SC denies Texas case.
Ouch!
Not sure what avenues are left for Trump, now...
OK, so had to dump the above post quickly because my iPad was dying. Back home, so I can do something a little more substantial.
When I talk about avenues I think one thing is really important - time.
We're now at the halfway point between election and inauguration, so long game judicial action is becoming harder and harder to bring to fruition. If anyone wants to take a
new legal path...well, most of these start from the beginning so they have to go through:
File in state courts - lose - compile and file an appeal to the state SC - lose - compile and file to the federal SC and hope you get a hearing.
Time, folks. That all takes time and that is now starting to run out.
So, currently on the SC plate are the Kelly suit (still alive but won't progress without hearing arguments) and now the Wood suit (docketed but no agreed hearing, yet). I believe Powell just filed two and has two more to come imminently, but neither have been confirmed as even docketed (for consideration) let alone agreed to for a hearing.
New options, I believe, are now limited by time.
***
In regards to the Texas suit itself, it is important to note that this failed to progress because of
standing, and NOT because of merit.
This means that the SC did not say "Your arguments are dumb and you lose" but instead said "Look, Texas, you don't even have the right to make this argument because we don't see
you as having suffered any damages".
OK, so why didn't Texas have standing?
My personal view is something like this - even if the 4 states had have cheated (outrageously and obviously, even) then it doesn't matter to Texas because Texas still gets the same Electoral College votes and still has the same influence on the final election outcome. As such, their position was not damaged, irrespective of what the other 4 states did or didn't do.
And, to be honest, that's fair enough.
So, who
does have standing?
Once again, in my personal opinion - counties within the states that were being sued (WI, MI, PA, GA).
One of the Texas arguments was that counties within a state were subject to different rules and that violates the principle of equitable treatment (or whatever terms were actually used - you get the point).
If one county followed the rules and another didn't, and in doing so allowed additional votes to that second county that shouldn't have been allowed, then that
dilutes the votes of the first county that followed the rules and reduces their influence over the state result that decides the EC votes.
OK, that seems a fair argument, too.
BUT!!! this means that individual counties would need to take up the argument and then go through the process I outlined above - state court, lose, appeal to state SC, lose, get it to SCOTUS.
And we're back to where we started - time.
Does anyone have enough time to get through the loopholes to get to where they need to go?
I guess we have to wait and see...
