Texas does not have standing to assert the claims in this case

[Gothmog]

Prof. Adler has a good discussion of the Penn brief on this issue https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/10/pennsylvania-georgia-michigan-and-wisconsin-defend-their-authority-to-select-presidential-electors/

On the question of the Court's jurisdiction, the Pennsylvania filing makes a powerful argument that Texas lacks Article III standing to bring its claims.

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the "invasion of a legally protected interest"; that the injury is both "concrete and particularized"; and that the injury is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania's Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause. Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly's constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly. See Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 1945, 1953 (2019) (noting the "mismatch between the body seeking to litigate [the Virginia House of Delegates] and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority [the General Assembly]&quot .

Second, Texas's claimed injury is not fairly traceable to a violation of the Electors Clause. As discussed above, each of Texas's allegations of violations of Pennsylvania law has been rejected by state and federal courts.

Third, Texas fares no better in relying on parens patriae for standing. It is settled law that "a State has standing to sue only when its sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests are implicated and it is not merely litigating as a volunteer the personal claims of its citizens." Pennsylvania, 426 U.S. at 665. The state, thus, must "articulate an interest apart from the interests of particular private parties." Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, ex rel., Baez, 458 U.S. 592, 607 (1982). In other words, "the State must be more than a nominal party." Ibid. That, however, is exactly what Texas is here. Texas seeks to "assert parens patriae standing for [its] citizens who are Presidential Electors." Motion at 15. Even if, as Texas claims, the presidential electors its citizens have selected suffered a purported injury akin to the personal injury allegedly sustained by the 20-legislator bloc in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 438 (1939), which they did not, that does not somehow metastasize into a claim by the state rather than those presidential electors. The 20-person bloc of legislatures in Coleman sued in their own right without the involvement of the State of Kansas. Ibid. Texas has no sovereign or quasi-sovereign interest at stake. It is a nominal party, at best.

[Gothmog]

1. Standing, Today and in the TX Case

From Prof. Hasen's election law blog. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119508

The Supreme Court today in Carney v. Adams turned back a suit for lack of standing. The Court quoted from an earlier opinion by Justice Powell, in words that might be thought to have some bearing on the case Texas wants the Court to hear:

In other words, a plaintiff cannot establish standing by asserting an abstract “general interest common to all members of the public,” id., at 440, “no matter how sincere” or “deeply committed” a plaintiff is to vindicating that general interest on behalf of the public, Hollingsworth, supra, at 706–707. Justice Powell explained the reasons for this limitation. He found it “inescapable” that to find standing based upon that kind of interest “would significantly alter the allocation of power at the national level, with a shift away from a democratic form of government.” United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166, 188 (1974) (concurring opinion). He added that “[w]e should be ever mindful of the contradictions that would arise if a democracy were to permit general oversight of the elected branches of government by a non-representative, and in large measure insulated, judicial branch.” Ibid.; see also Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 222 (1974); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 500 (1975)

.

[Stallion]

2. Well that Will Just About Do it for the Texas Lawsuit's Chances

I think the argument that under the Texas standard the SCOTUS would be the final arbiter of every Presidential election is highly persuasive. Undesirable AND unnecessary

[Gothmog]

3. The timing is great

[UTUSN]

5. Makes me feel better but have been antsy since Fitzmas & ROVE "indicted"

Not to mention Coup 2000.

I forget the name of the reporter (SHUSTER?) that was featured by Keith, the one who said every night that his "sources" were telling him KKKarl was definitely going to be indicted within one week or for sure two. Iirc the timeframe got extended a time or more, until it was clear it wasn't going to happen. After a few days with egg on his face, the reporter finally was pushed to reveal his "sources" and he was showing being pissed.

It turned out that his "sources" were not eyewitnesses, somebody from inside the prosecuter's staff or access to them, somebody with first hand knowledge (by whatever contact). Note here that we all realize nobody from inside the Grand Jury room can talk.

So his "sources" turned out to be: Lawyers and such who had "extensive experience in working with grand juries." Iow, *PUNDITS*, lawyers with War Stories SPECULATING based on their war stories experience.

And given the bizarre events that have gone on throughout the UNpresident's regime, I might be allowed to be antsy about just about anything.

[Stallion]

4. After this is all over I'd love to see a 60Minute-Like Story about how this all went down

who are the attorneys, how they coordinated strategy and completed briefs on expedited basis in over 60 cases/appeals in multiple jurisdictions and circuits

[Gothmog]

6. Supreme Court dismisses bid led by Texas attorney general

SCOTUS found no standing https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-texas-election-trump/2020/12/11/bf462f22-3bc6-11eb-bc68-96af0daae728_story.html?arc404=true&itid=hp_alert

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a long-shot bid by President Trump and the state of Texas to overturn the results in four states won by Democrat Joe Biden, blocking the president’s legal path to reverse his reelection loss.

The court’s unsigned order was short: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”