3 ms·

> The lack of standing is pretty obvious for the supreme Court isn't it? Texas has no say in how Pennsylvania votes. There's other things that are ridiculous ab

> The lack of standing is pretty obvious for the supreme Court isn't it? Texas has no say in how Pennsylvania votes. There's other things that are ridiculous about that case, like wanting throw out unrelated Texan votes. No it's not though. Texas is asking the Supreme Court to answer the question of whether the constitution allows the governor to make up election rules or whether it's just the state legislature. The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states. By precedent, they should have answered it. Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing. Perhaps you can argue Texas has no standing to tell PA what to do. But shouldn't a PA voter have standing to question whether his governor can make up rules? How come absolutely no one has standing? > I'm not sure you can argue they're bad actors when the clear and obvious reasoning for those measures across the country are to limit the spread of a deadly pandemic. But they violated a court order. Sure, it's to stop a pandemic. But a judge ordered that order to be violated. Court orders supersede gubernatorial edicts. > The governor's in charge of enforcement I'm sorry... that's not good enough for an election. Can a governor allow votes to be made up even though it's against the law, because the governor is 'in charge of enforcement'. Can Trump use the national guard to stop the Biden electors from meeting because he's 'in charge of enforcement'. At some point, the government needs to be held responsible for lack of enforcement of basic civil rights -- election integrity is a governmental duty. You can't just choose not to enforce it.

jcranmer 6y ago
> The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states. It has not. If you disagree, please cite the exact standing. > Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing. The cases along this line that were dismissed for standing were on the basis of challenging the state constitutionality of state laws (or actions of state officials) in federal courts. You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. You don't get to run off to federal court just because you don't like the state answers, especially since federal precedent is overwhelmingly along the lines of "we cannot question state courts' interpretation of state laws/state constitutions"--this deference is the very definition of federalism.
- tathougies 6y ago
  So what you're saying is, even though the constitution says the legislatures set the rules, the governor and officials can unilaterally change them and there is no one who has any standing to challenge those rules? Do you understand why someone might find that worrisome? Again, I am attempting to engage in good faith. Do you not think this is a valid question that someone has the right to ask and receive an answer to? > You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. How is it not a federal question as to how states choose presidential electors? The electors are chosen by the legislature. The constitution says (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2): > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. If the mayor of Portland chose electors for Oregon and the governor allowed that (using my state as an example here), you don't think anyone has the right to ask federal courts to answer the question of whether or not electors must be chosen by the legislature (as the constitution demands), and asking them to decertify the ones chosen by someone other than the legislature? Do you honestly, in good faith, believe that the governors changing the rules for electors is not a question that ought to be addressed by courts given what I just cited above? I agree that federal courts cannot answer questions on how states elect Senators, but electors are clearly different. I am not asking you to agree with my interpretation of the law, but rather asking you if you really believe this is not a federal issue. Can Oregon simply decide tomorrow to simply not hold elections for President tomorrow?
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > even though the constitution says the legislatures set the rules, The US Constitution, in Article II Section 1, says: > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct You see the keywords "may direct"? That means that legislatures are empowered to delegate authority as they see fit in their statutes. So if the legislature says that the governor and officials can change some things, then the governor and officials have the authority to challenge them. > there is no one who has any standing to challenge those rules Where did I say that? I said that Texas does not have the right to object to Pennsylvania. A voter in their state can sue their own state in their own state courts if they believe their officials have violated their own state laws. And if you paid attention in the spring, summer, and fall of 2020, you will have found that several people did challenge the actions of their state governments in these regards, and those actions were sometimes successful. What was not successful was other people (including the Texas v Pennsylvania suit) suing the officials in federal court, and waiting until well after the election to do so. > Again, I am attempting to engage in good faith. Then keep in mind that losing on standing doesn't mean no one can bring the suit, it only means that the plaintiff is not the right person to do so. There's a big difference between the two, and jumping straight to the former smacks of bad faith to me. Since you added this after I wrote this comment: > If the mayor of Portland chose electors for Oregon and the governor allowed that (using my state as an example here), you don't think anyone has the right to ask federal courts to answer the question of whether or not electors must be chosen by the legislature (as the constitution demands), and asking them to decertify the ones chosen by someone other than the legislature? No. No one has the right to sue in federal court on that matter. You would sue the governor (assuming he's the one who is supposed to sign off on the electors in Oregon law) in the appropriate Oregon court. Alternatively, assuming this an executive order that is drawn up before the election, you would sue the governor and the mayor in Oregon court to enjoin from enacting the executive order, assuming that Oregon law prohibits such an executive order from being made.

jcranmer 6y ago

> The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states. It has not. If you disagree, please cite the exact standing. > Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing. The cases along this line that were dismissed for standing were on the basis of challenging the state constitutionality of state laws (or actions of state officials) in federal courts. You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. You don't get to run off to federal court just because you don't like the state answers, especially since federal precedent is overwhelmingly along the lines of "we cannot question state courts' interpretation of state laws/state constitutions"--this deference is the very definition of federalism.

tathougies 6y ago
So what you're saying is, even though the constitution says the legislatures set the rules, the governor and officials can unilaterally change them and there is no one who has any standing to challenge those rules? Do you understand why someone might find that worrisome? Again, I am attempting to engage in good faith. Do you not think this is a valid question that someone has the right to ask and receive an answer to? > You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. How is it not a federal question as to how states choose presidential electors? The electors are chosen by the legislature. The constitution says (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2): > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. If the mayor of Portland chose electors for Oregon and the governor allowed that (using my state as an example here), you don't think anyone has the right to ask federal courts to answer the question of whether or not electors must be chosen by the legislature (as the constitution demands), and asking them to decertify the ones chosen by someone other than the legislature? Do you honestly, in good faith, believe that the governors changing the rules for electors is not a question that ought to be addressed by courts given what I just cited above? I agree that federal courts cannot answer questions on how states elect Senators, but electors are clearly different. I am not asking you to agree with my interpretation of the law, but rather asking you if you really believe this is not a federal issue. Can Oregon simply decide tomorrow to simply not hold elections for President tomorrow?
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > even though the constitution says the legislatures set the rules, The US Constitution, in Article II Section 1, says: > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct You see the keywords "may direct"? That means that legislatures are empowered to delegate authority as they see fit in their statutes. So if the legislature says that the governor and officials can change some things, then the governor and officials have the authority to challenge them. > there is no one who has any standing to challenge those rules Where did I say that? I said that Texas does not have the right to object to Pennsylvania. A voter in their state can sue their own state in their own state courts if they believe their officials have violated their own state laws. And if you paid attention in the spring, summer, and fall of 2020, you will have found that several people did challenge the actions of their state governments in these regards, and those actions were sometimes successful. What was not successful was other people (including the Texas v Pennsylvania suit) suing the officials in federal court, and waiting until well after the election to do so. > Again, I am attempting to engage in good faith. Then keep in mind that losing on standing doesn't mean no one can bring the suit, it only means that the plaintiff is not the right person to do so. There's a big difference between the two, and jumping straight to the former smacks of bad faith to me. Since you added this after I wrote this comment: > If the mayor of Portland chose electors for Oregon and the governor allowed that (using my state as an example here), you don't think anyone has the right to ask federal courts to answer the question of whether or not electors must be chosen by the legislature (as the constitution demands), and asking them to decertify the ones chosen by someone other than the legislature? No. No one has the right to sue in federal court on that matter. You would sue the governor (assuming he's the one who is supposed to sign off on the electors in Oregon law) in the appropriate Oregon court. Alternatively, assuming this an executive order that is drawn up before the election, you would sue the governor and the mayor in Oregon court to enjoin from enacting the executive order, assuming that Oregon law prohibits such an executive order from being made.