How much Voter Fraud do you think we will see this year?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I understood the case to be about the illegality of electoral changes by the state executives, without consent of the legislature.

I don’t believe that ‘fraud’ was mentioned until Trump chimed in. I think he sunk the case by being unable to keep his mouth shut.

Without the fraud cited in the suit actually occurring, TX can not claim to have been harmed by the changes.

However, they also argued that the election changes made the fraud undetectable.

Our courts only deal with detectable crimes, so the TX suit relied heavily on the the idea that other states didn't legally change their election rules, but the theory of harm required for TX to have standing and sue relied on crimes that were rendered undetectable.

On top of all that, the constitution is very clear that states get to run their elections and choose their electors however they want. The changes states made to their elections rules would only be illegal according to the states laws, written and interpreted by the state courts, not the US Constitution.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Here is an example of why TX was wrong.

In TX, the Governor decided how many drop boxes for ballots there would be in each county. I don't know if this was good or bad, and frankly, don't really care, but it certainly had an effect on the election and it wasn't done by the Texas legislators.

Should TX have her electors rejected because of this? Should NY sue TX because New Yorkers were potentially effected by the governor Texans chose for themselves?

[The Conservative]

Here is an example of why TX was wrong.

In TX, the Governor decided how many drop boxes for ballots there would be in each county. I don't know if this was good or bad, and frankly, don't really care, but it certainly had an effect on the election and it wasn't done by the Texas legislators.

Should TX have her electors rejected because of this? Should NY sue TX because New Yorkers were potentially effected by the governor Texans chose for themselves?

How can that even be described as a fair comparison?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Here is an example of why TX was wrong.

In TX, the Governor decided how many drop boxes for ballots there would be in each county. I don't know if this was good or bad, and frankly, don't really care, but it certainly had an effect on the election and it wasn't done by the Texas legislators.

Should TX have her electors rejected because of this? Should NY sue TX because New Yorkers were potentially effected by the governor Texans chose for themselves?

How can that even be described as a fair comparison?

The TX case was based on the idea that the constitution demands that all changes to election rules and procedures are done exclusively by the state legislature.

This is an election procedure that was done by the Governor.

NY could argue that the procedural decision violated the equal protection clause, but it is unlikely that the TX courts would see it that way, and it is decision that is the exclusive remit of the TX courts, not SCOTUS.

[Martin Hash]

Fuck you, mutterfukker; what do you know?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Fuck you, mutterfukker; what do you know?

Only what I've read.

But, here is a fun irony. Progressive, activist judges might have been excited for the opportunity to expand SCOTUS control of elections. Sensible, Federalist Society conservative judges, though - not a chance.

[Martin Hash]

Fuck you.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Still waiting on Trump's graceful concession.

[Martin Hash]

Fuck you

[The Conservative]

Still waiting on Trump's graceful concession.

You don't read as much as you claim.


https://m.theepochtimes.com/trump-appro ... 15492.html?

Trump Approves Filing Retooled Texas-Style Election Challenges: Giuliani