Key legal issues behind the Texas petition to Supreme Court re election issues
Link here.
The author reviews the petition, the logic behind it, and the legal possibilities. She also cogently reviews the worst examples of misbehavior in the four swing states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan, that justify Supreme Court action. If you are one of those people that refuses to recognize the illegalities in the handling of the election in those states, you should read this article to education yourself.
The key point however is this:
These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.
No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”
Texas is essentially demanding what I suggested several weeks ago: If election issues are not fixed, elected state Republicans must refuse to certify.
Texas is demanding that these four states put the decision to the legislatures, since their election counts cannot be trusted. While the arguments are sound, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will listen.
Link here.
The author reviews the petition, the logic behind it, and the legal possibilities. She also cogently reviews the worst examples of misbehavior in the four swing states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan, that justify Supreme Court action. If you are one of those people that refuses to recognize the illegalities in the handling of the election in those states, you should read this article to education yourself.
The key point however is this:
These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.
No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”
Texas is essentially demanding what I suggested several weeks ago: If election issues are not fixed, elected state Republicans must refuse to certify.
Texas is demanding that these four states put the decision to the legislatures, since their election counts cannot be trusted. While the arguments are sound, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will listen.