obligations to conduct elections for the two national offices in a fair and competent manner.
Are States whose electoral votes are cast for the nominally losing candidate in a national race powerless to contest the incompetent manner in which other states conduct their election in a national race?
This is the theory behind the suit filed by Texas.
States have an obligation to defend their conduct to other states where other states are aggrieved by their incompetence.
States have an obligation to defend their conduct to other states where other states are aggrieved by their incompetence.
