PA, GA, MI have filed responses in #SCOTUS to Texas's overturn-the-election suit. UPDATED
Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
Pennsylvania has filed its response in #SCOTUS to Texas's overturn-the-election suit.
It does not mince words:
"Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections."
Wow: Pennsylvania says Texas' request to invalidate its election is a "seditious abuse of the judicial process" and urges the court to "send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated."
Pennsylvania also notes that Texas' ridiculous statistical analysis of how improbable it would be for Biden to have won the election if everybody voted exactly as they had in 2016 is, in fact, ridiculous.
Dec 10, 2020
Michigan has filed its response to Texas' lawsuit. "The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis."
Georgia has filed its response to Texas' lawsuit: Texas is asking the court "to transfer Georgia's electoral powers to the federal judiciary. Respect for federalism and the constitutional design prohibits that transfer of power."
20. Great introduction:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Since Election Day, State and Federal courts
throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election.
The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees.
Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy.
What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about
problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts .
It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous.
Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in
which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.
The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct.
That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of President Elect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact.
The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.
Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
Pennsylvania has filed its response in #SCOTUS to Texas's overturn-the-election suit.
It does not mince words:
"Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections."
Wow: Pennsylvania says Texas' request to invalidate its election is a "seditious abuse of the judicial process" and urges the court to "send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated."
Pennsylvania also notes that Texas' ridiculous statistical analysis of how improbable it would be for Biden to have won the election if everybody voted exactly as they had in 2016 is, in fact, ridiculous.
Dec 10, 2020
Michigan has filed its response to Texas' lawsuit. "The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis."
Georgia has filed its response to Texas' lawsuit: Texas is asking the court "to transfer Georgia's electoral powers to the federal judiciary. Respect for federalism and the constitutional design prohibits that transfer of power."
20. Great introduction:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Since Election Day, State and Federal courts
throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election.
The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees.
Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy.
What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about
problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts .
It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous.
Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in
which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.
The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct.
That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of President Elect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact.
The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.
