Election

Biden's Michigan win is none of Texas' business, Supreme Court rules

December 11, 2020, 7:45 PM

Get out of here with this election mischief malarkey, the U.S. Supreme Court told Texas' attorney general, in essence.

In a few brisk sentences, the nine justices Friday evening declined to consider the state's request to contest Joe Biden's certified victories in Michigan and three other states. Texas lacks standing to constitutionally challenge voting integrity elsewhere.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court wrote in an unsigned ruling. (Translation: What business is this of yours?)

With Electoral College votes coming Monday in Lansing and 49 other strate capitals, the ruling ends President Donald Trump's bid to overturn his loss. (Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they wanted to let the court hear the case, but would have voted against Texas.)

Here's how Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel reacts: 

Original coverage Thursday:

Michigan responds formally Thursday afternoon to a remarkable legal attack by the Texas attorney general, who asks the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn presidential election results in Michigan and three other pivotal states.

In a 53-page brief, Attorney General Dana Nessel uses blunt words as well as legal language to ridicule the groundless try by Ken Paxton, her Republican counterpart in Austin. 


Dana Nessel: "Don't mess with the Mitten!"
(Photo: WWTV)

"There is no merit to Texas' constitutional claims," this state says in the introduction to its filing, submitted by Nessel, Solicitor General Fadwa Hammoud and Assistant Attorney General Heather Meingast. The challenge is “an unprecedented one, without factual foundation and without a valid legal basis.”

Michigan and other defendants -- Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- "had claims similar to those noted in Texas’ complaint brought in their respective federal and state appellate courts, and those claims have been soundly and summarily rejected," says a news release from Nessel.

False claims made against election officials in Michigan have varied from prohibiting Republican poll challengers from monitoring the counting of votes, to the legality of mail-in ballots cast and election fraud.

A New York Times news article Thursday night on the defendants' responses has this brutal third paragraph:

The suit is the latest in a spectacularly unsuccessful legal effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the results, with cases so lacking in evidence that judges at all levels have mocked or condemned them as without merit. Legal experts have derided this latest suit as well, which makes the audacious claim, at odds with ordinary principles of federalism, that the Supreme Court should investigate and override the election systems of four states at the behest of a fifth.

Even non-lawyers can appreciate the emotions and outrage in the two-page introduction of Michigan's submission to the nine justices in Washington, D.C., so we post all of it below. Nessel tweets this summary: "Don’t mess with the Mitten!"

Michigan's response: 'There is
no merit to Texas' constitutional claims'

The Constitution has entrusted the states to determine their electors in a presidential election. Consistent with Michigan law, the State of Michigan has certified its presidential vote and the election in Michigan is over. The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual founbdation or a valid legal basis. This court should summarily dismiss the motion to file the bill of complaint. To do otherwise would make this court the arbiter of all future elections.

The base of Texas’s claims rests on an assertion that Michigan has violated its own election laws. Not true. That claim has been repeatedly rejected in the federal and state courts in Michigan, and just yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch effort to request an audit. Not only is the complaint here meritless, but its jurisdictional flaws abound and provide solid ground to dispose of this action.

Featured_michigan_response_to_texas_suit__cover_46260

To begin, Texas has not alleged a sufficient case or controversy to support its standing to invoke this court's original jurisdiction. But even if Texas clears that hurdle, the court's prudential factors weigh against exercising jurisdiction. Texas does not have a cognizable interest in how Michigan runs its elections, and there plainly are alternative forums to raise these issues. Indeed, the lower courts have already found that similar claims lack legal and factual merit.

[A lack of diligence and activity] also applies to bar review of Texas' complaint. Texas delayed weeks and then filed at the last hour, and that delay has prejudiced Michigan. Michigan certified the election results on November 23. The state is entitled to enjoy the benefit of the "safe harbor" provision created by Congress.

But even if the court were to exercise jurisdiction, there is no merit to Texas' constitutional claims.

First, Texas lacks standing to bring its Electors Clause claim where its asserted injury is nothing more than a generalized grievance that the clause was violated. And even if Texas has standing, its substantive claim fails because Michigan officials did not violatre any of the election laws cited by Texas in conducting its election. Michigan's election was administered lawfully; the Electors Clause was not violated.

Second, Texas' equal protection claim fails where it does not identify a group that has been given preference or advantage -- the hallmark of such a claim. And there has been no devaluation of any person's -- or group of persons' -- votes above or beneath any others'. There has been no violation of equal protection.

Third, Texas' substantive due process claim, assuming that is the claim being brought, fails where the alleged injury -- vote dilution -- is properly addressed under equal protection, and it fails there.

Finally, Texas fails to establish any of the requisite factors necessary for granting an injunction. It has no likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, and the remaining factors strongly weigh in favor of denying the extraordinary relief Texas seeks -- disenfranchising millions of voters. 

This court should deny Texas' motion to file a bill of complaint and its motion for injunctive relief.

Related today:

Michigan AG Nessel: Paxton wants a pardon, not to win his 'absurd' lawsuit



Leave a Comment:

Photo Of The Day