# Texas Sues Non-Trump Voting States for . . . reasons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 9, 2020, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614 "2020-12-09T02:33:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/121 "2020-12-10T23:01:58Z")
And Trump apparently called the Georgia AG directly to tell him to mute his opposition to the lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/122 "2020-12-10T23:07:58Z")
I don’t understand wht defendants named in a ridiculous suit should respond at all. Are the actually expected to? ---
**Author:** ![Marvin\_the\_Martian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/marvin_the_martian/32/2898_2.png) [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marvin_the_Martian)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/123 "2020-12-10T23:10:11Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > Ohio filed to oppose this lawsuit. 😀 The Ohio brief says that it is not in support of the plaintiff or the defendant. A quick read leaves me with the impression that it tilts towards the plaintiff (Texas)… ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/124 "2020-12-10T23:14:30Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > I don’t understand wht defendants named in a ridiculous suit should respond at all. Are the actually expected to? Yes, they were expected to. At minimum, Texas would have argued that failure to object meant waiver of their arguments. With rare exceptions, you always have to file some kind of an opposition to a motion. From the Supreme Court: > Dec 08 2020 Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/125 "2020-12-10T23:17:22Z")
To me it’s like if the Texas AG jumped into a volcano, and told Pennsylvania that they had to do something about it. Pensylvania looks down into the volcano and says: No, I don’t. I mean, I could if I wanted to, but you know, no. I’m not a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/126 "2020-12-10T23:20:04Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Seconding. This needs to be slapped down and slapped down hard; but even presuming that it is, there’s still a hell of a problem. Check out the Justice and Freedom Fund Amici brief: > Think of it as a bank heist, one in which armed > robbers crash through the front doors and hightail it to > different sections of the building. One approaches a > teller and shoves a gun in his face. One sneaks over to > the main computer and hacks away. Another goes into > the vault and locks it behind him, so he can swap out > real bills with counterfeits when no one is looking. > That pretty much sums up what happened in the > 2020 presidential election. The election was stolen out > from under the American people. And the crooks used > many means to bring their devious plan to fruition. > Evidence of fraud is there for anyone to see, but the > corporate media seem to be engaging in one of three > strategies: stating that none exists; ignoring it > altogether; or subjecting it to a “fact-checking” process. > But the evidence in this election merry-go-round is > massive. Indeed, the evidence is credible enough to > warrant overturning the results in the battleground > states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, > Arizona, and Nevada—even before considering the > staggering amount of statistical evidence and the > mounting data involving tabulation machines and > software. ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/127 "2020-12-10T23:20:21Z")
> [@simster](#): > > the Pennsylvania response is a good read. I am a big fan of the “sic” in this passage. > And Texas’s own complaint shows why the later-counted votes led to such a strong shift in favor of President-Elect Biden: “Significantly, in Defendant States, Democrat [sic] voters voted by mail at two to three times the rate of Republicans.” ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/128 "2020-12-10T23:22:09Z")
That is good! ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/129 "2020-12-10T23:32:13Z")
It looks like the good folks from PA were at least able to have a little subtle fun with the whole thing. Most pundits seem to think that we will hear from SCOTUS on Monday. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/130 "2020-12-10T23:54:32Z")
I wish we’d hear tomorrow, the fear of something going crazy this weekend is unnerving. They don’t need three days to come up with a clever put down, do they? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/131 "2020-12-11T00:03:47Z")
Too fast and it will be deemed ‘pre-determined’ - too slow and it will look like actual deliberations were needeed. (assuming a short “not our monkey” response) Given the amount of filings (so far) in this thing - I would expect SCOTUS to review it tomorrow (friday) and require the weekend to type up the response. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/132 "2020-12-11T00:11:32Z")
If we could just let the red states become their own country for a year, and let them shake themselves into insane meth-fueled opium mania as the trailer parks burn and they don’t have the blue-state taxes to prop up their shuddering incompetence… Oh yeah. They’d nuke us, never mind. On topic: Every single lawyer involved in this should be permanently disbarred. What is more fundamental to justice than the integrity of the government itself? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/133 "2020-12-11T00:13:56Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Exactly. > > I’ve been getting very frustrated as of late, that some Republicans or Republican voters, and I’m including reluctant Trump voters in with hardcore Trumpists, have been readily _acknowledging_ that the concerns of Trump critics are indeed factual and bad. Things like, “Yes, he really needs to get off twitter,” “Yes, he shouldn’t be so crass and attack everyone as much as he does,” “Yes he should have just said he’d accept the results of the election,” “Yes, he should just concede and move on like an adult,” “Yes, he shouldn’t be pursuing these absurd lawsuits.” And at the same time, simultaneously holding the opinion that Biden voters suffer from TDS, or they’ve been brainwashed by “the media,” or they live in an echo chamber, or they hate America. As far as I’m concerned, it’s political “lampshade hanging.” In fiction, that term refers to a technique where, rather than remove or explain something that seems absurd or doesn’t fit, you just have the characters acknowledge it and how weird it is, and otherwise do nothing about it. The political equivalent then, I suggest, is acknowledging that a problem exists, but then don’t actually address it. > **[Lampshade Hanging - TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging)** > > Lampshade Hanging (or, more informally, "Lampshading") is the writers' trick of dealing with any element of the story that seems too dubious to take at face value, whether a very implausible plot development or a particularly blatant use of a … ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/134 "2020-12-11T00:16:21Z")
I kind of hope that they write a serious smack down. We need more of these moments where reality is enforced or reimposed on people who are trying to construct their own. Maybe eventually it will start to break through. A note on the court’s discretionary call on whether to take the case. Back in the 70s, I think, is when the court made hearing original jurisdiction cases discretionary. They later tightened it up more. > [@](#): > > The Court resolved to examine the “seriousness and dignity” of claims so as to preserve its resources for consideration of appeals involving federal questions. The Supreme Court soon expanded its appropriateness doctrine to decline to hear some cases between two states, even where the Court’s jurisdiction was exclusive. > > [Snipped] > > The Court has generally accepted state party cases dealing with boundary and water disputes, but it has been much less likely to field original cases dealing with contract disputes and other subjects not deemed sufficiently substantial for the Court’s resources. From here: [https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-original-supreme-court](https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-original-supreme-court) So, this suit ought to not be heard, based on the “seriousness and dignity” criterion, but, it could be considered pretty important to shut this nonsense down, hard. I think they can do both by writing on why it’s being rejected, but there are technical aspects to the procedure here that I am not familiar with, so I don’t know exactly how they can do it. As for the earlier question about contact between Trump and one or more Justices, it would be unethical under any code of judicial conduct that I’m aware of, at least, if the suit were discussed, but ethics is a little weird for Supreme Court Justices. They basically police themselves, collectively. They are not governed by any judicial ethics code. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/135 "2020-12-11T00:18:03Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If we could just let the red states become their own country for a year, and let them shake themselves into insane meth-fueled opium mania as the trailer parks burn and they don’t have the blue-state taxes to prop up their shuddering incompetence… It is a wonderful dream, too good to ever come true, damn the gods! ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/136 "2020-12-11T00:32:45Z")
I have a tangential question: On the face of it, Texas has no standing to sue because Pennsylvania’s election is Pennsylvania’s business. But does some sort of legal principle of “what my neighbor does in his land is actually affecting me” apply (not to Texas, but a hypothetical case)? For instance, in the same way that a landowner incinerating 10 tons of cadmium and mercury can cause tremendous toxic pollution for all of his neighbors, if a swing state rigs elections (not saying Pennsylvania rigged it this year, but a hypothetical) in such a way that it affects the entire U.S. election, then many states suffer as a result of the rigging. Just for giggles’ sake, let’s say that Texas itself were THE deciding swing state in the 2024 election. And Texas had systematically banned all non-white voters, all women, from voting. Only white men allowed to vote. Blatantly unConstitutional, but this gives the presidency to the Republican candidate. Could a state like California then sue Texas, saying, “Your illegal vote suppression has now caused California to have to unfairly suffer the next 4 years under a Republican president when it would have had you run elections fairly?” ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/137 "2020-12-11T00:33:06Z")
I am torn about what would be better, an epic smackdown or a one line “We decline to hear this”. The Court has released a series of unanimous decisions over the last couple of days. I think that this is intentional by Roberts. He wants (releasing some unanimous decisions first) to show that the Court isn’t as fractured as some may think. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/138 "2020-12-11T00:35:22Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Could a state like California then sue Texas, saying, “Your illegal vote suppression has now caused California to have to unfairly suffer the next 4 years under a Republican president when it would have had you run elections fairly?” No. Congress is usually the arbiter of inter-state things like commerce, water rights, etc. Congress is the one who has the power to enforce the 14th Amendment. The U.S. itself can sue if Congress authorizes it under, say, the Voting Rights Act. Individuals in Texas can sue Texas both in state court and in federal court under state and federal law. California has zero direct interest in Texas’s appointment of electoral votes. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/139 "2020-12-11T00:35:35Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Just for giggles’ sake, let’s say that Texas itself were THE deciding swing state in the 2024 election. And Texas had systematically banned all non-white voters, all women, from voting. Only white men allowed to vote. Blatantly unConstitutional, but this gives the presidency to the Republican candidate. > > Could a state like California then sue Texas, saying, “Your illegal vote suppression has now caused California to have to unfairly suffer the next 4 years under a Republican president when it would have had you run elections fairly?” I think the preferred method to redress that problem is for someone with standing to sue Texas, not the State of California. And to sue in the state or federal courts in Texas. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2020, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614/140 "2020-12-11T00:36:29Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I think the preferred method to redress that problem is for someone with standing to sue Texas, not the State of California. And to sue in the state or federal courts in Texas. For sure, Texas would face a million lawsuits in such a scenario. But I was just asking, Constitutionally, if a state like California would have grounds to sue because “your illegal suppression in Texas indirectly affects us.” Because that sounds to me like the argument Texas is using in real life right now - that if Pennsylvania did indeed rig elections, that it indirectly affects Texas. At least to my non-lawyer ears, that sounds like what the claim is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-sues-non-trump-voting-states-for-reasons/927614.md?page=8)