So SCOTUS has opined that Texas “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections“.
A presidential election, to any given US state that participates in it, is more than just “its” election. It has profound consequences for all other states in the Union. Not at the very least qualifying the “its” in some way is like denying the owner of an apartment in a condominium standing to sue the owner of another apartment who, in his part of the building, is already far-advanced in undertaking to make structural changes that endanger the stability of the entire building.
Texas effectively alleged, underpinned by dozens of hours of (“profoundly credible”, in the words of a member of the Wisconsin legislature) testimony before representatives of the legislatures of the four defendant states, that what took place in the four defendant states were in fact not “elections” to speak of, because safeguards to ensure that ballots received and counted were actually from eligible voters were illegally and unconstitutionally lowered such that it was impossible to know who actually “won” such “elections”.
In Friday’s hearing in Wisconsin, the responsible election official even inadvertently admitted as much. When confronted with the fact that the followed procedure blatantly contradicts the Wisconsin election law, he just said: “All I can say is that the [lower court] judge said this morning it was okay.”
Happenings like these seriously compromise the status of the US of being a constitutional republic.
No wonder then that high-profile politicians in Texas are now openly musing about “secession”.
Says Allan West, Texas Republican Party Chairman: “This decision will have far reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”