One comment on this Texas SCOTUS nonsense that nobody else seems to have made.
Unless I'm missing something, this lawsuit is actually barred by Federal law. As are any appeals of challenges to the appointment of electors; SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to consider them.
3 USC § 5 is the Federal statute that provides for the "Safe Harbor" everyone's been talking about for days. Here's what it says
We've all been focused on what the Safe Harbor means for how Congress has to count electoral votes when it meets on January 6. But 3 USC § 5 didn't only address the electoral count
Note the multicolored highlighting. It says that if states certify electoral appointments by 6 days prior to the vote after having finally determined them under state law, then the appointments:
1) Shall be conclusive
AND 2) shall govern in the counting
Note that those are written as two different consequences of safe harbor: Conclusiveness AND governing the count.
By ordinary rules of statutory construction (how courts understand the meaning of federal statutes) those two things cannot simply be repetitive
"Governing the count" is clear. When Congress is counting electoral votes, it MUST count those that were submitted by electors appointed within the safe harbor.
But if so, how is "conclusiveness" different?
As far as I can see, the only other meaning of "shall be conclusive" is "immune from challenge, *whether in the Congressional count or otherwise*"
The other option is to limit "shall be conclusive" to meaning "can't be challenged in the Congressional count" - in which case it would just duplicate "shall govern in the counting" and you could delete "shall be conclusive" from the statute without changing its meaning
So what are the implications of Congress saying that the appointment of electors made within safe harbor is immune to challenge?
Well, the Constitution expressly allows Congress to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. If Congress made the appointments immune from challenge, that would seem to strip the Supreme Court (and any other Federal Court) of jurisdiction to hear a challenge to electors
appointed within the safe harbor.
In other words, Congress made the considered decision that state election contests would be the only way to challenge the appointment of electors.
Now there's a wrinkle here - Congress *can't* strip SCOTUS of original jurisdiction - but that doesn't mean 3 USC §5 wouldn't also provide a complete substantive defense to Texas's requests in its SCOTUS complaint
Particularly since it isn't claiming that 3 USC §5 is unconstitutional.
Anyway, need to go get Littler Girl to bed. Fully expect to get back here and find far brighter attorneys than me strongly disagreeing with this. But ... it seems to hold, no?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"
You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone
Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?
Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem
Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas
Hey @j_remy_green relevant to our earlier discussion and omg she had to love writing this: "listen, Sidney, it's not my job to tell you you're being a fucking moron and worrying about the wrong event, even when I tell you you're being a fucking moron and got the date wrong"
Goddamn it, Texas, I don't have time for this today.
Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).
OK. Texas filed a motion for leave to file a complaint against PA, GA, MI and WI in the Supreme Court. Someone else can lawsplain to you how that works, or you can google the highlighted rules, but briefly, this is a thing they can theoretically do
There is a MASSIVE contradiction at the heart of this complaint, and its doomed for other reasons, too (standing, laches, abstention)
@BambuDB He's wrong. Flatly and stupidly. For multiple reasons
@BambuDB 1) SCOTUS cannot reverse a state supreme court on an issue of state law. The argument is that under PA state law, laches can't bar consideration of a constitutional challenge under the PA constitution. That's a pure question of state law. SCOTUS has no say
@BambuDB 2) Separately from that, he's wrong about what the precedent was. Even under Stilip, laches wouldn't bar a challenge to applying the law *going forward* but it absolutely would bar a challenge to election results from elections *already held* under the challenged law.
So, quick rundown of the latest #Squidigation decision: It's very thorough; 36 pages of Judge Parker explaining that Powell and her merry band of fuckups lose for every conceivable reason
First: 11th Amendment Immunity. Basically, states (and their officials) have sovereign immunity; you can't sue them in Federal Court except to the extent that they agree to be sued there. Quick thumbnail of the doctrine here
There are only 3 exceptions to this: 1) Congress says "you can sue your state for this"; 2) the state agrees to be sued; 3) Younger, a case that said "you can sue your state if you are just seeking an order saying 'stop violating my rights'"