[disgrunt]

In some cases, it is a jurisdictional ruling. Meaning that the only solution is to appeal to a higher court until you get to the court with jurisdiction to rule on the case. This is largely why these rulings are happening in rapid succession, there's a procedure that must be followed and deadlines to meet.

The Texas Attorney General likely has short circuited this process by filing a claim that can only be resolved by a federal court. And now 11 other states (at my last count) have joined on as plaintiffs and the U.S. Supreme Court has placed it on the docket.

[jcranmer]

> The Texas Attorney General likely has short circuited this process by filing a claim that can only be resolved by a federal court.

Having read the claim, there is no chance that SCOTUS will do anything other than deny it per curiam.

> And now 11 other states (at my last count) have joined on as plaintiffs

They have not joined as plaintiffs. They filed an amici brief. And it's actually 17. And reading the amici brief, they don't even attempt to justify why Texas has standing in the case, which is the biggest reason to dismiss the case.

> and the U.S. Supreme Court has placed it on the docket.

You're aware that means absolutely nothing? To be refused to be docketed is an exceptionally high bar that requires the court to think you a vexatious litigant. Several thousand cases are docketed a year, and yet there's only around 200-ish that are even considered petitions worthy of commentary, and only 70-ish are actually heard.

The actual bar you're looking for is if SCOTUS accepts the petition which, (for a leave to file motion in original jurisdiction) requires 5 justices to agree to hear the case, and will not be decided before the reply brief is filed tomorrow. I suspect it will be discussed at the regular Friday conference, and likely disposed of in the Monday orders list, although the justices may decide it's important enough to release in a Friday orders list.

I've said elsewhere why the case is likely to be go absolutely nowhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25353139.

[disgrunt]

> They have not joined as plaintiffs. They filed an amici brief. And it's actually 17. And reading the amici brief, they don't even attempt to justify why Texas has standing in the case, which is the biggest reason to dismiss the case.

You are correct, they are not plaintiffs, but a third of U.S. states are now in support of this action.

I would argue that if a U.S. state has made unconstitutional election changes and thus has conducted an unconstitutional election then other U.S. states not in violation of the constitution have standing to dispute the election results with federal implications in accordance with the 12th Amendment.

This is not totally unprecedented, however, as the Election of 1824 resulted in a contingent election where the candidate with the popular vote lost. [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1824_United_States_presidentia...

[jcranmer]

> I would argue that if a U.S. state has made unconstitutional election changes and thus has conducted an unconstitutional election then other U.S. states not in violation of the constitution have standing to dispute the election results with federal implications in accordance with the 12th Amendment.

The process you are talking about involves the US House of Representatives, not suing the states in SCOTUS.

The legal basis for claiming injury in the face of improper elections is the notion of "vote dilution." However, vote dilution cannot happen in the Electoral College by definition. Texas gets 38 of the 538 votes in the Electoral College, and that is true no matter how tight or loose the voting restrictions are in Pennsylvania. The voting power of Texas residents remains unaltered no matter what the voting power of residents in Pennsylvania is. Texas's brief did not persuade me that it had standing to sue (although it does appeal to vote dilution), and none of the other briefs have attempted to address the issue of standing at all.

That the House has had to decide the election is not unprecedented (it has done so on three occasions, 1800, 1824, and 1876, where it delegated its decision to accept the votes to a separate commission). What is unprecedented is a state asking SCOTUS to overturn the results of another state.

[whiddershins]

Whichever way you slice it, and by whatever technicalities were employed, Bush v. Gore resulted in the Supreme Court deciding how a state could conduct their vote.

What you are saying is plausible, but I think it’s so silly to argue this when we will find out in a few short days whether the SCOTUS will hear it.

I for one will be surprised if they don’t.

[jcranmer]

> Whichever way you slice it, and by whatever technicalities were employed, Bush v. Gore resulted in the Supreme Court deciding how a state could conduct their vote.

On the basis of an appeal from a state supreme court, itself an appeal from lower courts, challenging the procedure. Which is basically the process that Kelly v PA went through, although SCOTUS declined to hear it yesterday.

[nobody9999]

I'm sorry. But you appear to be ignorant of the legal processes in the United States.

I suggest you educate yourself, as you keep saying things that don't comport with reality.