Texas sues to have the state legislatures appoint the electors

[pmward]

Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.

The thing is there are many ways to enforce a law. Denying the right to vote to millions is not the only solution. There's the violation and the recompense. If the recompense is more damaging than the violation, it is not fair. I would argue that is a greater evil. I also don't think this requested solution to deny the right to vote to millions is either constitutional or legal.

One problem with your position is that there isn't a right to vote, except as created by the state legislature. There are federal constitutional parameters: the legislature can't exclude people from voting based on certain things (race, sex), but other than that it is entirely up to the state legislature how voting for president is done in their state.

If it's entirely up to the state legislature, then why is it in Federal court? And why is one state suing another state over their state policy?

[doodle]

Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.

The thing is there are many ways to enforce a law. Denying the right to vote to millions is not the only solution. There's the violation and the recompense. If the recompense is more damaging than the violation, it is not fair. I would argue that is a greater evil. I also don't think this requested solution to deny the right to vote to millions is either constitutional or legal.

One problem with your position is that there isn't a right to vote, except as created by the state legislature. There are federal constitutional parameters: the legislature can't exclude people from voting based on certain things (race, sex), but other than that it is entirely up to the state legislature how voting for president is done in their state.

What I'm most curious about is with a 6/3 conservative bent on the court will it still be enough to convince anyone here? I doubt it....they will be corrupt as well I'm sure. This is Heavens Gate level cultishness.

[pmward]

Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.

The thing is there are many ways to enforce a law. Denying the right to vote to millions is not the only solution. There's the violation and the recompense. If the recompense is more damaging than the violation, it is not fair. I would argue that is a greater evil. I also don't think this requested solution to deny the right to vote to millions is either constitutional or legal.

One problem with your position is that there isn't a right to vote, except as created by the state legislature. There are federal constitutional parameters: the legislature can't exclude people from voting based on certain things (race, sex), but other than that it is entirely up to the state legislature how voting for president is done in their state.

What I'm most curious about is with a 6/3 conservative bent on the court will it still be enough to convince anyone here? I doubt it....they will be corrupt as well I'm sure. This is Heavens Gate level cultishness.

Yep, there were no dissenters on the last suit the SCOTUS dismissed. Wasn't Coney-Barrett a hero just last month? And now she would have to be in on the "deep state" grand setup to screw Trump?

[Xan]

Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.

The thing is there are many ways to enforce a law. Denying the right to vote to millions is not the only solution. There's the violation and the recompense. If the recompense is more damaging than the violation, it is not fair. I would argue that is a greater evil. I also don't think this requested solution to deny the right to vote to millions is either constitutional or legal.

One problem with your position is that there isn't a right to vote, except as created by the state legislature. There are federal constitutional parameters: the legislature can't exclude people from voting based on certain things (race, sex), but other than that it is entirely up to the state legislature how voting for president is done in their state.

If it's entirely up to the state legislature, then why is it in Federal court? And why is one state suing another state over their state policy?

The precedent from 2000 was that states must follow the election laws that were on the books at the time of the election.

[doodle]

Or maybe more like this...Trump 539 / Biden -1

143632961.jpg.0.jpg (137.81 KiB) Viewed 4811 times

[pmward]

Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.

The thing is there are many ways to enforce a law. Denying the right to vote to millions is not the only solution. There's the violation and the recompense. If the recompense is more damaging than the violation, it is not fair. I would argue that is a greater evil. I also don't think this requested solution to deny the right to vote to millions is either constitutional or legal.

One problem with your position is that there isn't a right to vote, except as created by the state legislature. There are federal constitutional parameters: the legislature can't exclude people from voting based on certain things (race, sex), but other than that it is entirely up to the state legislature how voting for president is done in their state.

If it's entirely up to the state legislature, then why is it in Federal court? And why is one state suing another state over their state policy?

The precedent from 2000 was that states must follow the election laws that were on the books at the time of the election.

Right but once again you're circling back to the violation. I'm not disputing the violation. The part I'm disputing is the requested recompense is more damaging than the violation. It's not a realistic ask. This is like say you stole my $1,000 TV and I sue you and ask for $100,000 in damages. It's not something the court would take seriously. It's a pipe dream to think that the court would throw the state's votes out because of not following their election laws to the T in a time of crisis. Let us also not overlook the fact that some Republican states did the same thing, but Trump was ok with that because he won those states.

Moreover, anybody who is in favor of all these Democratic votes being thrown out is anti-democracy.

[Xan]

Right but once again you're circling back to the violation. I'm not disputing the violation. The part I'm disputing is the requested recompense is more damaging than the violation. It's not a realistic ask. This is like say you stole my $1,000 TV and I sue you and ask for $100,000 in damages. It's not something the court would take seriously. It's a pipe dream to think that the court would throw the state's votes out because of not following their election laws to the T in a time of crisis. Let us also not overlook the fact that some Republican states did the same thing, but Trump was ok with that because he won those states.

I'm not following: if votes were received after the time that the legislature said that votes could be received, what would be a "normal" recompense? Surely not counting the illegitimate votes is the only way to proceed.

Moreover, anybody who is in favor of all these Democratic votes being thrown out is anti-democracy.

Okay... What about people who turn up the day after Election Day and want to vote? They overslept, or had the wrong day, or who knows what. Is it "anti-democracy" to turn them away? There are parameters, procedures, start and end dates to voting. That's how it works. This isn't a free-for-all.

[Cortopassi]

Let us also not overlook the fact that some Republican states did the same thing, but Trump was ok with that because he won those states.

This is the part that kills me. I have not looked or cared to look into this deep enough, but assuming this is true, the hypocrisy of picking ONLY the states where he lost, and just enough that would give him the win stinks badly.

[pmward]

Okay... What about people who turn up the day after Election Day and want to vote? They overslept, or had the wrong day, or who knows what. Is it "anti-democracy" to turn them away? There are parameters, procedures, start and end dates to voting. That's how it works. This isn't a free-for-all.

Any ballots received after the cutoff are not going to change the outcome. They are not suing over ballots received after the fact. They are suing because they believe that those states went against their own laws in allowing mail in voting. Mind you, plenty of good old Republican states have had mail in voting for years. Mail in voting has been the standard here in AZ as long as I've lived here for instance. Why are they targeting mail in voting in these states, even though some of the states that went for Trump had mail in voting that is not being questioned? Simply because mail in votes tend to skew more democrat than republican, and throwing those millions of votes out would change the state by denying the votes of millions of registered voters who simply followed what the state told them to do. It is anti-democratic to ask that these votes be thrown out. It's also hypocritical to only question this in democratic states.

This is not a lawsuit seeking fairness, this is a lawsuit that is a strategy to overturn an election that Trump lost. As such, it is anti-democratic.

[Xan]

Okay... What about people who turn up the day after Election Day and want to vote? They overslept, or had the wrong day, or who knows what. Is it "anti-democracy" to turn them away? There are parameters, procedures, start and end dates to voting. That's how it works. This isn't a free-for-all.

Any ballots received after the cutoff are not going to change the outcome. They are not suing over ballots received after the fact. They are suing because they believe that those states went against their own laws in allowing mail in voting. Mind you, plenty of good old Republican states have had mail in voting for years. Mail in voting has been the standard here in AZ as long as I've lived here for instance. Why are they targeting mail in voting in these states, even though some of the states that went for Trump had mail in voting that is not being questioned? Simply because mail in votes tend to skew more democrat than republican, and throwing those millions of votes out would change the state by denying the votes of millions of registered voters who simply followed what the state told them to do. It is anti-democratic to ask that these votes be thrown out. It's also hypocritical to only question this in democratic states.

This is not a lawsuit seeking fairness, this is a lawsuit that is a strategy to overturn an election that Trump lost. As such, it is anti-democratic.

The broader point isn't about the cutoff, it's about the mechanisms of voting. If you vote in a way that is illegal, whether it's after the date, before the date, don't sign your ballot, mail in a ballot when you can't mail in a ballot, whatever, it doesn't count.

[Libertarian666]

I'm hoping the court at least agrees to take it up. With almost all of the states having thrown their hats into the ring for one side or the other, it seems like exactly the kind of dispute that the Supreme Court was setup to resolve.

If they take it, I think the ruling will be along the lines of, “the defendants legislatures already have the means and free will to police the matter. Whether or not they do is up to them. If they choose to do nothing, that’s their right, and regardless, your Texas electors are not diminished.”

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The exact issue is that the legislators WERE NOT CONSULTED. The executive and judicial branch officials disregarded laws passed by the legislature.

Thus, it is not in fact true that the legislatures "chose to do nothing". They did what they are supposed to do: pass laws. The ones who didn't do what they were supposed to do is those who disregarded those laws.

Hope that helps.

What’s stopping the legislatures from exerting their authority?
By the way, I can see why people here are getting annoyed with you. You and I share the same basics beliefs, yet if I say something you don’t care for, you feel the need to say jackass things like I’m not paying attention. I’ll leave it at that.

What authority does a legislature have?
To pass laws.
What is the legislature to do if the laws they pass are ignored by the executive branch?
Obviously passing more laws is futile.

Their remedy is to ask the judicial branch to order the executive branch to follow the law.
But what if the judiciary ignores the laws or legislates from the bench?

The only recourse in that case is to a higher court, which in this case means the Supreme Court.

[pmward]

Okay... What about people who turn up the day after Election Day and want to vote? They overslept, or had the wrong day, or who knows what. Is it "anti-democracy" to turn them away? There are parameters, procedures, start and end dates to voting. That's how it works. This isn't a free-for-all.

Any ballots received after the cutoff are not going to change the outcome. They are not suing over ballots received after the fact. They are suing because they believe that those states went against their own laws in allowing mail in voting. Mind you, plenty of good old Republican states have had mail in voting for years. Mail in voting has been the standard here in AZ as long as I've lived here for instance. Why are they targeting mail in voting in these states, even though some of the states that went for Trump had mail in voting that is not being questioned? Simply because mail in votes tend to skew more democrat than republican, and throwing those millions of votes out would change the state by denying the votes of millions of registered voters who simply followed what the state told them to do. It is anti-democratic to ask that these votes be thrown out. It's also hypocritical to only question this in democratic states.

This is not a lawsuit seeking fairness, this is a lawsuit that is a strategy to overturn an election that Trump lost. As such, it is anti-democratic.

The broader point isn't about the cutoff, it's about the mechanisms of voting. If you vote in a way that is illegal, whether it's after the date, before the date, don't sign your ballot, mail in a ballot when you can't mail in a ballot, whatever, it doesn't count.

There's a difference between a voter voting illegally, and a voter that followed what the state instructed them to do to a T having their vote thrown out. This punishes the voter not the state. The voter did nothing wrong. If these were primarily Republican votes being thrown out people on this forum would be losing their shit. But, when it's democrat votes being thrown out, they cheer. The people elected Biden, and Texas is asking that the will of the people be thrown out in other states. That is anti-democratic, and there is simply no way you can twist that to be anything else.

[pmward]

Republicans are all happy when democracy works in their favor. But the moment they lose, they are willing to throw it out. It shows the Republicans don't really care about the will of the people, or the election, they really only care about whether or not their guy won or lost. Whatever benefits them is fair game, and whatever does not benefit them is not. It's a ridiculous hypocritical double standard.

[Xan]

There's a difference between a voter voting illegally, and a voter that followed what the state instructed them to do to a T having their vote thrown out. This punishes the voter not the state. The voter did nothing wrong. If these were primarily Republican votes being thrown out people on this forum would be losing their shit. But, when it's democrat votes being thrown out, they cheer. The people elected Biden, and Texas is asking that the will of the people be thrown out in other states. That is anti-democratic, and there is simply no way you can twist that to be anything else.

We can play this game all day. It's the will of the people of that state, through their legislature, to NOT have mail-in voting. Having mail-in voting is asking the will of the people to be thrown out.

[pmward]

There's a difference between a voter voting illegally, and a voter that followed what the state instructed them to do to a T having their vote thrown out. This punishes the voter not the state. The voter did nothing wrong. If these were primarily Republican votes being thrown out people on this forum would be losing their shit. But, when it's democrat votes being thrown out, they cheer. The people elected Biden, and Texas is asking that the will of the people be thrown out in other states. That is anti-democratic, and there is simply no way you can twist that to be anything else.

We can play this game all day. It's the will of the people of that state, through their legislature, to NOT have mail-in voting. Having mail-in voting is asking the will of the people to be thrown out.

No it is not. The will of the people is dictated by the votes, not the procedures of voting. Moreover, the will of the people did not vote on those procedures. There was no ballot that went out asking if they should have mail in voting or not. And in a time of crisis laws sometimes get bent. This is how it always has been and how it always will be. There is no way that the requested compensation matches the violation. And if mail in votes were primarily Republican, this would not even be an issue because Trump would not be suing to disqualify voting blocks that benefitted him. In the same way, in these states he filed suits (that were rejected) only asking to have the counties he lost in be thrown out, even though these were statewide policies that effected every county, even the ones he won. By doing this he showed that he is willing to accept these violations when they benefit them, but not when they don't. In 2 different rulings out of PA I read the judges specifically called this out, so the legal system is not blind to this nonsense.

[Xan]

Without a process of voting, you don't have votes at all. Votes are determined by the process. And it sounds like you're saying any action of a legislature is illegitimate without a statewide referendum..?

I agree with you that the challenge of a statewide policy should also be statewide. On the flip side, though, our legal system is adversarial. Neither candidate is obligated to look out for the other.

[pmward]

I agree with you that the challenge of a statewide policy should also be statewide. On the flip side, though, our legal system is adversarial. Neither candidate is obligated to look out for the other.

Right. Well we agree on something at least. And while politics is adversarial, the judgment of the court is not. The courts job is to be impartial, and to ensure that any damages awarded are inline with the violation.

In all of these states the cases have all been heard and ruled on. The state courts, including many republican judges, found no issue with the way the vote was handled. They did not find the mail in voting to be illegal. Judges across the board in their rulings have stated that the requested compensation is more damaging than any potential violation. This is basically just a last ditch and highly unlikely effort for Trump to try to steal an election that he lost. The odds of the SCOTUS throwing out these states electors and handing the presidency to Trump is so incredibly slim. I think that if they actually did that, that would be the day our democracy would be officially dead. If the votes of millions of people in basically every single swing state are thrown out on a technicality and the election is decided by the federal courts, you no longer can claim to have democracy.

I don't think it's realistic that the SCOTUS throws these states out. I mean Trumpians can have their fantasy for a few more days at least. But the courts will not overrule the election, and next week with the electoral college it will be done.

[glennds]

There's a difference between a voter voting illegally, and a voter that followed what the state instructed them to do to a T having their vote thrown out. This punishes the voter not the state. The voter did nothing wrong. If these were primarily Republican votes being thrown out people on this forum would be losing their shit. But, when it's democrat votes being thrown out, they cheer. The people elected Biden, and Texas is asking that the will of the people be thrown out in other states. That is anti-democratic, and there is simply no way you can twist that to be anything else.

We can play this game all day. It's the will of the people of that state, through their legislature, to NOT have mail-in voting. Having mail-in voting is asking the will of the people to be thrown out.

No it is not. The will of the people is dictated by the votes, not the procedures of voting. Moreover, the will of the people did not vote on those procedures. There was no ballot that went out asking if they should have mail in voting or not. And in a time of crisis laws sometimes get bent. This is how it always has been and how it always will be. There is no way that the requested compensation matches the violation. And if mail in votes were primarily Republican, this would not even be an issue because Trump would not be suing to disqualify voting blocks that benefitted him. In the same way, in these states he filed suits (that were rejected) only asking to have the counties he lost in be thrown out, even though these were statewide policies that effected every county, even the ones he won. By doing this he showed that he is willing to accept these violations when they benefit them, but not when they don't. In 2 different rulings out of PA I read the judges specifically called this out, so the legal system is not blind to this nonsense.

I get pmward's argument about the disproportion between the alleged violation and the remedy, but as has been pointed out, there is a question of who committed the so-called violation and who is being damaged by the requested remedy. The argument is that the state executive branches violated their own laws by acting without legislative approval.
The voters in those states followed the instructions of their voting boards in good faith, and cast their ballots accordingly. To disenfranchise them now is like saying Party A (state Executive branch) committed a violation against Party B (state Legislature) so we're going to levy a remedy damage against Party C (voting public) who was merely a pawn in this whole situation and did nothing other than follow the procedures put forth by their state government, a reasonable thing to do.

Or maybe we're saying since the act was allegedly unconstitutional, then maybe the damaged Party B would be the public, not the state Legislature. So then we're saying the public was damaged so the relief should be to damage the public just in a different way?

I think asking the Supreme Court to do this is a tall order, especially considering doing so violates the Equal Protection clause which affords those voters the right to vote. The Equal Protection clause and the right to vote is established SCOTUS case law.
And before someone tells me there is no right to vote for President and Vice President... electoral college.... etc, let's remember those ballots included state, county and city elections too. So at the very least, in the crusade to right the Presidential election, we would be asking the Court to disenfranchise the votes of the downballot elections too, unless the request is to surgically reverse only the Presidential votes and leave all others intact, which is truly absurd.
I can only speculate how many other races would be overturned as a result of thousands of ballots being retroactively invalidated.

[Xan]

So what IS the consequence of violating election laws? Is SCOTUS going to determine that there might as well be no election laws at all, since they can never be enforced?

A do-over seems like a reasonable way to proceed.

I should clarify that I have no idea whether or not laws were actually violated; I've just been responding to the assertion that it is impossible for them to have been, and/or that it is impossible for there to be any remedy if they have been.

[glennds]

How about a do-over? Why can't they just have the election again, but this time have more oversight and follow the prescribed rules?

So in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 3/4 of state legislatures need to ratify.

*Corrected 3/4 of states need to ratify a Constitutional amendment

[Xan]

How about a do-over? Why can't they just have the election again, but this time have more oversight and follow the prescribed rules?

So in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.

Good point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.

[doodle]

How about a do-over? Why can't they just have the election again, but this time have more oversight and follow the prescribed rules?

So in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.

Good point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.

Why don't we let the conservative supreme court decide what the reasonable thing to do is? After all, I'm sure their insights into the constitution, legal case history, and potential pitfalls is without question more considerable than what anyone here brings to the table. I just hope that the political right will accept the ruling. The Dunning Kruger effect is very strong of late.

[Xan]

How about a do-over? Why can't they just have the election again, but this time have more oversight and follow the prescribed rules?

So in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.

Good point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.

Why don't we let the conservative supreme court decide what the reasonable thing to do is? After all, I'm sure their insights into the constitution, legal case history, and potential pitfalls is without question more considerable than what anyone here brings to the table. I just hope that the political right will accept the ruling. The Dunning Kruger effect is very strong of late.

Speaking personally, I'm perfectly happy to do that.

[Cortopassi]

How about a do-over? Why can't they just have the election again, but this time have more oversight and follow the prescribed rules?

So in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.

Good point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.

Why don't we let the conservative supreme court decide what the reasonable thing to do is? After all, I'm sure their insights into the constitution, legal case history, and potential pitfalls is without question more considerable than what anyone here brings to the table. I just hope that the political right will accept the ruling. The Dunning Kruger effect is very strong of late.

Speaking personally, I'm perfectly happy to do that.

Ooh, I needed to look up the Dunning Kruger effect. That is NOT me. I never overestimate my ability, except maybe with drywall and plumbing.

But seriously, I am happy with that as well. The only thing that would make my weekend perfect is to hear tech say that. I don't think it is possible, it will be conditional -- only if they make the "correct" decision. Which is the part that worries me about millions of Trump supporters having the same losing is not an option mentality.

[doodle]

How about a do-over? Why can't they just have the election again, but this time have more oversight and follow the prescribed rules?

So in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.

Good point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.

Why don't we let the conservative supreme court decide what the reasonable thing to do is? After all, I'm sure their insights into the constitution, legal case history, and potential pitfalls is without question more considerable than what anyone here brings to the table. I just hope that the political right will accept the ruling. The Dunning Kruger effect is very strong of late.

Speaking personally, I'm perfectly happy to do that.

Great so when this is most likely put to rest this afternoon we can move beyond all the fraud and stop the steal rhetoric and get on with the reality that there will be a new administration and finally admit that although we might not like the result the election is over?