The current Supreme Court is giving solid support for state legislatures to run their elections in any manner they want. If the Georgia House decides that there are shenanigans in the Atlanta metro, they will be able to simply declare those results tainted and lawsuits challenging that will be too little and too late.
It would take some really repulsive shit for the courts to repudiate Republicans. What they don’t yet realize is that this will inevitably make the courts less independent in the future. The Executive is ultimately the most powerful branch of government.
I’m starting to think that we probably cannot stop the anti-democratic backslide. There’s now a better than 50% chance that the United States will slip into an illiberal democracy, and it’s now more of a question of how long it stays there. Ending it, reversing it depends on the ability of the ruling group - not necessarily the majority of the US population - but the majority of participants within the ruling class and coalition to have an internal alarm that tells them that things have gone too far. And that realization must occur before the ruling party imposes the kind of law and order that can successfully deter resistance. This is when the average person should begin thinking about the kinds of wiretapping and electronic surveillance capabilities they’ve been paying for and consenting to all these years.
One of the most underrated things that protects democracy is that most people who attain status and moderate amounts of power in a democracy would never attain their status in an authoritarian system. People like John Roberts, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell would NEVER attain power under a dictator. Trump would honestly fare better in an authoritarian system because he has a cult of personality and he of course wouldn’t be able to match the people who truly flourish which are people who can thrive in an environment where you gain power by literally jailing or killing your rivals. There’s really only room for one extremely shrewd politician to happen to be the head of state during the transition into a fully authoritarian system, and manage to hang on to power. What this essentially means is that once the norms that allow democracy to survive get bent so far that they break, the people who slowly attained power and status under those norms are going to lose it fast and may have to fear for their lives.
Now whether the horse-traders recognize this before it’s too late is another matter. It seems to me like the GOP and the groups close to them (Federalist Society, etc.) have the contradictory position of trying to stay in a democratic system where it’s not possible for them to lose the important elections. At some point this contradiction has to resolve itself, but I don’t think it’s clear how.
The current Supreme Court would declare all of this to be a “political matter”. In other words, if you don’t approve of your elected officials removing your right to vote, your recourse is to vote them out of office.
And how many of the Court’s current right-wing majority have the intellectual prowess to recognize how ridiculously self-contradictory such “recourse” actually is?
And of that number, how many are willing to pretend that they think it would be a logical and reasonable ruling?
((Both Snowboarder Bo and DeadTreasSecretaries offered excellent counter-arguments to Buck Godot’s reply to me, by the way. I agree with both; I don’t think it wise to hope that the current Court would make any ruling that could protect democracy at the potential cost of a Republican political entity getting what it wants.))
Jim Crow redux:
My main concern with the Texas Democrats’ walkout at this point is they don’t seem to have any kind of plan for how they’re going to use this moment to advance the cause. They’ve known for a month that this special session was coming, and that a walkout was their only tool for preventing the passage of the Republicans’ voting bill. But their messaging is scattered and Republicans are predictably pounding them for “abandoning their duties.”
The most important thing they need is a spokesman who can be the face of the Democratic walkout. The obvious candidate is Senfronia Thompson, a senior, widely respected Black legislator from Houston. They need concise talking points they’re all using on why this bill is such an abomination. And they need more platforms for getting the message out. I’m perplexed why Pelosi and Schumer haven’t already announced congressional hearings where the Ds can testify and get their message out.
Be an interesting way to “justify” the walk-out as well.
If the legislature of Texas were subpoenaed to testify in relation to the For the People Act, then they would simply be responding to that summons.
That is a universal problem of the Democrats. Probably because no one person has an iron grip on their balls.
I completely endorse your post.
Nonsense - they were just a bunch of peaceful tourists.
Apropros of nothing, I’m reminded of FDR…
~Max
Whoops! If we don’t “fix” the 2020 election, then no more elections!
To be sure, this is reported in the Washington Examiner, so maybe take it with a grain of KCN?
It’s not news that Trump wants to fix elections in his favor.
That’s a pretty grim twist on the old saying.
My favorite quote from the article - uttered by the new Mouth of Trump, Luz Harrington.
Harrington said Republican leaders have been “way too silent for way too long” on the 2020 contest and she vowed to keep the pressure on. We’re not going to stop until we get to the bottom of it!”
YAY! Please attack and destroy every single Republican that doesn’t make getting Trump reinstated NOW the focal point, the only point, of their campaign! Please!
We can’t have elections if people vote for the wrong person!
“If people can’t vote for the Right Person, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all!”
You tell 'em, Ted!
Interpretations of the Texas Constitution
Article III, Sec. 10 of the state constitution provides little guidance for the situation at hand. In one short paragraph, the document states that the House can “compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.”
That language effectively grants authority over the handling of absent members to the Texas House Rules. Under the House rules, the remaining House members can issue a Motion for Call of the House, which directs the House’s sergeant-at-arms to dispatch state police to find and return the missing members to secure a quorum.
“All absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found,” Rule 5, Sec. 8 of the House rulebook states.
While the language uses the word “arrest,” there’s uncertainty about how this term is to be interpreted. Because none of these errant members have committed any crime, and the House cannot issue a criminal warrant for their arrest, they can’t be arrested in a criminal sense.
Although Cruz’s interpretation of the law finds that there is “clear legal authority” to handcuff Democratic lawmakers and put them “in leg irons,” others treat this as a gray area of the law.
The reason why this question lacks clarity is because this hypothetical set of circumstances has no judicial precedent in Texas, said Randall Erben, an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law and former legislative director to Abbott. There has been no judicial interpretation of enforcement of Rule 5, Sec. 8 of the House rulebook, and thus no existing authority on the matter in Texas.
“I’m not going to argue with the junior senator about this, but what I’m saying is there’s no precedent anywhere for any of this,” Erben said. “He may have found some authority someplace from somewhere, but it’s not going to be relevant or on point to the interpretation by a court of competent jurisdiction, which under the Constitution is the only authority that anybody has to do this.”
Cruz’s office, which responded to questions after this article was first published, argued that the “clear legal authority” stems from the U.S. Constitution, which has a similar provision regarding absent lawmakers. Cruz spokesman Steve Guest points to a 1988 case in which an Oregon senator was brought into the senate chamber by police feet-first against his will.
Because there is no material difference between the language used in the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution regarding absent lawmakers, Cruz’s office argues that the 1988 case shows the extent to which officers can use force in returning lawmakers.
“Pretending that the law doesn’t clearly allow for the arrest and potential physical compulsion of delinquent legislators is patently absurd,” Guest said.
Erben, however, said that the ultimate authority here rests in the Texas courts.
…
Absurdity is no obstacle to Cruz-- it’s a challenge!
Get all those demonrats brought back in iron maidens!
And then they have to listen to Ted reading Green Eggs and Ham.