Name: How Texas’s Supreme Court Election Lawsuit Defends Our Civil Rights
Brand: thefederalist.com
SKU: thefederalist-com-700
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

How Texas’s Supreme Court Election Lawsuit Defends Our Civil Rights

preview

ShareThe Supreme Court case docketed Dec. 8 by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that is supported by 17 states seeks redress for unconstitutional election processes in four states, including my own. As an appointee of the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee to the&nbsp;&nbsp;(USCCR), I wholeheartedly endorse the plaintiff’s argument—especially its bearing on equal protection in voting rights, a special focus of USCCR.The state of Texas, through its attorney general, claims standing to sue on the grounds of harm done to Texans by a presidential&nbsp;election that was unconstitutionally conducted, under a legal doctrine called&nbsp;parens patriae&nbsp;wherein states can represent their citizens. Of course, Texans are not the only ones harmed:&nbsp;&nbsp;maintains that officials and judges in the four states violated the U.S. Constitution’s Electors Clause (Art. II, § 1, cl. 2) in the 2020 election, thus harming all American citizens.In my own state, I can attest to this fact:&nbsp;Pennsylvania made non-legislative changes to its election laws that facilitated the casting and counting of illegal ballots.&nbsp;This was particularly true for mail-in ballots, an option&nbsp;, and which Democrats’ unilaterally stripped of&nbsp;.These violations have been presented by&nbsp;&nbsp;and their media allies as a&nbsp;fait accompli. They manipulated the rules of the election to their advantage, but now claim nothing can be done about it.Thankfully, America is still a nation of laws—most importantly, the Constitution. Its principles, including the principle of equal protection cited in&nbsp;Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al., cannot simply be discarded, “even in times of crisis,” as Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently argued in&nbsp;.Because election lawsuits do not often invoke the equal protection clause, some might need its constitutional jurisprudence spelled out. The phrase “equal protection” is a linchpin of civil rights that appears in the&nbsp;: “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”This applies to elections in that, as the 2000 Supreme Court case&nbsp;Bush v. Gore&nbsp;determined, “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” In other words, wrongfully counting illegal ballots denies many Pennsylvanians our civil rights by diluting our vote.Pennsylvania election officials have now attempted to deny their actions violated equal protection. Originally, in&nbsp;,&nbsp;Kelly v. Pennsylvania, they only protested that the court’s intervention would be “disruptive” and that Pennsylvania’s election did not violate its own state constitution.As Pennsylvanians know, our state constitution is interpreted by our&nbsp;, and in their view, Democrat election officials can do no wrong. But now they argue in their&nbsp;&nbsp;that equal protection could not have been violated, because Texas and other states can only sue on behalf of their own residents, not on behalf of Pennsylvanians whose votes were diluted.Commonsense jurisprudence—particularly among the court’s originalists—will recognize the open-shut argument that voters’ civil rights were violated by vote dilution during an unconstitutional election process. It’s unlikely they’ll abandon Pennsylvanians whose civil rights were violated simply on the grounds of this harm’s location. Still, the question remains: what do the plaintiffs expect the court to do about it, post-election?Unlike the&nbsp;Kelly v. Pennsylvania&nbsp;case, which seeks to have 2.5 million unconstitutionally cast ballots tossed out, plaintiffs in&nbsp;Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al.&nbsp;are not seeking to discard any ballots. Rather,&nbsp;they expect the court to enjoin the states from “taking action to certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action—including without limitation participating in the electoral college or voting for a presidential candidate—until further order of this Court.”After that temporary restraining order or stay, there are several possibilities, including a lack of electoral majority that would be&nbsp;, or one that&nbsp;, invoking&nbsp;.Such a court order could work in Trump’s favor, although not necessarily. The House of Representatives would vote as a group of state delegations, which would mostly be Republican. And all four states in the Texas suit have Republican-majority legislatures, but not every Republican lawmaker supports the president, even if their constituents do.House delegations and state legislators may need to ponder the very same civil rights argument the court is about to consider. In a tumultuous election, whoever wins or loses, our nation must not lose its Constitution. Allowing unconstitutionality and fraud to determine the course of America’s future is a civil rights violation that cannot be repaired.September 12, 2022September 12, 2022September 8, 2022September 8, 2022IntroducingJoin now to unlock comments, browse ad-free, and access exclusive content from your favorite FDRLST writers×

ShareThe Supreme Court case docketed Dec. 8 by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that is supported by 17 states seeks redress for unconstitutional election processes in four states, including my own. As an appointee of the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee to the&nbsp;&nbsp;(USCCR), I wholeheartedly endorse the plaintiff’s argument—especially its bearing on equal protection in voting rights, a special focus of USCCR.The state of Texas, through its attorney general, claims standing to sue on the grounds of harm done to Texans by a presidential&nbsp;election that was unconstitutionally...

public

Andrew Cuff

A web magazine of culture, entertainment, and politics. Be lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.

How Texas’s Supreme Court Election Lawsuit Defends Our Civil Rights

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS