Difference between revisions of "Texas v. Pennsylvania"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Amici in Support: yet another filing)
(add TX replies to Defendant States responses)
Line 34: Line 34:
 
*Georgia:<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163383/20201210145849997_Georgia%20--%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf</ref>
 
*Georgia:<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163383/20201210145849997_Georgia%20--%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf</ref>
 
*Wisconsin:<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163393/20201210150111653_Brief.pdf</ref>
 
*Wisconsin:<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163393/20201210150111653_Brief.pdf</ref>
 +
*Texas (Reply in Support of Motion For Preliminary Injunction):<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163492/20201211095715842_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf</ref>
 +
*Texas (Reply in Support of Motion For Leave to File Bill of Complaint):<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf</ref>
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 21:44, December 11, 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

Amici in Support

  • Seventeen states (all of which voted in the majority for President Trump, aled by Missouri):[7][8]
  • Attorney General Mark Brnovich of Arizona (which purportedly voted for Biden, and who's results were certified by RINO Governor Doug Ducey):[9][10]
  • A group of "Constitutional Attorneys" (the most notable being former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore):[11]
  • Over 100 Republican House of Representatives Members:[12]
  • Members of the Arizona, Alaska, and Idaho state legislatures, and the Lieutenant Governor of Idaho:[13]
  • The Speaker and Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives (who are both Republicans):[14]
  • A separate group of Pennsylvania state legislators, joined by a group of Michigan state legislators and five individual voters from three of the four Defendant States (of the latter group, only Pennsylvania was not represented):[15]

Amici in Opposition

Neutral Amici

Ohio requested leave to file an amici supporting neither side: it argues that Texas is not entitled to relief (as that would interfere in the sovereign affairs of another state) but agrees that the Court needs to hear the case and make a ruling on the meaning of the Electors Clause.[19]

Responses

All four Defendant States filed motions in opposition to the suit, arguing various bases as to why relief should not be granted.

  • Pennsylvania:[20]
  • Michigan:[21]
  • Georgia:[22]
  • Wisconsin:[23]
  • Texas (Reply in Support of Motion For Preliminary Injunction):[24]
  • Texas (Reply in Support of Motion For Leave to File Bill of Complaint):[25]

References

  1. ↑ 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.
  2. ↑ 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.
  3. ↑ As a suit filed at the Court itself, the Circuit Courts of Appeal wouldn't hear the case in the first instance.
  4. ↑ https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election
  5. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf
  6. ↑ 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
  7. ↑ 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
  8. ↑ In addition to the six states who have also filed a joint motion to intervene, the other states are Alabama, Florida, Nebraska (which splits its electoral votes, one of which went to Biden), North Dakota, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia.
  9. ↑ https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf
  10. ↑ 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.
  11. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163248/20201209163606702_TX%20v.%20PA%20Motion%20and%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
  12. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163403/20201210153048641_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20106%20Representatives.pdf
  13. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163407/20201210153740090_FINAL%20TO%20FILE%20SCOTUS%20%20SIGNED%202020.12.10%20copy.pdf
  14. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163389/20201210145527909_Motion%20and%20Brief%20House%20Leaders%20SCOTUS%20Amicus%20Texas%20v%20Pa%20et%20al.pdf
  15. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163392/20201210150056879_SCOTUS%20Motion%20for%20Intervention%20Final%2012-10-20.pdf
  16. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf
  17. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf
  18. ↑ The states which filed are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine (which splits its electoral votes, one of which went to President Trump), Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada (another state which voted for Biden but is embroiled in controversy), New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina (which voted for President Trump, but who's leadership is primarily Democrat), Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
  19. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163346/20201210125506698_TX%20v%20PA%20-%20Amicus.PDF
  20. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf
  21. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163387/20201210145404465_22O155%20Texas%20MI%20BIO%2012-10.pdf
  22. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163383/20201210145849997_Georgia%20--%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf
  23. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163393/20201210150111653_Brief.pdf
  24. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163492/20201211095715842_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf
  25. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf

External Link

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Texas_v._Pennsylvania&oldid=1712681"