We are here.

	Start Page Stuff
	G T V
	No client? No problem!
	/pol/
	1337
	Apps
	Netflix
	Hulu
	Amazon
	DC Universe
	Putlocker
	Major League Baseball
	Links to Check
	Steve1989MREInfo
	Primitive Technology
	Red Letter Media
	Chef John
	BBQ Pit Boys
	Traplines
	Outsider
	50 Acres
	Nik
	The Eye
	TA Outdoors
	Bunch of Live Sports Streams
	Tools and Help
	Moose Gallery
	Hawkee Snipets
	Khaled's Forum
	Open Directory Search
	Another directory tool
	Book Library and Search
	Lots of Fun Tools
	Removed Reddit
	Library Genesis

Prologue

The PA legislators passed a law in October 2019 allowing mail in voting. The then governor said that they will allow ballots with incorrect signatures, no postmark date, and ballots would be acceptable 3 days after the election. The legislators refused. The governor said "yes you will". He then went to the democratic controlled court and the court allowed it. Section 2, Article 1, Clause 2 is very clear. The state legislators have the power to determine election law. Not the governor or his people. The founders knew Tyrrany and took steps to prevent it.

In addition to that, the PA legislators violated the Pennsylvania constitution. Any change in election laws must be voted on by both houses, twice. Notices in two newspapers in all counties, voted on by the people. They did none of that.

Because Texas followed the rules and the other states did not. Texas, and other states, were cheated. The definition of cheat is "to violate rules dishonestly". Texas will probably win. The remedy they are asking for is that the state legislators choose the electors. Which is their right in the constitution of the United States.

The Main Course...

Feeling disenfranchised yet? Here are some quick answers as to what is going on currently.

How can States sue other States over their election laws?

Why didn't they sue as soon as these laws were passed?

Could States sue each other over any law they dislike?

There is something called the Equal Protection Clause. It states that the elections of all the states must be equally protected. The intent is to stop one state from defrauding the others. The most extreme case would be a situation where California removes every single bit of ballot verification, requirements, or ability to audit, then prints out or submits 100 million fake ballots. The obvious consequence of that is that every group would just try to cheat the most and the votes would be irrelevant.

Additionally, they could not sue until after the Presidential election because there had been no harm committed up until that point. No harm equals no standing. They had to go through with the election and HAD to go through the steps of certification for this case to have legs.

When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia's Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause.

i.e. this is the first election where various State governing bodies have gone around the legislature (and the US constitution) to make laws surrounding the election.

The 4 states in question changed voting rules per emergency orders of covid-19 without state legistlature approval, which is against the equal protection clause because it soils the election for everyone by allowing illegal voting acts. It is not legal to change voting rules without state legistlature approval.

These aren't affidavits, they're proven processing crimes.

Texas v State Motion.

Endgame?

I expect this list of states to grow.

Currently, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Texas are taking action as plantiffs in the SCOTUS.