The Texas Lawsuit Was Doomed From the Start

After reading the Wikipedia article on The Texas v Pennsylvania case I decided to write about it. The hype has died down and it's a good time to reflect on why the thing was doomed in the first place. I am going to build the narrative as to what led up to that moment and why people thought it was "The Big One" including Trump himself. 

So, 60 lawsuits and many dismissals later, including in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, multiple federal courts including Trump appointed Judges, it seemed like the 2020 Election was never ending. There was no admission of defeat allowed, so Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, Lou Dobbs, and many other FOX "News" hosts, OANN and Newsmax were going pedal to the metal in support of the claims Trump bolstered and kept on running with. 

Sign in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

After trying to get Detroit votes tossed and a recount in Dane and Milwaukee Counties, Maricopa County, and disqualify Philadelphia votes along with tall of PA's votes were stopped in their tracks Republicans turned to the Supreme Court  Trump himself called it "The Big One" 

After voicing many times that he hoped the election would be handled by the Supreme Court, of which he nominated 3 of the 9 Justices, in his favor. People who were around for Bush v Gore were looking at a totally different landscape. In that one, it was ONE STATE that made the difference and it was much closer than 2000. Next, all the states had been in the process of certifying and completing the counting on their results. It was over. The Supreme Court had rejected other appeals that came before it

So here comes Ken "Pardon Me" Paxton, AG of TX saying "Hold on there, we'll get it to the Supreme Court". Now that we've set up the backdrop for the benefit of those who need it...let's get into the arguments Texas made 

TEXAS ARGUMENTS 

From its brief

Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors. 

Plain English: Secretaries of State and Judges made decisions about Election administration. He conflates this with the Electors Clause but the Legislature can appoint Presidential Electors. The Administration of Election Law has nothing to do with Electors. Whoever wins the state of TX would get TX's Electors. Nothing in Election law would prevent this  Paxton hooks them together because he has to justify using The Electors Clause 

What is glaring in this case is also Paxton's refusal to sue Texas over Governor Abbott's executive orders extending the state's early voting period. The Texas Supreme Court ended up siding with Gov Abbot over the Executive Order. So...Paxton just LET this go on and didn't sue his own state?

Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States. 

This is the Equal Protection Claim that voters of different states should be treated the same. This cuts against the Elections Clause Article 1, Sec 4 Clause 1 allowing states to determine “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations..." States have plenty of leeway to run elections. 

Simply, this part is saying "Why do the Democrats get to have the good laws and allow everyone to vote?" basically saying that all changes had to benefit Joe Biden. That isn't true at all. It also ignores the fact that different Counties within the same state have had different ballot curing policies. Curing is simply correcting a mistake/s on your ballot so that it gets counted. 

Another ironic thing is the fact that he makes the case that ONLY THE LEGISLATURE should be tasked with making and carrying out elections, In that case, why are Elections Officials even needed? I think that many people advocating the fraud narrative end up conflating Election LAWS with the ministerial duties of running an Election. The two are different, but the rules ARE set by the Legislature. But it seems that they want the Legislature to have COMPLETE control over everything related to elections 

According to A Just The News article: 

Jonathan Marks, deputy secretary of state for elections and commissions, advised county election officials on Nov. 2 to inform "party and candidate representatives" about the identification of the voters whose ballots had been rejected as a way "to facilitate communication with these voters."

We all know that this would not be an issue had Biden lost the Election. However, the complaint here is not an Equal Protection Case. States are not entitled to Equal Protection of the law. PEOPLE ARE. 

The Secretary of State allowed all PA Counties to have information on whose ballots needed to be cured, but some Counties didn't implement them though given the opportunity. Even if someone were to say this ran afoul of Equal Protection, each county had equal access to cure the ballots  

The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws

The presumption of irregularities is presupposed, it's saying "there was" when there wasn't any indication of them. Former AG Bill Barr debunked fraud claims, Further, Texas is only responsible for Texas Election law, not Michigan, Pennsylvania Michigan or Wisconsin. If Texas doesn't want to be told what to do within its borders, then why does it assert that same posture with other states? 

Paxton claimed that their votes were "diluted" because Biden won. That is a buzzword meant to agitate those who are already prone to believe fraud allegations with no merit. Texas couldn't prove any fraud within its borders, but the fraud they allege is simply "These states made changes to their elections because of COVID-19" so did Texas 

State vs State: Original Supreme Court Jurisdiction 

In a matter between two states the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, this means it is filed directly with the Supreme Court and put on the docket. Then there is a vote on whether to hear the case, of which 4 must agree. 

Predictably, the Petition for Certiorari got nowhere

What's standing?

Standing is something that says a person or in this case Texas has the right to bring the lawsuit it is seeking to bring to the Court. In order to be granted standing 

So how was Texas harmed by...other states voting for Biden? Embarrassment? Not liking the result? If that's the case everyone who disagrees with an election result should sue regardless of how ridiculous the complaint is. 

After dismissal due to lack of standing, it is unnecessary to get to the merits because they didn't have the right to bring the case. Needless to say a lot of conservatives were OUTRAGED speaking of standing and laches with sarcastic tones and thus being right about them not being important. Yet it IS very important to bring lawsuits in a timely manner and have the right to bring them 

As the Supreme Court said in its denial of the Texas Petition:

The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot

                      


Reactions were swift and invoking the end of the country as predictably as the GOP hates democracy. Allen West called for secession...I don't remember if we ever had an issue of secession before.....hmmm...

I also want to point out something here. In trying to invalidate peoples' votes, I would like to bring this up here: 

If I had no inclination that the GOP doesn't give a fig about democracy...when it doesn't work their way...this definitely shows me that. Of course now, Georgia and Arizona Republicans are already working up "solutions" actually voter suppression to make it harder to obtain a mail in ballot after they put Democrats over the top in their state

If there was a chance that they would be able to overturn the will of the people for their own, they'd have done it. They are not even hiding it. I don't know how to fight this to end voter suppression once and for all, but we DEFINITELY need the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and make preclearance nationwide. Too many states have been passing laws making it harder to vote and Republicans are at the forefront 

                               


So the TL DR version is simple: Texas said we didn't like the results of the Election so we'll say other states didn't run them fairly. Hey SCOTUS, hey Pardon me! The SCOTUS said "File it...YEET Get out of my Courtroom with that nonsense!"

But now, as we speak Texas has a far greater embarrassment to deal with. Unfettered capitalism over its power grid and refusing to winterize its power grid and looking the other way while deregulating the industry. Then they want to blame the Green New Deal...maybe I should write about that next 

Fare the well, til next we meet!