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)
They have three theories for why they can sue:
1) Violation of the Electors Clause of the Constitution ("the Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive control of the manner of selecting electors and judicial action can't change it)
2) "Counties applied different rules"
And 3) "you didn't have as strict voter ID requirements as we'd like, and that's unconstitutional for reasons"

That's it. That's the case
They're also leaning into "every violation of state election law is a violation of the constitution" which will fly like a lead balloon
OK, on to the Complaint
And the contradiction.

The core of their complaint is that when the Constitution gives state legislatures the right to direct the "Manner" of appointing electors, that right is exclusive, and the "Manner" set by the legislature can't be varied *at all* by courts or executives
So what relief do they want? "SCOTUS, please extend December 14th voting date for presidential electors, which Congress set by statute"
The 14th, btw, is NOT the deadline for "appointing" electors. The statutory deadline for appointing electors is Nov 3 (Election Day). (Everything that happens after election day, including later certifications, is just determining *who* was appointed that day, by the election)
The 14th is the day that Congress, by statute, set for the appointed electors to actually vote for President
But the Constitution - in the very same section that says State Legislatures decide the "Manner" in which Electors are appointed - also says this:
This creates 2 problems for Texas and Trumpian Dead-Enders.

First, Congress already set the day for choosing electors as November 3. No state can choose electors on any subsequent date
Second, Congress set the date for the vote as 12/14.

And if the delegation of "Manner" to state legislatures means that state courts can't, for example, extend ballot receipt deadlines because the delegation is EXCLUSIVE and only state legislatures can set those rules, then ...
The delegation of "Time" to Congress must - must, no way around it - ALSO be exclusive, meaning the Supreme Court would have no authority AT ALL to extend the December 14th date, either
Either they're both exclusive (in which case SCOTUS can't grant the requested relief) or they are both subject to judicial oversight (in which case Texas's substantive claim is doomed). There's no third option
Texas then adopts the crazy conspiracy theories that have already been presented to and repeatedly rejected by other courts around the country.
Holy fuck they didn't
They did. They fucking did

More from Akiva Cohen

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'"

In other words, if the state passes a law that says "no talking politics in public" you can sue for an order saying "that's unconstitutional and can't be enforced" but not for damages from having your 1A rights violated in the past

I'm sure you can see where this is going: Exceptions 1 and 2 don't apply; Congress didn't say "no sovereign immunity" when it passed 42 USC 1983 (the civil rights statute the plaintiffs sued under) and Michigan hasn't waived it. That leave Younger as the only remaining option

More from Politics

You May Also Like

1. Project 1742 (EcoHealth/DTRA)
Risks of bat-borne zoonotic diseases in Western Asia

Duration: 24/10/2018-23 /10/2019

Funding: $71,500
@dgaytandzhieva
https://t.co/680CdD8uug


2. Bat Virus Database
Access to the database is limited only to those scientists participating in our ‘Bats and Coronaviruses’ project
Our intention is to eventually open up this database to the larger scientific community
https://t.co/mPn7b9HM48


3. EcoHealth Alliance & DTRA Asking for Trouble
One Health research project focused on characterizing bat diversity, bat coronavirus diversity and the risk of bat-borne zoonotic disease emergence in the region.
https://t.co/u6aUeWBGEN


4. Phelps, Olival, Epstein, Karesh - EcoHealth/DTRA


5, Methods and Expected Outcomes
(Unexpected Outcome = New Coronavirus Pandemic)