6 ms·

I don't have a horse in this race, but... does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? Will the suit be refilled be some fringe group of voters in

I don't have a horse in this race, but... does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? Will the suit be refilled be some fringe group of voters in those 4 states?

tzs 6y ago
I believe (but am not fully sure for all of those states) that they already were, and were rejected by the highest state courts in those states. The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws.
- wahern 6y ago
  > The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws. That's a bold statement. Based on their decisions over the past several months, and especially some of the most recent ones, I don't think your presumptions are true. I think most if not all of the conservative justices (I'd have to confirm precisely where Roberts sits) have expressed their opinion that in Federal elections Federal courts have a unique role in interpreting state law legislation. And that's exactly why many of the recent filings, including this most recent one (Texas v. Pennsylvania), complained about state courts modifying legislative rules in seeming contravention of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. I think it's a nuts interpretation that shows how facile the neo-textualist approach has become. But in any event you might want to revisit your assumptions about what the law is or will become in terms of applying traditional separation of powers principles and precedent in the area of election law. I'm also comfortable putting down some money that with Barrett on the court there's a greater-than-even chance that SCOTUS will invalidate state constitutional amendments that move redistricting to independent bodies. The last time it came up it was only saved by Kennedy, IIRC. Even if Roberts decides to adhere to precedent (notwithstanding that he ignored it the first time around), his vote won't be enough to save independent redistricting. But I'm not even sure Roberts would try because, IIRC, he seemed to drop some hints in one of his recent opinions as a swing voter that he'll get his pound of flesh on the next redistricting case--that is, to vindicate Federalist Society arguments about Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1, a sister to 2.1.2 that uses the same wording regarding legislatures and the manner of Federal elections. EDIT: Fixed last sentence to refer to 1.4.1 instead of 2.1.2. EDIT: s/2.1.1/2.1.2/
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Thanks!
dragonwriter 6y ago
> does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? The defeated candidate clearly would be able to articulate the kind of particularized harm necessary to establish standing. For some of the fact claims involved, insofar as they might raise a legally cognizable case, in-state political parties and other groups and possibly in some cases particular voters have claims (e.g., where an equal protection claim is raised based on differential treatment of voters within the state, voters on the disadvantaged side would potentially have standing.) OTOH, having jumped through the standing hoop, Trump and pro-Trump litigants have fallen down on actually being able to establish anything illegal, despite having tried in each of the affected states, in both federal and state courts, in well over 50 different lawsuits total.
- mmastrac 6y ago
  Trump and pro-Trump litigants have barely been able to articulate English sentences, let alone arguments. The complaints were laughably full of typos, errors, and just plain old falsehoods. It was an embarrassment on the world stage for Trump but at least he's finally going to be gone.
paradygm 6y ago
According to the WSJ article I read, states have the privilege of petitioning the court directly. Anyone else attempting to file a similar suit faces years of filings, appeals, and then the Supreme Court actually deciding to hear the case, so highly unlikely.
guiiuc 6y ago
Why just these four states? The vote counts in Florida, Ohio, Texas, and N Carolina are all pretty fishy.
Volundr 6y ago
No one would have standing to go directly to the SC over it. Theoretically any citizen of the state, and potentially the losing candidate would have standing to bring the case, but they'd first have to go through the lower courts (as the Trump campaign did in PA), before going to the SC.

I don't have a horse in this race, but... does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? Will the suit be refilled be some fringe group of voters in those 4 states?

tzs 6y ago

I believe (but am not fully sure for all of those states) that they already were, and were rejected by the highest state courts in those states. The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws.

wahern 6y ago
> The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws. That's a bold statement. Based on their decisions over the past several months, and especially some of the most recent ones, I don't think your presumptions are true. I think most if not all of the conservative justices (I'd have to confirm precisely where Roberts sits) have expressed their opinion that in Federal elections Federal courts have a unique role in interpreting state law legislation. And that's exactly why many of the recent filings, including this most recent one (Texas v. Pennsylvania), complained about state courts modifying legislative rules in seeming contravention of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. I think it's a nuts interpretation that shows how facile the neo-textualist approach has become. But in any event you might want to revisit your assumptions about what the law is or will become in terms of applying traditional separation of powers principles and precedent in the area of election law. I'm also comfortable putting down some money that with Barrett on the court there's a greater-than-even chance that SCOTUS will invalidate state constitutional amendments that move redistricting to independent bodies. The last time it came up it was only saved by Kennedy, IIRC. Even if Roberts decides to adhere to precedent (notwithstanding that he ignored it the first time around), his vote won't be enough to save independent redistricting. But I'm not even sure Roberts would try because, IIRC, he seemed to drop some hints in one of his recent opinions as a swing voter that he'll get his pound of flesh on the next redistricting case--that is, to vindicate Federalist Society arguments about Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1, a sister to 2.1.2 that uses the same wording regarding legislatures and the manner of Federal elections. EDIT: Fixed last sentence to refer to 1.4.1 instead of 2.1.2. EDIT: s/2.1.1/2.1.2/
LatteLazy 6y ago
Thanks!

dragonwriter 6y ago

> does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? The defeated candidate clearly would be able to articulate the kind of particularized harm necessary to establish standing. For some of the fact claims involved, insofar as they might raise a legally cognizable case, in-state political parties and other groups and possibly in some cases particular voters have claims (e.g., where an equal protection claim is raised based on differential treatment of voters within the state, voters on the disadvantaged side would potentially have standing.) OTOH, having jumped through the standing hoop, Trump and pro-Trump litigants have fallen down on actually being able to establish anything illegal, despite having tried in each of the affected states, in both federal and state courts, in well over 50 different lawsuits total.

mmastrac 6y ago
Trump and pro-Trump litigants have barely been able to articulate English sentences, let alone arguments. The complaints were laughably full of typos, errors, and just plain old falsehoods. It was an embarrassment on the world stage for Trump but at least he's finally going to be gone.

paradygm 6y ago

According to the WSJ article I read, states have the privilege of petitioning the court directly. Anyone else attempting to file a similar suit faces years of filings, appeals, and then the Supreme Court actually deciding to hear the case, so highly unlikely.

guiiuc 6y ago

Why just these four states? The vote counts in Florida, Ohio, Texas, and N Carolina are all pretty fishy.

Volundr 6y ago

No one would have standing to go directly to the SC over it. Theoretically any citizen of the state, and potentially the losing candidate would have standing to bring the case, but they'd first have to go through the lower courts (as the Trump campaign did in PA), before going to the SC.