Difference between revisions of "Texas v. Pennsylvania"
m (→Intervention) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
===Amici in Support=== | ===Amici in Support=== | ||
| − | + | Seventeen states (all of which voted in the majority for President Trump, and located in the South, West, and Midwest, led by [[Missouri]]) have sought leave to file an ''[[amicus curiae]]'' brief in the case.<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf</ref><ref>In addition to the six states who have also filed a joint motion to intervene, the other states are [[Alabama]], [[Florida]], [[Nebraska]], [[North Dakota]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Indiana]], [[Kansas]], [[Montana]], [[South Dakota]], [[Tennessee]] and [[West Virginia]].</ref> | |
Attorney General Mark Brnovich of [[Arizona]] (which purportedly voted for Biden, and who's results were certified by [[RINO]] Governor Doug Ducey) has also sought leave to file his own amicus curiae brief in the matter<ref>https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf</ref>; Brnovich and Arizona are involved in a separate suit against the Democratic National Committee arguing in a matter involving Section 2 of the [[Voting Rights Act]]. | Attorney General Mark Brnovich of [[Arizona]] (which purportedly voted for Biden, and who's results were certified by [[RINO]] Governor Doug Ducey) has also sought leave to file his own amicus curiae brief in the matter<ref>https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf</ref>; Brnovich and Arizona are involved in a separate suit against the Democratic National Committee arguing in a matter involving Section 2 of the [[Voting Rights Act]]. | ||
Revision as of 18:51, December 10, 2020
Texas v. Pennsylvania (official style: State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin) is a United States Supreme Court case filed on December 8, 2020 by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeking relief in the ongoing 2020 United States Presidential Election.
The filing was quite unexpected: Texas is a fairly solid Republican state and (despite polls to the contrary) voted in the majority for President Donald Trump, and was not involved in any significant controversy in the conduct of its election (in fact, the Texas Secretary of State refused to certify any of the Dominion Voting Systems machines for use in the election due to its own testing, which found significant issues with potential hacking). As the matter involves one sovereign state suing another (or four, in this case), the Supreme Court has not only original jurisdiction, but exclusive jurisdiction (i.e. the suit could not be filed in a Federal District Court). The case was docketed shortly after it was filed and the defendants were given until 3PM EST on December 10 to respond.
Unlike the many other cases which contained allegations of fraud (e.g. ballot stuffing, secret algorithms in the voting machine software), the Texas case centered on the Electors Clause of the United States Constitution, specifically that the Legislatures of each State have the sole province of determining how Presidential Electors are chosen (and, by extension, the election laws of the state). Texas argued that the actions taken by members of the Executive and Judicial branches (by "amending" electoral laws, either by "settlements" of "friendly lawsuits" filed by partisan organizations, or unilateral changes under the guise of a "public health emergency" from the COVID-19 pandemic), not ratified by the Legislatures of those states, violate the Electors Clause. By doing so, it has denied the voters of Texas due process and equal protection by allowing states to change their election laws without legislative consent for the benefit of a preferred political candidate.
Pennsylvania has already hinted that its arguments will include: 1) the filing doesn't address Act 77, a 2019 bill which allowed state-wide voting by mail[1], 2) the suit should be barred on the doctrine of laches (since in their opinion the suit should have been filed before the election)[2], and 3) the case at hand wouldn't result in a "circuit split" (the possibility that two different Circuit Courts of Appeal may rule differently), one of the factors that the Court considers when deciding to hear a case.[3][4]
Related Filings
Intervention
President Trump has sought leave to intervene as a party in interest in the case.[5]
Also, six states (Missouri as lead state, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah) have also sought leave to intervene as parties.[6]
Amici in Support
Seventeen states (all of which voted in the majority for President Trump, and located in the South, West, and Midwest, led by Missouri) have sought leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the case.[7][8]
Attorney General Mark Brnovich of Arizona (which purportedly voted for Biden, and who's results were certified by RINO Governor Doug Ducey) has also sought leave to file his own amicus curiae brief in the matter[9]; Brnovich and Arizona are involved in a separate suit against the Democratic National Committee arguing in a matter involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Furthermore, a group of "Constitutional Attorneys" (the most notable being former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore) have also filed in support.[10] Their argument is that the Constitution sets a fixed day for the election, and that Congress' decision to allow absentee voting in cases of necessity was not intended to open the floodgates to allow voting months in advance, differing from state to state and even within a state.
Amici in Opposition
A group of individuals (many of who previously served in Congress and are considered to be part of the Deep State) filed a brief in opposition, stating that the Court is not the proper forum to decide this issue.[11]
References
- ↑ Act 77 is itself controversial in that the Pennsylvania Constitution strictly limits who can vote absentee; the suit presumes the Act to be valid but that notwithstanding the controversy surrounding it, non-legislative actors revised it nonetheless to suit their interests.
- ↑ However, the suit alleges that poll workers were barred from observing the results, which by definition could not have taken place prior to the election.
- ↑ As a suit filed at the Court itself, the Circuit Courts of Appeal wouldn't hear the case in the first instance.
- ↑ https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election
- ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf
- ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163322/20201210115500103_2020-12-10%20-%20Motion%20to%20Intervene%20and%20Proposed%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20-%20Final%20With%20Tables.pdf
- ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf
- ↑ In addition to the six states who have also filed a joint motion to intervene, the other states are Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia.
- ↑ https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf
- ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163248/20201209163606702_TX%20v.%20PA%20Motion%20and%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
- ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf