WHAT???

I believe it would only affect the ballots that were received outside of normal election law where they arbitrarily changed rules due to Covid. Not sure how many that would be. Probably the mail ins that were received after the election.

Pony Soldier wrote: I believe it would only affect the ballots that were received outside of normal election law where they arbitrarily changed rules due to Covid. Not sure how many that would be. Probably the mail ins that were received after the election.

I think the Supremes would have to accept the results of this election, but I also believe that Texas has a valid point. Election laws were changed quickly in many states on the fly often by a governor without the legislature or even some courts in session. I think this sets a bad precedent for election laws. Maybe the Supremes could write it in such a way that election law changes must be done only when legislatures and courts are in session. Example? When laws are passed, many times we have to wait six months before they actually get put on the books. This gives the courts, the citizens, and the legislators time to review them. Or maybe require the same rules for new election laws? They could only be changed for not the current election, but the future one.

koobookie wrote: That would mean that all the ballots in those four states are "illegal" and no candidate, for any position, was elected.

Don't you see an issue with election laws being changed on the fly without legislatures or courts in session to review the changes? I agree throwing out ballots or holding a new election would also be a bad precedent to set.

homeagain wrote: YES, it would set up a fubar for the SCOTUS....and a civil war.

Actually I could see the Supreme Court losing power if they choose to not review this case. When you have the legislative branch and the executive branch fighting over last minute election changes, this is the perfect time for the courts to step in.

FredHayek wrote:

Pony Soldier wrote: I believe it would only affect the ballots that were received outside of normal election law where they arbitrarily changed rules due to Covid. Not sure how many that would be. Probably the mail ins that were received after the election.

I think the Supremes would have to accept the results of this election, but I also believe that Texas has a valid point. Election laws were changed quickly in many states on the fly often by a governor without the legislature or even some courts in session. I think this sets a bad precedent for election laws. Maybe the Supremes could write it in such a way that election law changes must be done only when legislatures and courts are in session. Example? When laws are passed, many times we have to wait six months before they actually get put on the books. This gives the courts, the citizens, and the legislators time to review them. Or maybe require the same rules for new election laws? They could only be changed for not the current election, but the future one.

It is already written into the US Constitution. Why would they write it again? They don’t write the constitution.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

CASE DECLINED....SCOTUS DECLARES.

As I predicted. They simply couldn't take the case even though it was valid. Gorsuch, Kavenaugh and Barrett all voted not to take it.

www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-gop-chair...f-law-abiding-states

TEXAS REP BIDERMANN wants to succeed ........let them, good riddance..