Gaius Rufus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Beached Whale said:

---

Wow the election that never ends. I guess we should have expected our partisan, litigious society to devolve into endless election lawsuits. Great precedent to set for future generations when you think you've lost the election - justified as "never stopping the fight!". Will be interesting to see what the Dems learn from this playbook in '24 when Kamala loses to some new R candidate and the political center further deteriorates.

This is a comical win-win strategy for KP. The R partisans will eat it up, it distracts from his own issues, he knows he won't be responsible for a constitutional crisis of his making bc it's not going anywhere, and the R taxpayers can foot the legal/admin bill in the name of some twisted sense of protecting democracy

---

Hopefully, what Dems learn, is that it is important to follow election law, unlike their behavior in 2020.

---

I hope that what the Democrats and the Republicans learn is that if we want to improve our elections, we cannot wait until Election Day or even a month or two before the election. By that time, the rules are pretty much set and any complaints about them are nothing but a bunch of sour grapes.

We should start now on getting Election Law ready for the 2028 election. If everyone just sits back and whines, as usual, they won't get much done.

---

I predict we sink mail in voting this election cycle.

Most of those mail in vote rules were violations of state law, anyways.

Florida cleaned up its act pretty quick. The voters in swing states are not going to be happy with this fiasco, and money from at least 10 states is going to pour into the swing states to unseat whoever is in charge of elections.

Presumably, Dems shouldn't object, as there is purportedly no fraud anyways, according to them.

I think your timeline is 400% too long.

---

It may be 400% too long for band-aids. I may be too optimistic if we want actual reform that means anything.

---

Step 1: ban mail in voting
Step 2: add criminal penalties to election officials that negligently break the law
Step 3: voter ID. Fed gvmt will pay for it for poor people. Voter ID fraud is a federal felony.

There. Round one done. Just solved 90% of the problem (not that it's not worth working for the other 10%)

---

So you want to ban all mail in voting? Where does that leave Ex-pats, diplomats, and military members?

What about states like Utah? Are you saying that states should not be allowed to choose how their citizens vote?

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Beached Whale said:

---

Wow the election that never ends. I guess we should have expected our partisan, litigious society to devolve into endless election lawsuits. Great precedent to set for future generations when you think you've lost the election - justified as "never stopping the fight!". Will be interesting to see what the Dems learn from this playbook in '24 when Kamala loses to some new R candidate and the political center further deteriorates.

This is a comical win-win strategy for KP. The R partisans will eat it up, it distracts from his own issues, he knows he won't be responsible for a constitutional crisis of his making bc it's not going anywhere, and the R taxpayers can foot the legal/admin bill in the name of some twisted sense of protecting democracy

---

Hopefully, what Dems learn, is that it is important to follow election law, unlike their behavior in 2020.

---

I hope that what the Democrats and the Republicans learn is that if we want to improve our elections, we cannot wait until Election Day or even a month or two before the election. By that time, the rules are pretty much set and any complaints about them are nothing but a bunch of sour grapes.

We should start now on getting Election Law ready for the 2028 election. If everyone just sits back and whines, as usual, they won't get much done.

---

I predict we sink mail in voting this election cycle.

Most of those mail in vote rules were violations of state law, anyways.

Florida cleaned up its act pretty quick. The voters in swing states are not going to be happy with this fiasco, and money from at least 10 states is going to pour into the swing states to unseat whoever is in charge of elections.

Presumably, Dems shouldn't object, as there is purportedly no fraud anyways, according to them.

I think your timeline is 400% too long.

---

It may be 400% too long for band-aids. I may be too optimistic if we want actual reform that means anything.

---

Step 1: ban mail in voting
Step 2: add criminal penalties to election officials that negligently break the law
Step 3: voter ID. Fed gvmt will pay for it for poor people. Voter ID fraud is a federal felony.

There. Round one done. Just solved 90% of the problem (not that it's not worth working for the other 10%)

---

So you want to ban all mail in voting? Where does that leave Ex-pats, diplomats, and military members?

What about states like Utah? Are you saying that states should not be allowed to choose how their citizens vote?

---

Faustus said:

---

POTUS says he will be intervening in Texas' suit against the swing states at the Supreme Court.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-vows-intervene-texas-election-140944575.html

He doesn't say if it will be his campaign, the DOJ, or in what capacity he will be intervening.
It would be funny if he tried to sneak in posing as Alaska or some other state.

---

eric76 said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Alabama in...

---

Did they actually file a petition or just issue this mealy mouth statement?

---

So far, the docket only shows Texas. It is probably reasonable to assume that the docket will be updated during normal business hours tomorrow.

Also, note the wording of the statement from Alabama. They didn't say that they have done anything other than that they are paying attention to what goes on with Texas. It sounds like they may join in if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just a point of procedure here. I have seen references that the Trump campaign also wants to intervene in this case. In my view, that would be unwise as that would call into question the Court's original jurisdiction. This case should remain cleanly a state v. state lawsuit so as to not muddy the waters.

---

schmendeler said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just a point of procedure here. I have seen references that the Trump campaign also wants to intervene in this case. In my view, that would be unwise as that would call into question the Court's original jurisdiction. This case should remain cleanly a state v. state lawsuit so as to not muddy the waters.

---

*Trump has entered the Courtroom*

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just a point of procedure here. I have seen references that the Trump campaign also wants to intervene in this case. In my view, that would be unwise as that would call into question the Court's original jurisdiction. This case should remain cleanly a state v. state lawsuit so as to not muddy the waters.

---

will25u said:

---

---

schmendeler said:

---

a lot of states want to look dumb because it makes trump folks believe in santa just a little bit longer.

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

a lot of states want to look dumb because it makes trump folks believe in santa just a little bit longer.

---

What did you say about Santa?

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just a point of procedure here. I have seen references that the Trump campaign also wants to intervene in this case. In my view, that would be unwise as that would call into question the Court's original jurisdiction. This case should remain cleanly a state v. state lawsuit so as to not muddy the waters.

---

Hopefully they're smart enough to realize this, but couldn't the Court just dismiss them as a party of jurisdiction isn't proper? One intervening party can't kill the plaintiffs standing

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

Lot of lib know-it-alls thinking they're smarter than 17 attorneys general. Sad!

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

Lot of lib know-it-alls thinking they're smarter than 17 attorneys general. Sad!

---

schmendeler said:

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

Lot of lib know-it-alls thinking they're smarter than 17 attorneys general. Sad!

---

if they know it won't go anywhere, but the people that buy into, don't, then i won't claim to be smarter than them. just maybe more ethical.

---

larry culpepper said:

---

this is all about as meaningful as 25 states joining in my lawsuit against the Boogeyman for fraudulently voting eleventy billion times in swing states.

this is all so ****ing stupid.

---

schmendeler said:

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

Lot of lib know-it-alls thinking they're smarter than 17 attorneys general. Sad!

---

if they know it won't go anywhere, but the people that buy into, don't, then i won't claim to be smarter than them. just maybe more ethical.

---

larry culpepper said:

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

Lot of lib know-it-alls thinking they're smarter than 17 attorneys general. Sad!

---

i actually think they are smart enough to know this is BS and are doing this in bad faith (and in Paxton's case, he's seeking a pardon), and the same applies to GOP senators who clearly know better. it's too bad none of them will suffer any consequences for this. they absolutely deserve it.

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

RyanAg08 said:

---

Lot of lib know-it-alls thinking they're smarter than 17 attorneys general. Sad!

---

if they know it won't go anywhere, but the people that buy into, don't, then i won't claim to be smarter than them. just maybe more ethical.

---

Are you reading their minds to know they know it won't go anywhere?

You know, your fellow Americans, your fellow Aggies, would like their day in court. Any chance you can drop the tiresome practice of mocking and belitting every change you get?

---