Not sure what order they will hear them in (or if they will hear either), but the claims are different.
As I understand it, Kelly’s is largely based on state constitutional grounds, arguing that PA cannot alter mail-in ballot rules without a state constitutional process. This is probably false, as the Electors Clause (the focus of the TX suit) dictates that state legislatures have plenary power over the presidential election in their respective states. State constitutions cannot override this power. Of course, by the same rule, any body other than the state legislature could not modify the mail-in ballot rules without the legislature’s approval.
The TX lawsuit is Electors Clause/Equal Protection/Due Process based.
Not sure what order they will hear them in (or if they will hear either), but the claims are different.
As I understand it, Kelly’s is largely based on state constitutional grounds, arguing that PA cannot alter mail-in ballot rules without a state constitutional process. This is probably false, as the Electors Clause (the focus of the TX suit) dictates that state legislatures have plenary power over the presidential election in their respective states. State constitutions cannot override this power. Of course, by the same rule, any body other than the state legislature could not modify the mail-in ballot rules without the legislature’s approval.
The TX lawsuit is Electors Clause/Equal Protection/Due Process based.