ELECTION 2020: Here’s Why Republican Louis Gohmert Is Leading A Lawsuit Against … Mike Pence?

Written by Wes Walker on December 29, 2020

The Left is likely to draw all the wrong conclusions from this suit. Get the facts for yourself so you can set them straight.

You can expect the left to call this out as a rift between Trump and Pence.

Trouble in paradise.

MAGA melting down.

You know the drill. These are the same media flunkies who would never dare to report on the internecine low-boil war between hard left Dems and the supposed ‘centrists’. But if they can sniff a whiff of conflict on the Right they are like sharks with blood in the water.

The truth is so much simpler than that.

“The 2020 presidential election was one we’d expect to see in a banana republic, not the United States of America. In fact, the rampant fraud and unconstitutional actions that took place were so egregious that seven contested states– Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all sent dueling slates of electors to Congress,” Gohmert said in a statement.

“This puts Vice President Mike Pence in a position where some argue he has to choose between morality and the law. That is not the case,” Gohmert continued. —DailyCaller

The right can’t just walk up to SCOTUS and demand a ruling unless there is a conflict of some kind for them to rule UPON. The conflict in play is the one Gohmert succinctly framed as a ‘choice between morality and the law’.

This is not a petition for Pence to somehow go rogue. This is a dispute over which legal guidance governs the decision that will soon stand before him. Team MAGA is appealing to the primacy of the Constitution. Keep that in mind when the Democrats call this ‘authoritarian’, ‘cheating’, or attempting to ‘steal’ the election.

Mike Pence will soon be playing a key role in the next step of the process in making the vote official. His job is further complicated by the fact that there are rival slates of electors.

What does that mean? Normally, it means he has to choose which slate of electors is the valid one. But is that what the Constitution really says about how this decision is resolved?

That’s where SCOTUS comes in.

There is now a live question in play, one that would impact the outcome of the election. One that requires a decision.

Many of the reasons that SCOTUS previously sidestepped this question — questions of it being too late, or ‘not ripe’ or ‘no standing’ would be difficult to argue in a situation like this one.

This could be Trump’s chance to finally present the evidence he’s wanted to put before SCOTUS, evidence which he believes will demonstrate election malfeasance in this election.

We’ve included the meat of it, but you can click this link to see Gohmert V Pence.

This civil action seeks an expedited declaratory judgment finding that the elector dispute resolution provisions in Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act, 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 15, are unconstitutional because these provisions violate the Electors Clause and the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 1 & Amend. XII. Plaintiffs also request emergency injunctive relief required to effectuate the requested declaratory judgment.

2. These provisions of Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional insofar as they establish procedures for determining which of two or more competing slates of Presidential Electors for a given State are to be counted in the Electoral College, or how objections to a proffered slate are adjudicated, that violate the Twelfth Amendment. This violation occurs because the Electoral Count Act directs the Defendant, Vice President Michael R. Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate and Presiding Officer over the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress: (1) to count the electoral votes for a State that have been appointed in violation of the Electors Clause; (2) limits or eliminates his exclusive authority and sole discretion under the Twelfth Amendment to determine which slates of electors for a State, or neither, may be counted; and (3) replaces the Twelfth Amendment’s dispute resolution procedure – under which the House of Representatives has sole authority to choose the President.

3. Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act unconstitutionally violates the Electors
Clause by usurping the exclusive and plenary authority of State Legislatures to determine the
manner of appointing Presidential Electors, and instead gives that authority to the State’s
Executive. Similarly, 3 USC § 5 makes clear that the Presidential electors of a state and their
appointment by the State Executive shall be conclusive.

4. This is not an abstract or hypothetical question, but a live “case or controversy” under Article III that is ripe for a declaratory judgment arising from the events of December 14, 2020, where the State of Arizona (and several others) have appointed two competing slates of
electors.

5. Plaintiffs include the United States Representative for Texas’ First Congressional District and the entire slate of Republican Presidential Electors for the State of Arizona. The Arizona Electors have cast Arizona’s electoral votes for President Donald J. Trump on December 14, 2020, at the Arizona State Capitol with the permission and endorsement of the Arizona Legislature, i.e., at the time, place, and manner required under Arizona state law and the Electoral Count Act. At the same time, Arizona’s Governor and Secretary of State appointed a separate and competing slate of electors who cast Arizona’s electoral votes for former Vice-President Joseph
R. Biden, despite the evidence of massive multi-state electoral fraud committed on Biden’s behalf that changed electoral results in Arizona and in other states such as Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that have also put forward competing slates of electors (collectively, the “Contested States”). Collectively, these Contested States have enough electoral votes in controversy to determine the outcome of the 2020 General Election.

6. On January 6, 2021, when Congress convenes to count the electoral votes for
President and Vice-President, Plaintiff Representative Gohmert will object to the counting of the Arizona slate of electors voting for Biden and to the Biden slates from the remaining Contested States. Rep. Gohmert is entitled to have his objection determined under the Twelve Amendment, and not through the unconstitutional impositions of a prior Congress by 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 15.

7. Senators have also stated that they may object to the Biden slate of electors from
the Contested States.

8. This Complaint addresses a matter of urgent national concern that involves only
issues of law – namely, a determination that Sections 5 and 15 of the Electoral Count Act violate the Electors Clause and/or the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The relevant facts are not in dispute concerning the existence of a live case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendant, ripeness, standing, and other matters related to the justiciability of Plaintiffs’ claims.

9. Because the requested declaratory judgment will terminate the controversy arising from the conflict between the Twelfth Amendment and the Electoral Count Act, and the facts are not in dispute, it is appropriate for this Court to grant this relief in a summary proceeding without an evidentiary hearing or discovery. See Notes of Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed. R. Civ. P. 57.

10. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have concurrently submitted a motion for a speedy summary proceeding under Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) to grant the relief requested herein as soon as possible, and for emergency injunctive relief under Rule 65 thereof consistent with the declaratory judgment requested herein on that same date.

11. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to issue a declaratory
judgment finding that:

A. Sections 5 and 15 of the Electoral Count Act, 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 15, are
unconstitutional because they violate the Twelfth Amendment, U.S. CONST. art.
II, § 1, cl. 1 & amend. XII on the face of it; and further violate the Electors Clause;

B. That Vice-President Pence, in his capacity as President of Senate and Presiding
Officer of the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress under the Twelfth
Amendment, is subject solely to the requirements of the Twelfth Amendment and
may exercise the exclusive authority and sole discretion in determining which
electoral votes to count for a given State, and must ignore and may not rely on any
provisions of the Electoral Count Act that would limit his exclusive authority and
his sole discretion to determine the count, which could include votes from the slates
of Republican electors from the Contested States; Case 6:20-cv-00660 Document 1 Filed 12/27/20 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 4

C. That, with respect to competing slates of electors from the State of Arizona or other
Contested States, the Twelfth Amendment contains the exclusive dispute
resolution mechanisms, namely, that (i) Vice-President Pence determines which
slate of electors’ votes count, or neither, for that State; (ii) how objections from
members of Congress to any proffered slate of electors is adjudicated; and (iii) if
no candidate has a majority of 270 elector votes, then the House of Representatives
(and only the House of Representatives) shall choose the President where “the
votes [in the House of Representatives] shall be taken by states, the representation
from each state having one vote,” U.S. CONST. amend. XII;

D. That with respect to the counting of competing slates of electors, the alternative
dispute resolution procedure or priority rule in 3 U.S.C. § 15, together with its
incorporation of 3 U.S.C. § 5, shall have no force or effect because it nullifies and
replaces the Twelfth Amendment rules above with an entirely different procedure;
and

E. Issue any other declaratory judgments or findings or injunctive relief necessary to
support or effectuate the foregoing declaratory judgments.

What is the key objective here?

To make the legal guidance under which Mike Pence considers his role to be that of the Constitution irrespective of any subsequent laws which would come into direct conflict with the Constitutional mandate as written.