INTRODUCTION
Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief. An injunction should issue because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions.
First, as a legal matter, neither Texas nor its citizens have an action in any other court for the relief that Texas seeks here. Moreover, no other court could provide relief as a practical matter. The suggestion that Texas—or anyone else—has an adequate remedy is specious.
Second, Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for the next step. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2; 3 U.S.C. § 2. Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting decisively will not only put lower courts but also state and local officials on notice that future elections must conform to State election statutes, requiring legislative ratification of any change prior to the election. Far from condemning this and other courts to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the flood of election-season litigation.
Third, Defendant States’ invocation of laches and standing evinces a cavalier unseriousness about the most cherished right in a democracy—the right to vote. Asserting that Texas does not raise serious issues is telling. Suggesting that Texas should have acted sooner misses the mark—the campaign to eviscerate state statutory ballot integrity provisions took months to plan and carry out yet Texas has had only weeks to detect wrongdoing, look for witnesses willing to speak, and marshal admissible evidence. Advantage to those who, for whateverreason, sought to destroy ballot integrity protections in the selection of our President.
On top of these threshold issues, Defendant States do precious little to defend the merits of their actions. This Court should issue the requested injunction.
On top of these threshold issues, Defendant States do precious little to defend the merits of their actions. This Court should issue the requested injunction. Pretty much says it all
Absolutely. The only way PA et al can hope to have some kind of prayer of winning is to say "Yes, our actions are completely constitutional, here's how..." but they don't (because they can't.) Moreover, they don't even try.
"We followed the legislature's every requirement."
"But why is your legislature on the other side of the aisle SUING YOU TOO?"
der um ah well you see.
IN A NUTSHELL!
PA AG to SC: Texas doesn't even understand our laws!
PA Legislature to SC: Our laws were twisted and gerrymandered so much that we the legislature find what we passed to now be unrecognizable
Yeesh.
I mean, they didn't even try to argue that these are times of "emergency" where lives are hanging in the balance and that people shouldn't have to choose between voting and death, yada yada yada.
I think the ONLY rational defense is that the judicial and executive branches acted in their capacity to protect lives in a "calamity" and the legislative branch could have acted at any time but didn't.
That doesn't make the Constitution any less clear on who has the authority, but it would have been a consistent "muh feels!" argument to align with their supposed reasoning to make the changes to begin with... But that is just me.
Seems like their actual response was more interested in starting a color revolution than actually win a case or appeal to their base.
I thought about this some more.
It's even more interesting COVID wasn't used as defense by these states because it was COVID that was used to make the changes originally.
Exactly - thus my final sentence. This doesn't seem like an attempt to "win" or even appeal to their base. Their response could have been written by China, honestly.... well - China with an English first person cleaning it up, lol.
Right. I thought arguing that the changes we OK because of covid would be the play, but that admits changes.
So what PA is arguing is that they didn't change at all and everything they did was according to the Act77 that passed in 2019.
Except the PA Legislature already wrote scotus saying what was done was "twisted, gerrymandered, and unrecognizable" to what was passed.
So now the SCOTUS has to evaluate what was done and what the law says, this works in PA's favor because it's time consuming. PA knows they violated Article2, but in order for Texas to win (and thus POSSIBLY Trump) it means scotus needs to determine all four states violated Article2.
... And the electors are selected on Monday, voting on Jan6.
As RBG said, the only real "hard date" is in January, when Congress approves the electors. We have time. SCOTUS knows this and shouldn't feel "rushed". They do, however, need to address it.
Oh they will find the time, don't you worry.
If not, civil war it is.
I couldn’t help it. Precious made me think of Gollum
Tricksy Dems