Legal Insurrection: Legal Civil War – 17 States Join Texas Lawsuit In Supreme Court Against PA, GA, MI, and WI

Legal Insurrection updates us on the lawsuit started by Texas against four other states for illegally modifying their voting rules in Legal Civil War – 17 States Join Texas Lawsuit In Supreme Court Against PA, GA, MI, and WI

By the time the final count of states is made, the country likely will be roughly split in half before the Supreme Court. While SCOTUS could flip it off with a one-sentence denial without explanation, like it did in the prior suit, a nation so legally divided makes it harder not at least to consider the merits and give an explained decision.

Texas has sued Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking, among other things, permission to file a Bill of Complaint, and emergency injunctive relief. Responses must be filed by December 10, at 3 p.m.


We covered the filing yesterday, Texas Sues PA, GA, MI, and WI In U.S. Supreme Court To Have Legislatures Appoint Electors:

The lawsuit is in the form of a Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint. (The Brief in support of the Motion appears starting at page 50 of the pdf. A more complete pdf. with all filings, including the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order is available here starting at pg. 111)

The relief sought is a delay of the December 14 statutory deadline for electors to vote, arguing that the Supreme Court has the power to delay that deadline since “[t]he only date that is mandated under the Constitution … is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX.” The purpose of the delay would be for state legislatures to consider appointing the electors given the unreliability in the way the elections were handled.

This may be the last judicial opportunity, since the U.S. Supreme Court denied injunctive relief as to the Pennsylvania certification in a separate case, with state supreme courts, such as Nevada and Arizona, also denying relief.

Keep in mind that while the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states, such jurisdiction is not mandatory. That is why among the things Texas seeks permission to file the proposed Bill of Complaint.

Throughout the day various Attorney Generals from several other states tweeted their support for the Texas action. That support was finalized with an Amicus Brief filed by Missouri and 16 other states in support of Texas:


The Bill of Complaint raises constitutional questions of great public importance that warrant this Court’s review. First, like every similar provision in the Constitution, the separation-of-powers provision of the Electors Clause provides an important structural check on government designed to protect individual liberty. By allocating authority over Presidential electors to the “Legislature thereof” in each State, the Clause separates powers both vertically and horizontally, and it confers authority on the branch of state government most responsive to the democratic will. Encroachments on the authority of state Legislatures by other state actors violate the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty.

The unconstitutional encroachments on the authority of state Legislatures in this case raise particularly grave concerns. For decades, responsible observers have cautioned about the risks of fraud and abuse in voting by mail, and they have urged the adoption of statutory safeguards to prevent such fraud and abuse. In the numerous cases identified in the Bill of Complaint, non-legislative actors in each Defendant State repeatedly stripped away the statutory safeguards that the “Legislature thereof” had enacted to protect against fraud in voting by mail.

These changes removed protections that responsible actors had recommended for decades to guard against fraud and abuse in voting by mail. The allegations in the Bill of Complaint raise important questions about election integrity and public confidence in the administration of Presidential elections. This Court should grant Plaintiff leave to file the Bill of Complaint.

These states say they have the following interest in the case:

“In the context of a Presidential election,” state actions “implicate a uniquely important national interest,” because “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 794–95 (1983). “For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.” Id.

Amici curiae are the States of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.1

Amici have several important interests in this case. First, the States have a strong interest in safeguarding the separation of powers among state actors in the regulation of Presidential elections. The Electors Clause of Article II, § 1 carefully separates power among state actors, and it assigns a specific function to the “Legislature thereof” in each State. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Our system of federalism relies on separation of powers to preserve liberty at every level of government, and the separation of powers in the Electors Clause is no exception. The States have a strong interest in preserving the proper roles of state legislatures in the administration of federal elections, and thus safeguarding the individual liberty of their citizens.

Second, amici States have a strong interest in ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not diluted by the unconstitutional administration of elections in other States. When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the “Legislature thereof” in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election—including the citizens of amici States.

Third, for similar reasons, amici States have a strong interest in safeguarding against fraud in voting by mail during Presidential elections. “Everyvoter” in a federal election, “has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974). Plaintiff’s Bill of Complaint alleges that nonlegislative actors in the Defendant States stripped away important safeguards against fraud in voting by mail that had been enacted by the Legislature in each State. Amici States share a vital interest in protecting the integrity of the truly national election for President and Vice President of the United States.

I don’t think 17 states supporting Texas in itself changes the legalities of what is before SCOTUS. But it certainly changes the optics of the case both publicly and before the Justices. This no longer is Texas going rogue.

You can read here some of the arguments against, primarily that a state has no “standing” to seek to change the result in another state.

Additional states are beginning to file. Arizona has filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amicus Brief, which is unclear as to its ultimate position other than that the court should rule quickly (the proposed Brief itself is not in the docket yet). It’s fair to assume that by the deadline on Thursday, numerous states will have filed in opposition to Texas.

Separately, Donald Trump has filed a Motion to Intervene:

As set forth in the accompanying brief and Complaint in Intervention, election officials in each of the Defendant States altered or otherwise failed to enforce state election laws in the conduct of the 2020 election. The violations of state election law, which is the “manner” the Legislatures of the States have established for choosing presidential electors, violates the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution and thus this matter arises under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Moreover, as explained more fully in the complaint filed by Texas, the number of ballots affected by illegal conduct of state elections officials greatly exceeds the current margin between Plaintiff in Intervention and his opponent in the election for the Office of President in each of the respective Defendant States, and the four Defendant States collectively have a sufficient number of electoral votes to affect the result of the vote in the Electoral College for the Office of President. Proposed Plaintiff in Intervention therefore clearly has a stake in the outcome of this litigation.

This Court should grant leave to file the Complaint in Intervention.

By the time the final count of states is made, the country likely will be roughly split in half before the Supreme Court. While SCOTUS could flip it off with a one-sentence denial without explanation, like it did in the prior suit, a nation so legally divided makes it harder not at least to consider the merits and give an explained decision.

What we have here is a legal civil war.

UPDATE December 10, 3 p.m.

The court docket page still seems to be updating as of this hour.

As predicted, the nation is split. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin have opposed Texas, as have at total of 20 other states, D.C, and two territories in a Brief file by D.C.

The District of Columbia together with the States and territories of California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Washington ….

Ohio takes no side, but wants the Court to decide the substantive issue of whether quickly “whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted.” Arizona’s Brief isn’t in the docket yet, but its Motion suggests it’s not taking a side but wants a quick court decision.

Update 12/11/20 U.S. Supreme Court denies Texas lawsuit “for lack of standing”

Breitbart: Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

From Breitbart, Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules. Texas argues that the defendant states “usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.”

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states…

Link to motion at Scribd


Ammoland: NY Governor Cuomo Exposed by New Evidence in NRA Lawsuit

From Ammoland – New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Exposed by New Evidence in NRA Complaint

…According to a press release, the NRA filed a proposed Second Amended Complaint on December 20th 2019, citing documents provided by Lloyd’s this past June. According to the Memorandum of Law, the documents – and other information – “paint a stark and troubling picture of” the actions taken by the Cuomo regime. These included threats of adverse government action “delivered in off-the-record conversations and surreptitious backroom meetings” unless the company stopped doing business with the NRA.

According to a publicly released version of the Second Amended Complaint, the threats were backed up by fines levied against two insurance companies that did business with the NRA, including its Carry Guard insurance program intended to defray legal expenses from self-defense incidents. The coercion from the Cuomo regime eventually led those companies to sign settlements in which they agreed to cease doing any business with the NRA.

The track record of Andrew Cuomo should be no secret to loyal AmmoLand readers. While serving as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, he encouraged big cities to file lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, using the threat of bankruptcy via massive legal fees to coerce the gun companies to agree to restrictions that were largely rejected in Congress and most state legislatures. Did anyone forget that before the 2000 election, Cuomo had succeeded in forcing Smith and Wesson to accept terms that outraged law-abiding gun owners?

…The New York Times magazine noted that the Cuomo regime’s campaign has cost the NRA about $40 million in lost income and attorney’s fees in 2019 alone. Imagine how much $40 million could have done to promote the defense of our Second Amendment rights, training people to responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights, or even training gunsmiths.

The stakes of the NRA’s fight with New York cannot be higher. As William Brewer told the New York Times magazine, “If they could do it to those guys, they could do it to me. They could do it to all of us.”


Kittitas County Democrats Settle AG Campaign Finance Lawsuit

From We The Governed,

Kittitas County Democrats settle AG campaign finance lawsuit for $28k in fines and penalties.

Kittitas County Democratic Party State Committee members (source: Facebook)
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson

Last week, the Kittitas County Democrats settled a lawsuit filed last July by the Washington State Attorney General’s office for a wide variety of campaign finance violations.  The final settlement included payment for $6,740 in AG attorney fees and costs, forfeiture of $5,217 of illegal anonymous contributions, and a fine of $15,825 (with half suspended for good behavior for the next few years).  It also appears that a previously suspended $400 fine imposed by the Public Disclosure Commission was forced to be paid last year by these complaints and this lawsuit since the Kittitas County Democrats were still not complying with the state’s campaign finance laws (see previous PDC fine/letter linked here, and Reported payment of suspended portion of that fine linked here)

Click here to continue reading at We The Governed.