Quote (FGdumpster @ Feb 8 2021 12:31am)
Nineteen states led by Texas sued over the election results. The merits of the case were not heard due to lack of standing, a subjective determination that says inarguably nothing about their case and claims. You say, ‘the court cases were all heard,” so I implore you, show me where that case was heard.
The claims made were
Quote
Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to
States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of
the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures
with plenary authority regarding the
appointment of presidential electors.
• Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters,
with more favorable allotted to voters – whether
lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by
local government under Democrat control and
with populations with higher ratios of Democrat
voters than other areas of Defendant States.
• The appearance of voting irregularities in the
Defendant States that would be consistent with
the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity
protections in those States’ election laws
1. The suing states literally do exactly what they are accusing the other states of doing. Texas has involvement from other branches of its state government in determining voting laws. This has been found to be constitutionally frim by the supreme court, as the legislative branch of the respective states passes laws to determine how electors are allotted which allows involvement of other branches. For instance if Texas passes a law originating in the legislature that voting stations have to check IDs, then the fact that the governor has to sign off on the law as part of the normal process doesn't matter. It originated in the legislature so it counts as the legislature determining how the elections are held. You can look up the supreme court precedent if you want on your own time. Additionally, if the legislature passes a law that says "ballots can be accepted under these conditions" then the individual counties will have discretion in how to get the ballots to that condition unless it's explicitly said you can't do something. So if you say "ballots need a matching mailing address" then if somebody puts the wrong mailing address on their ballot you can contact them to have it corrected if it was a mistake unless the legislature says you can't. This kind of discretion is necessary to the functioning of the system.
2. This has also already been adjudicated in various state courts. The first one I found looking for the specific cases was in Pennsylvania. The gist is that you can have rules to throw out ballots, but you can also give counties discretion in allowing those ballots to be fixed by the person casting. This is because allowing a ballot to be cured is a removal of a barrier to voting, so the appropriate party to sue in this case is not the counties allowing for easier curing of ballots, its the counties that do not allow it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/21/politics/pennsylvania-trump-lawsuit-dismissal/index.html This article contains the dismissal.
3. This one is just an extension of the other two, saying that there were irregularities therefore the above two claims must be true.
Dude, I get it, there's a lot of misinformation floating around. That was the entire purpose of our last president's last 2 months in office. You should do more research on this because it's a complicated issue for the layman. The cases were heard, the judges made constitutionally sound rulings, and not a single solitary fact was in Trump's corner on this one. That isn't my political bias talking, that's the dozens and dozens of Trump and Bush appointed judges talking.
This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 8 2021 01:10am