Civil Discourse Now

Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

The 4:20 show: Hill, Niederberger & Texas's lawsuit

Indiana’s lame duck Attorney General/Elvis impersonator Curtis Hill has joined with 16 other States in a challenge brought by Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court to disqualify the electors of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin and replace them with pro-trump electors.

Texas’s AG filed a Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint. SCOTUS has set a deadline of noon today for the four named defendant States to reply. In the meantime, trump has sought to intervene and show support for this effort.

At 4:20 this afternoon I shall discuss this lawsuit. I represented petitioners in two actions in 2017 in which we sought to nullify the results of the 2016 election, in part because of Russian interference in that election. Unlike what we filed, this action is short on substantiated facts. For now I want to comment on one aspect: reliance of the Texas AG on a violation of principles of one person/one vote (at p. 37, ¶ 136.

This iteration of the GOP has lost the popular vote for Pres in seven of the last eight elections, but claimed the Oval Office in two it lost because of electors. Art. II, sec. 1; Amend. XII). The system of electors violates one person/one vote.

First, the votes of States with large populations are minimized compared to States with small populations simply on the basis of people per elector; 2) “Winner-take-all” apportionment of electors disenfranchises nearly half the voters.

Danny Niederberger was one of my opponents in the GOP primary for INCD5 June 2. Danny believes the “Electoral College is essential in the foundation of the United States [and] ensures that every part of the United States, including the flyover states, has a voice.”

Danny never explained how ensuring a minority always holds power furthers the aims of the Framers of the Constitution. (While I finished 10th in the primary, Danny finished 11th.) Texas, and Indiana’s Hill, seek to disenfranchise the greater number of voters.

At 4:20 today at Civil Discourse Now I’ll try to have the tech up and running. Why did I choose 4:20? I thought it seemed like a good time to relax and discuss issues!

Views: 43


You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now


  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2021   Created by Mark Small.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

My Great Web page