TEXAS DECLARES A JUDICIAL CIVIL WAR

​TEXAS DECLARES A JUDICIAL CIVIL WAR.
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
December 10, 2020 Update:  As of this writing, the following states have stated their intent to join Texas in its lawsuit as "friends of the court": Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennesse, Utah, and West Virginia.  There are also indications that Alaska and Arizona will join the lawsuit.  

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:    

As Justice Samuel Alito prepared to consider a motion for injunctive relief against Pennsylvania for its unconstitutional acts in adding categories to the classes of individuals able to cast votes outside of polling stations, Texas filed a lawsuit before the Supreme Court against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to address "unconstitutional irregularities" suffered as part of the 2020 election.  The events firmly drew the Supreme Court directly into the controversy that has engulfed everyone in the United States, with the possible exception of the mainstream media.
 
First, to the complaint regarding the unconstitutionality of mail-in ballots filed against Pennsylvania by Congressman Mike Kelly and others.  As described previously, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law adding mail-in ballots as a new option for casting votes in the 2020 election. The provision supplemented a list specifically listed in the Pennsylvania Constitution.  Adding to that list ought to be a process of constitutional amendment, but the legislature sought to amend the process through a simple statute, Act-77.  The case was litigated in Pennsylvania where the state's Supreme Court dismissed the motion through a statute of limitations provision.  In response, Justice Alito agreed to hear the motion for injunctive relief, and even moved up the date by which the response from the defendants was due. But in the end, the Court, without explanation or opinion, denied the petition.
 
In the meantime, the Texas petition gained momentum as an increasing number of sates including Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Mississippi, and Kentucky expressed their desire join, if only by filing amicus briefs.  Texas elected to file its case directly to the Supreme Court through a provision in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over dispute between states. This means that the Court would not be hearing the case in its appellate capacity, but as a trial court.  
 
Even though the case has been filed before the Supreme Court, it still is under no obligation to hear, and the Court has set a Thursday deadline for a response from the defendant four states as to whether it should even consider the case.  The interesting thing about the Texas complaint is that its legal charges would include the unconstitutional Pennsylvania acts in the many facets of its case.  
 
Unquestionably, Texas's action has just increased the intensity and complexity of the high-stakes legal wrangling for control of the White House while the press continues to play ostrich and insult the intelligence of the American people by asserting that the claims from Trump's allies are "unsubstantiated."  Although the outcome of this accelerated legal saga is uncertain, one thing remains true; we have witnessed the beginning of an all-out judicial war between the states over the 2020 elections.  Stay tuned.  
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
 
 
 
 

---