if SCOTUS says it is okay for non-legislative bodies to change election laws for a state then all states are injured (not just Texas and those joining them). All states are harmed by the ruling because it sets the precedent that every sec of state, and every supreme court, and every governor can change their election laws at any time without consent of the Constitutionally appointed authorities over election laws.
I simply can not see a way SCOTUS can rule against Texas here. Thus, they only have two options before them: Side with Texas or find some way to dismiss the the lawsuit on a technicality.
And there again, I do not see how they can dismiss the lawsuit on a technicality, and essentially deny Texas (et al) the chance to go to the one and only non-military option available to them in the Constitution to resolve a state-to-state dispute.
This lawsuit is as close to perfect as one can get. The court must either agree with Texas, or they commit one of two sins: deny the constitution coming (no right to sue) or deny the constitution going (breaking the law is okay). It completely and totally ties the hands of the court.
It feels like Ted Cruz wrote it during a séance with the ghost of Antonin Scalia.
it sets the precedent that every sec of state, and every supreme court, and every governor can change their election laws at any time without consent of the Constitutionally appointed authorities over election laws.
No, it's not that simple. The Demonrats can claim that the state legislatures have delegated the power to decide elections to the election officials. In fact the state legislatures haven't opposed the new rules, and have accepted the results.
Moreover, they can argue that it's the State Supreme Court that has to decide if violation occurred, especially for the issues that have violated the state constitution in PA and MI.
The Demonrats can claim that the state legislatures have delegated the power to decide elections to the election officials.
That only flies in situations where the states' actions don't fly in direct contradiction to the legislated laws. They literally directly violated black and white laws.
if SCOTUS says it is okay for non-legislative bodies to change election laws for a state then all states are injured (not just Texas and those joining them). All states are harmed by the ruling because it sets the precedent that every sec of state, and every supreme court, and every governor can change their election laws at any time without consent of the Constitutionally appointed authorities over election laws.
I simply can not see a way SCOTUS can rule against Texas here. Thus, they only have two options before them: Side with Texas or find some way to dismiss the the lawsuit on a technicality.
And there again, I do not see how they can dismiss the lawsuit on a technicality, and essentially deny Texas (et al) the chance to go to the one and only non-military option available to them in the Constitution to resolve a state-to-state dispute.
This lawsuit is as close to perfect as one can get. The court must either agree with Texas, or they commit one of two sins: deny the constitution coming (no right to sue) or deny the constitution going (breaking the law is okay). It completely and totally ties the hands of the court.
It feels like Ted Cruz wrote it during a séance with the ghost of Antonin Scalia.
No, it's not that simple. The Demonrats can claim that the state legislatures have delegated the power to decide elections to the election officials. In fact the state legislatures haven't opposed the new rules, and have accepted the results.
Moreover, they can argue that it's the State Supreme Court that has to decide if violation occurred, especially for the issues that have violated the state constitution in PA and MI.
That only flies in situations where the states' actions don't fly in direct contradiction to the legislated laws. They literally directly violated black and white laws.