Texas Election Lawsuit added to Supreme Court Docket

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joy01 said:
The USSC in 1964 used the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to invalidate how states elected their own state senators (Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533).
Click to expand...
That’s STATE senators vs.STATE senators; states should have equal districts so each district has the same number of people electing a senator. That was not an interstate matter. The instant case is not an equal protection situation.

As stated in Reynolds “Our problem, then, is to ascertain, in the instant cases, whether there are any constitutionally cognizable principles which would justify departures from the basic standard of equality among voters in the apportionment of seats in state legislatures.” Id at 561.
 
Last edited:
TX absolutely does have standing and standing to sue PA, WI, MI and any other state that violated Constitutional laws. There is case law to support such.

There have been a couple of recent cases, dealing with interstate commerce, where the courts have ruled that internal restrictions by individual states are unconstitutional if they interfere with the right of citizens of other states to engage in interstate commerce. National issues, protected by the US Constitution override any state’s rights issue.

I hate to keep repeating this, but we are dealing with a national election for national office. And, we have significant evidence to strongly suggest that illegal activities, by state agents in six political subdivisions of five states, resulted in one candidate being illegally denied election to the office in question. To allow the current results, from these jurisdictions to stand, without confirmation, illegally disenfranchises the entire electorate in this country. That is the issue. Essentially, these locales accomplish exactly what the Electoral College was designed to eliminate, domination of the election for President by a few states.

I’m glad that you brought up CORONA virus actions by individual states. In the US, citizens have the right of unrestricted travel from one state to another, especially in pursuit of interstate commerce. So, it seems that denying a person to travel into or through a state because they do not have a current negative test for the virus would raise a huge red flag. What would happen if all surrounding states denied interstate truckers the ability to exit NY until they had completed a 14 day quarantine period? How many truckers would enter NY to deliver food and goods? And what would this do to regional interstate commerce? Citizens of this nation have certain rights which are guaranteed across individual state lines by the Constitution. There was a very good reason for that.
 
Last edited:
Joy01 said:
TX absolutely does have standing and standing to sue PA, WI, MI and any other state that violated Constitutional laws. There is case law to support such.
Click to expand...
Well, we’ll see. TX needs a dog in the fight in order to sue. Or it should sue those states in their state courts.
 
Joy01 said:
There have been a couple of recent cases, dealing with interstate commerce, where the courts have ruled that internal restrictions by individual states are unconstitutional if they interfere with the right of citizens of other states to engage in interstate commerce. National issues, protected by the US Constitution override any state’s rights issue.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t address standing, nor are those citations.
Joy01 said:
Citizens of this nation have certain rights which are guaranteed across individual state lines by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Yup. The individual whose rights have been violated have standing in those cases. The state of Texas hasn’t been harmed. It is the state that is suing - as a corporate entity - not its citizens. Huge difference.
 
Procedurally it is very clear under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution that the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction extends to “controversies between two or more states,” and the controversy alleged by Texas here is that by virtue of the illegal election practices in these 4 states, Texas voters were disenfranchised in their efforts to honestly elect a president in a national election. The citations can be found in the filing, along with as mentioned recent interstate cases between states. If the voters of Texas were disenfranchised due to the unconstitutional actions by other states, then why wouldn’t Texas have standing?

What was the primary question in Bush v. Gore? (Hint: it was the right of the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes about the Presidential electors clause). You know who said there is a right to sue to enforce the electors’ clause of the Constitution? The U.S. Supreme Court. The key Q: "whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, § 1, cl. 2.
 
Last edited:
How are the election procedures in question illegal?
 
Last edited:
Joy01 said:
If the voters of Texas were disenfranchised due to the unconstitutional actions by other states, then why wouldn’t Texas have standing?
Click to expand...
You don’t know what standing is.

Standing is (very briefly): “In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/it is or will “imminently” be harmed by the law.”

Texas, simply, lacks this because how another state makes its laws and elections procedures cannot cause harm to TEXAS (not the citizens of Texas, but Texas as a corporate entity).

If your argument holds water, then California could sue Texas for limiting ballot drop off boxes. That would have inflicted the same harm on California that Texas is alleging has befallen it.

In Bush v Gore, standing wasn’t an issue because Bush and Gore both had proper standing. Florida wasn’t suing on Bush’s behalf (which is what Texas is doing).
 
The Michigan AG Dana Nessel on MSNBC:

“Let me speak directly to (attorney) General Paxton if he’s watching. You know who voted for you in Michigan, General Paxton? No one. Literally no one. So, stay in your lane and stick to trying to disenfranchise voters in your own state. Don’t cone to mine.”
 
Texas says: "The citizens of Plaintiff State have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing Presidential Electors to the Electoral College. …

Through that interest, Plaintiff State suffers an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election."

That’s just laughable. TX is injured because another state cooks the books so TX does not get the vice president it wanted? That injury is illusory and it is used to bootstrap the contention that this is an argument BETWEEN states. It is not.
 
I know what standing it.

They’re asserting that the other states violated the agreement of all states to adhere to the same constitutional principles. That gives TX standing. It might be rejected or dismissed, but TX can legally claim standing.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Joy01 said:
the controversy alleged by Texas here is that by virtue of the illegal election practices in these 4 states, Texas voters were disenfranchised in their efforts to honestly elect a president in a national election.
Click to expand...
And the lawsuit will be tossed because the allegations aren’t true. Texas voters haven’t been disenfranchised, their electors are going to vote in the electoral college vote.
 
billsherman said:
I’m genuinely curious: do you think schools of jurisprudence truly exist as (semi) objective frameworks of interpretation, or that they are just convenient ways for judges to give their political beliefs a greater degree of legitimacy?

I ask because I’ve always thought that if schools of jurisprudence were “real,” we would have far more decisions that stray away from the two-party dichotomy. As it stands, almost every constitutional case is decided in a way that appears to fit with one party’s view.
Click to expand...
Good question. I was thinking of politicians and other partisan folks who invoke “judicial activism” when I wrote that. When it comes to judges, I do think schools of jurisprudence truly exist as frameworks of interpretation and are often applied neutrally for non-controversial cases.

However, I think your second paragraph is exactly right when it comes to hot-button social issues (such as same-sex marriage) which have no obviously correct legal answer. These things shouldn’t be decided by courts IMO; it should be the legislative branch. For many (most?) legal issues, you can apply various schools of jurisprudence and come up with obviously correct answers - I say obvious because the rulings will often be 9-0 or 8-1, regardless of the party makeup of the judges.
 
Election law professors predicting Texas’ case won’t go anywhere:


I found this theory particularly interesting; I’ll remember this if a pardon happens…

[Law prof Jonathan] Adler said it is possible that Paxton brought the case in the hopes of getting a presidential pardon from Trump. Paxton faces allegations in Texas of bribery and abuse of his office to benefit a political donor, according to local media.

“It is fairly clear that one way you get a pardon is you rally to the president’s defense,” Adler said.
 
Last edited:
tomarin said:
And to what end, really? Either they know they lost but are doing it to raise money, or they have completely lost their grip on reality.
Click to expand...
He’s raising money off of it. Why anyone else is going along with this nonsense is a puzzlement. Well, aside from those playing up to Trump in hopes of a pardon, of course.
 
Wampa said:
I found this theory particularly interesting; I’ll remember this if a pardon happens…
Click to expand...
As a Texan who is, unfortunately, far too familiar with Paxton, I can promise you that’s exactly his motive.
 
Joy01 said:
They’re asserting that the other states violated the agreement of all states to adhere to the same constitutional principles.
Click to expand...
They can say what they want. When was this agreement signed by any state? You are wrong on the law.
puer.dei said:
As a Texan who is, unfortunately, far too familiar with Paxton, I can promise you that’s exactly his motive.
Click to expand...
He can only be pardoned by Trump for federal offenses and the state seems to be after him.
 
Last edited:
Joy01 said:
That gives TX standing. It might be rejected or dismissed, but TX can legally claim standing.
Click to expand...
Huh? I can’t sue when someone else has their constitutional rights violated. Texas says that other states violated the Constitution. How did that harm Texas? Couldn’t another state just have voters that differed from what Texas voters cast their lot for? Texas says it was harmed because its electors have less drag.

Tough noogies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top