The Constitution is crystal clear over which body has the authority to change election law. The changes Democrats have worked so hard to push forward this year bypassed that authority. Now we’re headed to court.
That decision may yet come back to bite them in the backside because the changes they made may have made many of the ballots they encouraged their supporters to cast through methods that were not endorsed under the original law could be ruled to be spoiled ballots for not complying to the laws that are actually in force.
Furthermore, there are specific examples that would fall under the same equal protection clause that played a key role in the Bush v Gore election controversy.
Let’s look at the suit.
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. –Breitbart
There’s another reason this case is significant.
Unlike so many other cases, where it has to work its way up the courts, and risk not being taken up at the higher level if it hits a snag with, for example, a court that’s either partisan or gutless, Article III makes it clear that a dispute between states is properly addressed and heard at the SCOTUS level.
Seeing as there is a specific claim at constitutional rights being breached, it will be interesting to note what comes of this case.
If it goes the way some analysts whose opinions we respect think it could, this ruling would potentially determine whether the glut of votes exploiting the weak security of the mail-in system were improperly cast.
As importantly, even if there is no change in the current election results from the apparent result, a positive ruling would close that loophole from future Democrat attempts to use courts, Governors, and local officials to tilt the rules in favor of one party.
From a Constitutionalists’ vantage point, this court case was a strong play.
Will it achieve what they hope it will achieve?
That is the million-dollar question.
Short answer? It remains to be seen.
Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news — subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:
Join our MeWe group to get all the ClashDaily goodness.
If you’re still on Facebook, check out our ClashBriefing page.