Read on Twitter
1. As I interpret what they wrote, the lack of standing was not due to "state v. state" standing, but rather the nature of the claim raised. How is Texas injured other than the candidate they voted for was not the winner of the other 4 states? https://twitter.com/TheTropaion/status/1337843257171202049
What is the state's interest in a particular party's candidate winning the Presidency?
2. My biggest issue with the approach was always whether it was a "political question" and not a legal issue. At the core of the dispute is who should be the Electors from Georgia.
2. My biggest issue with the approach was always whether it was a "political question" and not a legal issue. At the core of the dispute is who should be the Electors from Georgia.
The Legis can name a competing slate if they disagree with the Gov's certification. Two slates can go to the EC. When the votes are counted in the Joint Session, and a member of the House and Senator objects--which they will--the two chambers adjorn and debate the objection.
If the two chambers disagree as to which slate of Electors is valid and which is invalid, the Gov's certified slate is counted.
So there is a process for resolving in Congress a dispute that comes out of the State re the slate of electors named. It is a "political" solution.
So there is a process for resolving in Congress a dispute that comes out of the State re the slate of electors named. It is a "political" solution.
Which suggests the problem of two competing slates of Electors -- regardless of the cause -- is a "political problem" left to Congress to resolve. That makes it a "political question" not appropriate for a judicial solution.
