Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:12 am
If that happens it will be worth the price of admission.
and, if it doesn't: there's always the shooty box
Apparently the four states defending against the Texas suit illegally changed their voting procedures. And now Texas has been joined by other states because even one rotten state will spoil the whole barrel, the whole election, and that gives every other state just cause.
This sounds pretty cut and dried. The four states broke the law. Under federalism states have the right to set their own rules, but they don't have the right to break the rules they themselves, set.
The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case. Instead, they have asked the four states to respond to the charges, and pretty quickly, too. They asked. They didn't demand. Will the states hear an option to refuse in the request?
After the four respond the Supreme Court can do anything it wants. It can refuse to consider. It can even rule on the case without hearing arguments. But if there are arguments, Ted Cruz is a star. He has argued before the SCOTUS many times, and won.
Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures. Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.
Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur. The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts.
-----
Pennsylvania
Facts:
Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump - margin 81,597.
Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.
Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.
Violations of Election Law:
The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.
Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.
The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots. This was done only in Democrat majority counties.
Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots.
Evidence of Fraud:
Ballots with no mailed date: 9,005 (no evidence they were sent to a voter)
Ballots returned on or before the mailed date: 58,221
Ballots returned one day after the mailed date: 51,200 (Perhaps not impossible, but highly unlikely for the average voter to receive a ballot, fill it out, place it in the mail and have it returned the next day.)
On Nov 2, the day before the election, PA reports that 2.7 million ballots had been sent out. On Nov 4 that number had increased to 3.1 million -- an increase of 400,000 mail-in ballots at election time with literally no reasonable chance of them being used by legitimate voters.
-----
Georgia
Facts:
Vote Tally: 2,472,098 for Biden and 2,458,121 for Trump - margin 12,670.
Mail-in ballots: 65.32% for Biden and 34.68% for Trump.
Mail-in ballots increased from 213,033 in 2016 to 1,305,659 in 2020.
Violations of Election Law:
The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
The Secretary of State authorized opening and processing mail-in ballots up to three weeks before election day when the law prohibits that until after the polls open on election day.
The Secretary of State materially weakened the security requirements for ballot rejection based on signature verification or other missing information.
Evidence of Fraud:
Mail-in ballot rejection rate for missing or inaccurate information or for non-matching signatures decreased from 6.42% in 2016 to .36% in 2020. Rejecting 2020 ballots at the same rate as 2016 would have resulted in a net gain of 25,587 votes for Trump – twice the number needed to overcome Biden’s count. With a six-fold increase in the number of mail-in ballots, reason would indicate that the rejection rate would increase, or at least stay the same, with so many first-time mail-in ballots.
-----
Michigan
Facts:
Vote Tally: 2,796,702 for Biden and 2,650,695 for Trump - margin 146,007.
In 2016 587,618 voters requested mail-in ballots. In 2020 3.2 million votes were cast by mail-in ballot.
Democrats voted by mail at a rate approximately two times that of Republican voters.
Violations of Election Law:
The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
Local election officials in Wayne County -- containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump -- opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.
Evidence of Fraud:
174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.
-----
Wisconsin
Facts:
Vote Tally: 1,630,716 for Biden and 1,610,151 for Trump - margin 20,565.
Mail-in ballots increased from 146,932 in 2016 to 1,275,019 in 2020.
Violations of Election Law:
The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) positioned hundreds of unmanned illegal drop boxes to collect absentee ballots. (The use of any drop box, manned or unmanned, is directly prohibited by Wisconsin statute. Any alternate mail-in ballot site “shall be staffed by the municipal clerk or the executive director of the board of election commissioners…” “Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election.”)
The WEC encouraged voters to unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely confined” in order to avoid security measures like signature verification and photo ID requirements. Nearly 216,000 voters said they were indefinitely confined in the 2020 election, nearly four times as many as in 2016.
Strict laws requiring mail-in voters to certify by signature including the signature of an adult witness were ignored or circumvented by election officials.
Evidence of Fraud:
One hundred thousand ballots were supposedly missing and directed to be “found” after election day.
-----
Conclusion
Significant violations of election law that were put into place to protect against election fraud is sufficient to invalidate the results of the elections, apart from whatever evidence is able to be gathered in a short time to show actual numbers of fraudulent ballots. Reason would indicate that there is a high number of fraudulent ballots that are impossible to identify, which is why the election laws pertaining to mail-in ballots were established to begin with.
There is no remedy to correct the Nov 3rd election because ballots that did not adhere to election law cannot be identified as separate from those that did. An accurate count of legal ballots that were cast cannot be made. Therefore, as directed in the Constitution, it falls to the legislature of each state to choose electors as has been done in the past. Failing that, each state may determine not to submit any presidential electors.
The Texas lawsuit claims the odds of Biden overcoming Trump’s lead and winning any of the states after the point indicated was one in a quadrillion. And therefore, the odds of winning all four was one in a quadrillion to the fourth power. The lawsuit did not provide information on how that number was determined. This may seem an exaggerated to some. It is enough to state that the odds of winning any one of the states was highly unlikely and the odds of winning all four were extremely unlikely. For example, if the odds of winning any one of the states was numerically much less extreme but still highly unlikely, say something like one in twenty, then the odds of doing that in all four states would be 1 in 160,000. Twenty beans in a jar: 19 white and 1 black. Reach in without looking and be lucky enough to pull out the one black bean. Chances of doing that again is 1 in 400. Clearly indicative of cheating if someone claims to have done that four times in a row. As I said the statistical analysis behind the claim of odds of 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 are not given so I cannot speak to that. But even if the odds were orders of magnitude better than that, they were still astronomically small. At any rate, the merits of the lawsuit do not depend on any certain level of odds of Biden overcoming a lead that had been established by 3:00 A.M. the day after election.
missouri
alabama
arkansas
florida
indiana
kansas
louisiana
mississippi
montana
nebraska
north dakota
oklahoma
south carolina
south dakota
tennessee
utah
west virginia
arizona
all signed on to the brief that backs the texas suit
6 things to know about texas's supreme court petition over 2020's messed up election
by Margot Cleveland
On Monday, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The combined filings, which also include a request for an expedited review and a preliminary injunction, spanned more than 150 pages. Here’s what you need to know about this latest election case.
1. This Is Not Bush v. Gore
Texas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially.
The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts.
Not so in the case of a state suing a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Paradoxically, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. That is why Texas filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint—because it needs the court’s permission to file the complaint.
In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief also argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.”
Texas, however, also argues the Supreme Court’s “review is not discretionary.” In other words, Texas is also asking the Supreme Court to overturn its precedent that holds that the high court need not accept a complaint filed by one state against one or more defendant states. Given the time-sensitivity of the election dispute, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will want to waste precious days revisiting this precedent—something unnecessary if the Supreme Court accepts the Bill of Complaint on a discretionary basis.
2. The Time Is Short—And the Court Has Already Acted
Along with its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, Texas also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. In this latter motion, Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit.
Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.”
Yesterday the court, recognizing the urgency of the matter, ordered responses by the defendant states to Texas’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaints, and Texas’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or a Stay, to be filed by Dec. 10, 2020, at 3 p.m.
3. Texas Presents Serious Constitutional Claims
Notwithstanding some branding Texas lawsuit a “Hail Mary” attempt to block the outcome of the 2020 election, the Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues, as Texas puts it, far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election.”
In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution.
The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “[e]ach 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.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.”
But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address.
Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint.
The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.
These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause, because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.”
In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president.
“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”
Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”
Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.
These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.
4. Texas’s Standing to Sue
Merely alleging the defendant states violated the Constitution, however, is not enough. Texas must also establish that it has “standing” to sue, meaning it has been injured in a way entitling it to stand before the court and seek redress. In its Motion for Leave, Texas argues at great length that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it.
First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.”
Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “[w]hile Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:
States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President.
Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “[t]he electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors, according to the briefing.
5. Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install Trump
These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.
No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”
6. Texas Brings the Quotes
The Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener:
Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.
If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it.
Thanks Henry. That’s comprehensive. The open minds should now have a grasp of what’s happening. The closed minds are narrative driven and shrink down the significance of what doesn’t fit the preconceptions. And of course the too-open minds sitting on the fence need to build up that kegel strength to retain any pertinent idea discovered in the entire universe of ideas, and to formulate implications based on prevailing conditions.
So, state legislators from Pennsylvania and Michigan have joined in the Texas lawsuit against Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This is what good, peaceful people do when swimming with sharks, and it communicates with their constituents that these legislators are not part of the corruption. In fact, it is the laws they passed that have been violated by Progressives.
The deadline has passed. I wonder if the four miscreant states have responded to the SCOTUS, and what that response was.
Thousands of Trump supporters are supposed to show up in Washington DC and demonstrate this weekend. Peacefully walk down the street with signs and slogans and chants voicing their views in public for the world to see. The last time they did that, some Democratic Party antifa’s were wearing black in daylight and lurking around the crowd edges, darting in with physical assaults, like barracudas slashing into a school of peaceful fish.
This weekend the peaceful know that they will get no protection from the Metro Police. In fact, whenever there is a Republican event in that town where the public is invited, the police often exit the peaceful attendees through a gauntlet of harassment where they get physically assaulted. It’s a Democratic town, something like 98%. A big swamp town. Some of the richest counties in the country surround the city. Trying to tip that trough is frowned upon by all those rule writers and enforcers and contractors, and transgressors will be punished.
So, will the physical assaults by antifa, and by free-agents, be met with ahimsa or himsa this time around? What pimply punks hiding within a militant Democratic group such as antifa or the KKK learn in life, is that when you awaken the Kraken that lives buried within each human, all that energy and intelligence and creativity that went into building a peaceful and fair life can be quite effective in defense. Even creative, merciless, unfair, proactive defense.
And then the terrorists win, as the saying goes.
It’s not the laws so much as the regulations. With a “robust” regulatory process in place the federal legislators can distance themselves for what they themselves hath wrought, and continue their public, showy fight against the deep-state machine that they keep oiled and maintained, to please the most friendly of their constituents and to protect incumbancy.
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:04 pm
The swamp just isn't a word. The media is part of it.
Going into the election a lot of people had not even heard about the laptop, just as folks don't hear many scientists say that lockdowns are more harmful than not.
They're saving Hunter in case Biden gets elected. That scandal is an extra option to get rid of Biden and seat Harris as the president. Biden is a career hack. Harris is a radical.
Oh, interesting. So you think they might use the laptop to decapitate their own Presidency, and enthrone a candidate nobody would vote for?
Wow. That's cold, if it's true.
So, the information has been released by our betters that Hunter Biden has been under FBI investigation during the whole time that Joe Biden, Joe's minions and Joe's handlers were swearing up and down on a stack of Bibles that there is nothing to see here, that any talk of Biden corruption is nothing more than Russian political disinformation to influence the election in favor of Trump, which was good enough for the media to determine the whole topic is not newsworthy, for the media to censor through omission and thus keep the public uninformed of what the media itself knew was true.
The handlers are now letting out Hunter stories and surprise, people are surprised. People say, they had no idea. They say, we were never told. We were not spoon-fed this information. Our ignorance absolves us from the stupidity of our Biden support.
The media begins with information about "tax investigation." There are also "rumors" from anonymous sources (because that's how it's done post Woodward and Bernstein), that there is much, much more.
This is just laying the groundwork for ousting Joe and installing Kamala as the first woman president. Historic. An inspiring event especially for little girls, as Kamala likes to say repeatedly, which is a huge Freudian flag. For anyone who expresses reservations about the back-door process of how this all came to be, there will be a rich menu of woke ad hominem to spice up future experiences.
What (ahem) Biden supporters will not ‘fess up to is that they get their political opinions from late night comics.
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:04 pm
The swamp just isn't a word. The media is part of it.
Going into the election a lot of people had not even heard about the laptop, just as folks don't hear many scientists say that lockdowns are more harmful than not.
They're saving Hunter in case Biden gets elected. That scandal is an extra option to get rid of Biden and seat Harris as the president. Biden is a career hack. Harris is a radical.
Oh, interesting. So you think they might use the laptop to decapitate their own Presidency, and enthrone a candidate nobody would vote for?
Wow. That's cold, if it's true.
So, the information has been released by our betters that Hunter Biden has been under FBI investigation during the whole time that Joe Biden, Joe's minions and Joe's handlers were swearing up and down on a stack of Bibles that there is nothing to see here, that any talk of Biden corruption is nothing more than Russian political disinformation to influence the election in favor of Trump, which was good enough for the media to determine the whole topic is not newsworthy, for the media to censor through omission and thus keep the public uninformed of what the media itself knew was true.
I hear that if the facts had been released before the election, one in six Democratic voters say they'd have changed their vote. If that's true, the media didn't just "influence" the election; they are solely responsible for keeping the electorate from being able to make an informed decision, and for Biden getting in, if he does.
Where, then, is "the will of the people"?
I also saw that China is really rejoicing that they anticipate a Democrat admin. And no wonder, given not just the Swallwell scandal, but also the amount of money they have channelled to Biden already.
That laptop is a piece of real factual gold. And ironically, it was delivered by Hunter Biden himself, who was too drug-addled to recall he'd left a laptop full of incriminating evidence in the hands of a shopkeeper.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:47 pmI hear that if the facts had been released before the election, one in six Democratic voters say they'd have changed their vote. If that's true,
That seems to me like a good time to pause and consider. From whom did you hear this? How did they gather meaningful data in what seems like very short order? It may well be true, but what are your sources?
