Read on Twitter
If I were a sitting on SCOTUS:
Texas' claim on Article II is that the Constitution mandates that only State Legislature can create laws as to how they select their Electors. The Defendants unconstitutionallly ignored their own State laws.
This is why the TX claim has merit:
Texas' claim on Article II is that the Constitution mandates that only State Legislature can create laws as to how they select their Electors. The Defendants unconstitutionallly ignored their own State laws.
This is why the TX claim has merit:
The first issue is standing.
Why should Texas have any stake in this matter (if they have no legal basis to raise the claim, it must be dismissed)?
1. In Bush v. Gore, J. Rehnquist made clear that the dilution of votes by counting illegally cast votes...
Why should Texas have any stake in this matter (if they have no legal basis to raise the claim, it must be dismissed)?
1. In Bush v. Gore, J. Rehnquist made clear that the dilution of votes by counting illegally cast votes...
... Is the equivalent of denying the right of suffrage altogether.
This statement does not merely apply to my vote or yours at an election. It applies to the votes of the Electors on 12/14.
This statement does not merely apply to my vote or yours at an election. It applies to the votes of the Electors on 12/14.
The illegally cast vote of an elector in the EC on 12/14, dilutes the vote of the other duly chosen electors.
THEY, the Texan Electors, are the ones whose suffrage rights are being stripped through dilution, if the electors of other States were chosen unconstitutionally.
THEY, the Texan Electors, are the ones whose suffrage rights are being stripped through dilution, if the electors of other States were chosen unconstitutionally.
To establish whether Texan Electors are being deprived of their rights of suffrage, Texas has a right and FULL STANDING to examine the constitutionality of how other States chose their Electors.
The next question is whether changes by election committees/officials to a States' election laws are unconstitutional.
Certainly, Legislatures must be allowed to give some latitude to individual agencies to oversee the areas of their jurisdiction. To think otherwise is absurd.
Certainly, Legislatures must be allowed to give some latitude to individual agencies to oversee the areas of their jurisdiction. To think otherwise is absurd.
Issues that are relatively minor must be delegated by legislatures for agents to effect properly. No agency, or legislature could function properly without that latitude.
However, unilateral sweeping changes to a State election system that:
1. Change the process from that which was codified by the State; or
2. Treat sections of the State law as a nullity;
Are unconstitutional as they no longer operate within the framework set by the State.
1. Change the process from that which was codified by the State; or
2. Treat sections of the State law as a nullity;
Are unconstitutional as they no longer operate within the framework set by the State.
Each of the States gave broad latitude to their respective Election committees.
We need to examine the extent of latitude granted State by State, to deem whether they stretched to the point of improperly bypassing legislature in violation of the Constitution.
MOTION GRANTED.
We need to examine the extent of latitude granted State by State, to deem whether they stretched to the point of improperly bypassing legislature in violation of the Constitution.
MOTION GRANTED.
Below is a video which may better explain my point about Texas' standing.
Hopefully, this point reached tjose people whose voice has more influence than my own.
Hopefully, this point reached tjose people whose voice has more influence than my own.
