By Cindy Alia, December 11, 2020
Corrected, update December 11, 6:55 pm
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson should not be a party to this suit alleging the state of Texas has no standing under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress made the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction exclusive in suits between two or more states.
Contrary to Bob Ferguson’s claim, the Texas suit is not requesting relief from “widespread fraud” but rather from the dilution of its states voters’ votes by the actions of certain states prior to election day. The question asked by Texas is if the named states abided by or violated the Electors Clause of the federal constitution? The Electors Clause requires that only one branch of the state can choose electors, that is the legislative branch. It cannot be delegated or limited outside the legislative branch. The Electors Clause is a compact agreed to by the States of the United States.
The Supreme Court must determine these initial questions:
Is this Texas original proceeding lawsuit a legitimate election dispute between the states? And is the Supreme Court the exclusive court for jurisdiction of disputes between states? If so, the court must take the case.
The claim of standing exists if the parties to the lawsuit for a breach of the compact between states is broken by behavior outside of and above the law governing elections. The state of Texas’s complaint is The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State Of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin have broken the compact between the states in the Electors Clause. The only way to provide a remedy for breaking a constitutionally protected right in this case is a hearing at the Supreme Court. The Electors Clause Provision is the basis of standing which calls for the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between the states.
Here is the Texas lawsuit:
AG Ferguson’s use of media talking points are not an aspect of legal argument, and do not protect or defend the people of the state, nor the state itself, they are simply a reflection of the general thoughtlessness of a man with an historical obvious bias displayed by his office for the past four years. ““I will continue working to defend our elections from these legal attacks on our democracy,” Ferguson said. “This lawsuit has no legal or factual basis. It will not succeed in overturning the will of the voters.” He is wrong, the suit does not seek to overturn the will of the voters, but rather to protect the will of all voters through an established constitutional process designed to provide a remedy when some voters rights are usurped by the actions of a state. Ferguson’s claim misses the mark and simply parrots one-sided party and media talking points, which often do miss the mark. “AG Ferguson files amicus brief opposing Texas’s lawsuit to overturn the result of a free and fair election”
Here is the Amicus suit Attorney General Bob Ferguson signed our state onto.
If we have such a fine and uncorruptible mail in ballot system, why the sound of crickets from the SOS? Shouldn’t she be a party to defending a system that works and is unable to be undermined by the same states mentioned by Texas? Check her news feed here:
If there are those in government who do not like questions asked, then certainly those they govern should not act questionably requiring a blind eye to be cast their way in order to perpetuate the theory that mail in ballots have been perfected in Washington State. Attorney General Ferguson’s attention would be better spent looking within the state in order to help the Secretary of State ensure a “free and fair election”. Such a switch of focus may not gain political favor for the man, but it would well serve the people of the state.
Within the media, there are others paying attention to happenings within Washington state.
Culp for Governor Sues Secretary of State Kim Wyman
What is the Texas suit about?
Most disappointingly, the Supreme Court denied the filing from Texas:
|Dec 11 2020|
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
The Supreme Court also denied Texas a reply to the court, the state filed a Reply in support of motion for leave to file bill of complaint from plaintiff Texas filed.
All filings in the case can be read here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html