Abstracted from a post from the Daily Torch – an outlet for ALG (Americans for Limited Government) with permission (emphasis mine):
*****
- 62 electoral votes are at stake in MI, GA, WI, and PA.
ALG: What makes the Texas lawsuit different?
Hermann: It pulls together the fact that a number of states did not follow their state law. This case is not about fraud or Covid. It is not about the ballots or changing of ballots. This case is about the disregard for statutory procedure. It’s about elected officials disregarding the law.
Take Georgia, for example, the state legislature passes laws pursuant to the Constitution about how the election should be run. It requires the secretary of state to do A, B, C, and D. What this lawsuit does, is point out that maybe step B wasn’t always done. Or maybe A, B, and C were done but D wasn’t done.
The lawsuit simply states, elected officials need to follow the law and if they don’t like what the law says or they don’t like the procedure then they should work to get it changed the right way. But they cannot change it unilaterally.
ALG: But Covid does factor into the lawsuit, right?
Hermann: I think these states used the Covid as an excuse to change the rules. That doesn’t mean the rules were changed after Covid and that is also a really important point about this lawsuit. A number of these states changed the rules before Covid. But they are pointing to Covid as the excuse because they can. I think it’s going to be really important that the courts and the public pay close attention to the timing of when these changes occurred – in many cases, they were in the works for a long time. A number of states disregarded the law the entire time.
ALG: How soon can we expect to hear from the Court and what action might the Court take?
Hermann: Texas has asked for an expedited briefing and I would not be surprised if the court gets back with a response within a week to 10 days. The court could stop the electoral college from formally voting on Dec. 14.
ALG: You say this isn’t just about Donald Trump or who wins this election, why?
Hermann: The 2020 election has got to stand alone as a one-off. Elected executive branch officials should never be allowed to unilaterally change state election laws because of a pandemic, a health reason, any reason. If they want to do that, they have to do it through their state legislatures, they can’t disregard the law.
At the end of the day, we’re fighting for the integrity of our election. We’re fighting for the Constitution because the Constitution requires fair and honest elections. The elected officials in these and quite possibly other states disregarded the law and they are putting the Constitution and the very foundation of our country in jeopardy.
ALG: Thank you, Kim. I think it is important that every American who wants free and fair elections in the future contact their state lawmakers and demand a full, honest election audit.
To take action, go to ElectionAuditNow.org.
*****
We and our commenters have been wondering why NH hasn’t joined the other States in Texas’s suit. Much of the talk has circled around the fact that Gov. Sununu leans “Never Trumper”; inaction can work better than actions (like the requested ballot analysis). I have a question. The memorandum from SecState Gardner and AG MacDonald, April 10, 2020, in part:
Absentee Ballots
1. Municipal Elections to be held in 2020
With respect to any upcoming municipal elections, we offer the following guidance as to who is eligible to vote by absentee ballot in light of the current public health crisis. As explained below, in light of the current public health state of emergency, Emergency Orders #16 and #26, and current public health guidance on social distancing and avoiding being in public in groups of 10 or more, all voters have a reasonable ground to conclude that a “physical disability” exists within the meaning of RSA 657:1. Therefore, all voters may request an absentee ballot on that basis.
<snip>
Will be absent on the day of the election;
o The care of children or infirm adults, with or without compensation.
o This would include a voter caring for a person quarantined for COVID-19, including self-quarantine based on general medical advice issued to the public by health officials.
So which is it – the RSA or the E.O.s? When I look at RSA 657, there is nothing there about COVID-19. I do see this in there twice:
See 2020, 14:2, effective July 17, 2020 until January 1, 2021, for temporary modifications to absentee voting provisions in response to the COVID-19 state of emergency.
I can’t get a read in Google so if someone knows that this is, please let me know. I knew about the “temporary” mod but never got the urge to find out WHERE that “temporary” was issued.
Enlighten me, my friends!
