I'm no lawyer, but I grew up watching Perry Mason, so I can give my opinion here.
Seriously, I hope the SCOTUS takes it up, not because it would have any effect on the election -- it would not -- but because the underlying issue has been around at least since 2000 and needs to be resolved.
Basically, the Constitution specifically gives the authority for setting election laws to the state legislatures. NOT to "the state" but specifically to the Legislature. The Texas suit, which is being joined by other states, is that some states violated the Constitution by ignoring the law written by the legislature and substituting decisions made by government officials or in some cases judges. This was a key issue in Florida 20 years ago, when the Gore people got the Florida supreme court to change election law after the election was over.
Texas isn't asking for the election to be held again or the results to be invalidated, or Trump to be crowed emperor or something like that. As I understand it, the suit asks that the court direct the legislatures in those states to appoint electors without relying on the recorded vote totals. (The Constitution doesn't require the selection of electors to be based on the popular vote, anyway.) Three of the states named -- Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan -- have divided legislatures, and Georgia is controlled by Republicans. There is no way in hell this is going to take the victory away from Biden.
But something has to be done to clarify the situation. You gotta have rules to have a fair election. If it turns out one of the rules doesn't seem fair, you change it for the next election. You don't wait until the votes have been cast and then argue over which ones you ought to count.
I suspect that SCOTUS, especially Roberts, wants nothing to do with this. If true, that's a damned shame. It's an issue that should be settled before the next election, or its going to become even more common.
Seriously, I hope the SCOTUS takes it up, not because it would have any effect on the election -- it would not -- but because the underlying issue has been around at least since 2000 and needs to be resolved.
Basically, the Constitution specifically gives the authority for setting election laws to the state legislatures. NOT to "the state" but specifically to the Legislature. The Texas suit, which is being joined by other states, is that some states violated the Constitution by ignoring the law written by the legislature and substituting decisions made by government officials or in some cases judges. This was a key issue in Florida 20 years ago, when the Gore people got the Florida supreme court to change election law after the election was over.
Texas isn't asking for the election to be held again or the results to be invalidated, or Trump to be crowed emperor or something like that. As I understand it, the suit asks that the court direct the legislatures in those states to appoint electors without relying on the recorded vote totals. (The Constitution doesn't require the selection of electors to be based on the popular vote, anyway.) Three of the states named -- Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan -- have divided legislatures, and Georgia is controlled by Republicans. There is no way in hell this is going to take the victory away from Biden.
But something has to be done to clarify the situation. You gotta have rules to have a fair election. If it turns out one of the rules doesn't seem fair, you change it for the next election. You don't wait until the votes have been cast and then argue over which ones you ought to count.
I suspect that SCOTUS, especially Roberts, wants nothing to do with this. If true, that's a damned shame. It's an issue that should be settled before the next election, or its going to become even more common.
