Michigan also admits that it “is at a loss to explain
the[] allegations” showing that Wayne County lists
174,384 absentee ballots that do not tie to a registered
voter. Mich. Br. 15; Compl. ¶ 97. That is precisely the
point. And it illustrates exactly why the Court should
grant Plaintiff’s motion.
Enforcing the Electors
Clause “does not imply a disrespect for state courts
but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed
role of state legislatures.” Bush II, 531 U.S. at 115
(Rehnquist, C.J., concurring) (emphasis in original).
Note that this quote is from a concurrence written by the Chief Justice. That means that the quote was not supported by a majority of the Justices in that case. But, as Texas points out, it is still persuasive. See page 21 (PDF page 27).
"Michigan’s argument against the evidence of
irregularities in Wayne County’s election process
fares no better. First, Michigan concedes that, with
respect to the ballots issued pursuant to the Secretary
of State’s unlawful mailing of ballot applications and
online ballot applications—which also did not comply
with statutory signature verification requirements—
"there is no way to associate the voter who used a
particular application with his or her ballot after it is
voted.” Mich. Br. 9; Compl. ¶¶ 81-87. Michigan’s
“heads we win, tails you lose” defense should be
rejected. This is a problem solely of the Secretary of
State’s own making." Rekt
Holy fuck! (bold added by me) - page 6 (PDF page 12)
The best part:
Texas brought big dick energy to SCOTUS.
One sentence conclusion lmao. "Leave to file the Bill of Complaint should be granted." Mic drop.
This is popping up several times:
Note that this quote is from a concurrence written by the Chief Justice. That means that the quote was not supported by a majority of the Justices in that case. But, as Texas points out, it is still persuasive. See page 21 (PDF page 27).
"Michigan’s argument against the evidence of irregularities in Wayne County’s election process fares no better. First, Michigan concedes that, with respect to the ballots issued pursuant to the Secretary of State’s unlawful mailing of ballot applications and online ballot applications—which also did not comply with statutory signature verification requirements— "there is no way to associate the voter who used a particular application with his or her ballot after it is voted.” Mich. Br. 9; Compl. ¶¶ 81-87. Michigan’s “heads we win, tails you lose” defense should be rejected. This is a problem solely of the Secretary of State’s own making." Rekt