Just before midnight on Monday, December 7, 2020, the state of Texas filed a lawsuit with SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) against four US states: Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This lawsuit alleged that "these states violated the Electors Clause of the US Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures" as required by the Constitution (here).
It would appear that Texas sees itself as having the right to ask SCOTUS to intervene in the 2020 electoral selection processes of these four states because Texas argues that the way in which these states violated Constitutional election requirements granted those four states advantages to certain voters not available to voters in other states (thereby violating the Constitutional concepts of "due process" and "equal protection") (here). You can read the full details of this submission (here).
I think that's the basics of the Texas case. If someone wishes to 'set me straight', please do so through the "comments" section below (I will amend the essay to reflect your corrections).
When this lawsuit hit the media (on Monday, December 7th), some typically pro-Trump observers suggested that the argument presented by Texas to the Supreme Court should get very high marks for "creativity". But they saw the chances of the lawsuit being successful as, at best, slim. One such observer said that, by any measure, this lawsuit appears to be the legal equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass--a last-second act of desperation which has only a minor chance of succeeding (ibid).
Some in the anti-Trump press were less circumspect in their reaction. Put simply, they laughed at the suit. They pointed out that, as of the December 7-8th time-period, the Trump attempt to get the courts to overturn the election had achieved a 1-51 record in the post-election litigation win-loss count (here). That meant that Trump had just a single court win in 52 attempts (if their numbers were correct). At least one of these voices mocked the Trump post-election legal efforts as "Bizarro world desperation" (here).
The next day, December 8th, SCOTUS did something the anti-Trump media felt disinclined to report--but which could change everything. The Court issued an order (request?) that the four states being sued had until December 10 to argue against the alleged accusations of the suit (here). The deadline for these argument(s) was listed as 3 pm December 10th.
While this suggests that the Court has not dismissed the suit out-of-hand, one cannot infer anything else from this action. We will have to wait until the Court rules on what it receives from the four states to see in what direction the case goes. At least, that's my opinion.
The day after that, December 9th, the suit before the Court got interesting. On that date, four Amicus briefs ("friend of the Court") requests were filed with SCOTUS, the most significant of which came from the AG (Attorney General) of the state of Missouri. This brief was submitted to support the Texas AG's suit. This was significant because this Amicus wasn't a solitary voice in the proverbial wilderness. It brought with it the support of 16 more states (for a total of 17 states supporting Texas, plus Texas) (here, page 1).
An 18th state, Arizona, also sent in a separate Amicus brief. This Arizona document appears to support the basic nature of the Texas case, but appears to add its own legal arguments for its support (here).
This is an important development because, while having a total of 19 states (as of December 9th) submit/support a suit in SCOTUS certainly does not change "the legalities" of the case, it could change what at least one legal observer has called the "optics" of the case before the Court (here). This is to suggest that, suddenly, this lawsuit isn't a just case of one state (Texas) "going rogue"; it's now about a total of 19 Attorneys General alleging that the four states named in the suit had broken laws explicitly detailed in the US Constitution (ibid), violations that in some important way harmed their own election results (read the submissions (above) for details).
19 states seeking legal redress from SCOTUS adds up to 38% of all US states seeking "justice". 38% is not an inconsequential number. Indeed, if over the next 50 hours or so more states support Texas in this suit, the Court could be looking at close to half the states objecting to how certain states violated the Constitution during this election. This might be interpreted as a kind of "legal national uprising" against this election.
A host of US states supporting Texas could suggest a 'shot across the bow' of SCOTUS. It certainly shouts, 'THIS IS IMPORTANT!"
Will this case--and its supporters--now cause SCOTUS to sit up and take notice? Of course not. Or, well, maybe not.
Or, then again, maybe yes. We don't know.
The point here is that this lawsuit might not succeed. This lawsuit could end up being Donald Trump's last chance to get the justice he says he deserves. This Texas case may become the end-of-the-line for Trump's bid to overturn the election results.
Will this Texas case be nothing more than a 'Hail Mary' pass--an '11th hour' act of desperation? Stay tuned. We should find out soon enough.
--
PS: perhaps you wish to ask, since I live full-time in Israel, why should I care about what's happening in USA?
It's a good question, so I will answer it. I worry about the 2020 US election precisely because I worry about Israel. That is, I specifically worry about Israel-US relations under a Biden administration. I am not the only one who feels this way (here).
I believe a Biden win will be bad for Israel. I worry about how Israel's international--and new Regional--status could change with a Biden administration in power in Washington.
I want what I feel is best for my country--Israel. That's why I write about the 2020 US election.
No comments:
Post a Comment