The rough gist of the argument is that only legislatures are empowered to choose the method of selection of electors, and therefore governors (like Texas's governor) or courts (as in North Carolina) that order changes to election procedure render the entire count of the election invalid.
(You'll note that the examples I cite are not states that Texas is suing, and that should give you some indication of the likelihood of success.)
[Side note: that's one of the arguments. The actual brief is kind of a legally incoherent mess, so it kind of hops around from argument to argument a bit; the other main argument, which most of the amici seem to want to focus on, is that PA's Supreme Court improperly adjudicated PA law's propriety under the PA Constitution, and therefore Texas has right to settle that dispute in front of SCOTUS, despite SCOTUS dismissing an appeal alleging exactly that just yesterday.]
> The rough gist of the argument is that only legislatures are empowered to choose the method of selection of electors, and therefore governors (like Texas's governor) or courts (as in North Carolina) that order changes to election procedure render the entire count of the election invalid.
It’s a bad argument. The US Congress has delegated some of its power to the Executive Branch (FDA and IRS, among others), just like I’m sure some of these states have. If a state legislature passed laws allowing the governor to change election rules, then the legislature is still choosing the electors, not directly, but by having delegated that power to the executive branch of the state.
I’m not a lawyer but this argument sounds flimsy at best.
1) You should cite where the federal government has authority over state-run elections.
2) You should also explain more clearly why you think it could be rational to discount the decisions of state courts which rule on the laws passed by the state legislature on the basis that they aren't the state legislature... That is like saying the Supreme Court shouldn't have a say over how Federal laws are applied. It's their entire job.
And all this is ignoring the idea that the legal system ought to represent the democratic will of the people and the institutional processes they put in place, whether it's via upholding the laws of the legislature or the vote.
Just to be clear, I believe that Texas' argument here is complete and total bullshit, and I do eagerly await seeing the reply brief for an epic teardown of the arguments, as SCOTUS likely will deny the leave to file without explanation of why it is doing so.
Ok, and I just want to continue to point out that there are various legal standards a case must meet before proceeding towards a victory and the mere existance of the case is not one of them. People today, 9 December 2020, keep citing this particular case because we are currently living in the hours of human history where it is not thrown out of court so they would like to say the matter is unsettled, as if there won't be yet another frivolous lawsuit tomorrow when this one fails. The matter is settled legally and this lawsuit doesn't seem to open any questions. I really want to end this comment with, "let's see what the courts have to say," to seem amicable but my point is that the courts already have weighed in on this many times.
