HR1 is null and void. The US Supreme Court affirmed that the federal government has no say in how states present their representatives, other than the constitutional requirement of sending electors for the Presidential election by the respective State Legislatures. That is it, all other election laws are the domain of the INDIVIDUAL state, regardless. States do not even have to have elections if they so choose, and this has happened before. Many times.
GET INVOLVED IN YOUR STATE ELECTIONS AND GOVERNMENT.
That's how it has worked and how I understand it to be, yeah.
The states are not bound by the federal government to follow federal election laws. This is a boon and a curse. That means blue states (California and New York) can allow gerrymandering, ballot harvesting, election fraud as legal and other states can't do anything about it.
The question comes into play as: If California allows unlawful and unethical election policies, that, by proxy affects other states like Texas and disenfranchises Texas voters so Texas should have a valid claim against California.
I see a real argument for this. But if we allowed this, you'd see lawsuits and states suing states all over the place over every election and it'd be a nightmare and the only way to make it stop would be for the Federal Government to step in and create laws that every state has to follow for elections. Which is bad, because states control elections and that's by design as the founding fathers knew the Federal Government would eventually become tyrannical and corrupt. I don't want corrupt agencies deciding their own election laws.
But I don't want California just allowing mail in ballots permanently since that means any Republican who runs would never stand a chance as the Democrats have a penchant to cheat and lie to retain power.
So we're in a quandary on this one and it's probably the reason why the Supreme Court didn't want to take it up.
There are fundamental flaws in our election system and I honestly don't see a clean way to fix it.
Yup, a lot of the solutions proposed are a very slippery slope.
There actually is a clean way to fix it. States need to enforce existing laws against fraud, bribery, and money laundering. That can happen if the people demand it, blue state or not.
But even more important is for the States to take back their sovereignty across the board. The Federal Gov't has become a giant piggy bank for special interest groups, corporations, and foreign actors. Take away the piggy bank by shrinking the Federal Gov't and the grifters have a lot less incentive to cheat and a lot less power to do it with.
One of the main reasons our gov't got so corrupt is that it grew so big nobody could track a few $million here or there.
FIFY: then the US Congress has "no standing" when it comes to anything.
And they also won't have standing when counties and states secede.
Nullification Comes Next.
Let us look forward to better Laws.
We will Love Our Police Again.
Because they will be doing what we want them to do.
One state should just vote to ignore the election one year and just nominate a random animal to congress. Then cite SCOTUS back to SCOTUS saying other states have no say on how other states run their shams.
Even better, TX should mobilize their militias and deploy them to occupy PA and GA. Any suits PA or GA bring to SCOTUS will have either no standing or SCOTUS orders are just moot.😂
Or our lives..
You are correct the Great State of Whatever can do what they want. They are sovereign. The problem is they take money from the Fed and the interstate commerce act allows the Fed to cause trouble.
The road to nullification.
The congress lets the Justice Department determine how states run their elections. The Voting Rights Act: " Section 5 Preclearance, 42 U.S.C. ' 1973c Section 5, 42 U.S.C. ' 1973c, know as the "preclearance" requirement, is one of the special provisions of Act whose application is triggered by the coverage formula in Section 4(b). Section 5 requires covered jurisdictions to get approval, or preclearance, from federal authorities (either the attorney general or the federal court for the District of Columbia) prior to implementing any changes in their voting laws or procedures..
Of course, state bodies like the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, are not subject to "preclearance" requirements, just because...
Correct that the Feds have no standing - outside of a few select things - literally outlined in the Constitution.
Incorrect that states do not have standing/a vested interest in how other states run their elections, especially if they are violating what is outlined in the Constitution.
An example being that a state legislature sets election laws not bureaucrats. So not only is such a thing a constitutional violation but other states, specifically their legislatures, have a vested interest/standing in seeing that constitutional provision upheld.
The flaw in your thinking is that you still believe we are in a Constitutional Republic. When in fact we are in a Post-Constitution America.
The rule of law literally doesn’t matter.