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.
It seems to me like the poll watcher is the person with standing? They could bring the exact same case a second time, that they were not able to watch. that comes against another legal doctrine now that the elections have been certified -- it's a moot point
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.
I find it strange that that they weren't also suing to Wisconsin for the same thing and want to throw out Texan republican votes equal to the number of Wisconsin votes counted in this manner they don't like?
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.
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.
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.
They said they would have taken the case but, even if they found pa to be wrong, they would not give the resolution asked for. That's eminently reasonable to me. This ensures that if they ruledagainst pa, then what happened there won't happen again while ensuring that thousands who voted in good faith are not disenfranchised
In a nutshell: Yes, state legislatures are responsible for deciding the "Manner" used to appoint Presidential electors. And in most states, the "Manner" set forth by the state legislature is "general ballot at the general election."
And as long as that process occurs, stuff like disputes over deadlines, drop box locations, signature verifications, etc stay squarely in the realm of election administration. As Judge Brett Ludwig (a Trump appointee) put it:
> But issues of mere administration of a general election do not mean there has not been a “general ballot” at a “general election.” Plaintiff’s conflation of these potential nonconformities with Constitutional violations is contrary to the plain meaning of the Electors Clause. If plaintiff’s reading of “Manner” was correct, any disappointed loser in a Presidential election, able to hire a team of clever lawyers, could flag claimed deviations from the election rules and cast doubt on the election results. This would risk turning every Presidential election into a federal court lawsuit over the Electors Clause. (Internal citations omitted.)
(Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/487916351/12-12-20-Trump-v-W...)
For example, in PA, a judge ordered the election officials to allow republican watchers to view the counting, and struck down the distance requirements set by the governor due to COVID. However, election officials refused to do so, violating a court order. The GOP sued the officials, but the court dismissed it due to standing. They didn't even consider the complaint. Then a voter group tried to sue. They dismissed that for standing. Then trump sued, they dismissed that too. So if neither the political party, the voters, nor the candidate purportedly affected has standing to force the state to allow the vote to be examined and cannot bring a case against an official violating a court order -- then who exactly has that right? Can any election official simply do what they want?
Or in the TX v PA case, the Supreme Court really displayed major cowardice. They ought to have taken the case, examined the merits, and said yes or no. They dismissed it due to lack of standing. The case asked a very important question -- the Constitution says only the legislature sets the election rules, but in PA, the governor and SoS made up rules. Additionally, the PA supreme court simply extended a deadline set by the legislature. If indeed the legislature is the only one who can make electoin rules, then these moves are clearly illegal. The Court should have said if it's okay or not. They could have not granted the relief requested, which I do admit is a major ask. But they should have ruled on whether or not the PA Supreme Court or the governor's actions were legal.
To many republicans, it seems as if there were bad actors who got away with not following the law. It now seems that governors, courts, etc can simply set whatever election rules they want and get away with it. Even if it wouldn't have changed the outcome, I'd like to see a court penalize those officials in PA who disobeyed a court order, or explain in clear legal detail after hearing a case as to why those officials were right to do so.
I also want explanations into why the counting stopped. It is quite clear now that the supposed water leak in Atlanta was a simple toilet overflow that should not have caused anything to stop. Why did they do that, and why did they report it as a leak? Why did we see major drops for Biden with zero votes for Trump? Again, I am ready to concede that Biden won. In fact, I think it likely. However, it is crazy to me that so far not a single body has been willing to investigate these seeming discrepancies and instead told the groups interested in seeking resolution that they have no standing to question it.
Telling people that they do not deserve an answer is what leads to the behavior we're seeing now.
The courts made a huge mistake by simply dismissing on standing. Rumor has it that John Roberts didn't want to take the case due to fear of a mob... Well he got his mob, just not the one he expected.
Downvoters: please engage in good faith. Someone asked if there was anyone who believed the election was 'stolen'. I have given my good faith answer as to what I would have liked to have seen in order for me to fully trust our elections. You may disagree with me, but I'm simply giving my solicited opinion.