Domestic
Pennsylvania passed Act 77 in 2019; Act 77 established mail-voting and was not challenged until it was implemented, utilized by all parties, and aided Pennsylvania in reaching a decision. 4 A state legislature can decide to amend their voting procedures; the act was not challenged until after the election and the Pennsylvania Court could no longer reverse the voting procedures because votes had already been counted. Even if this voting method proved to be inefficient or confusing, the Supreme Court cannot legislate laws that the justices think would be better; the Court’s role is to uphold the Constitution. The effort became officially futile when the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s and all pending cases regarding election results. The case was denied for the “lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution” and because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections” 5 Even if Texas’ argument was crafted perfectly, the Court’s asks: why is Texas concerned with the internal electors from casting their state’s vote. If they could prove that the sele-
PUBLIUS
ction of the electors was improper, interest in the manner in which they could possibly throw out their another State conducts its elections.” votes in the Electoral College. However, in analyzing the decision, the Federalist concludes: Ultimately, the democratic process is protected heavily. This lawsuit could “The Supreme Court’s resolution thus not throw out millions of people’s “addressed” two separate questions, votes because of something as the first a narrow procedural disparate as the appointment process question: Whether the U.S. Supreme of electors. The election votes were Court must allow a state to file a verified by each state in accordance complaint against another state. with their respective process; these processes are voted and approved by Current Supreme Court precedent the representatives of that state. State holds the high court retains governments are much more discretion to decide whether to accept productive and subjective than most a lawsuit between two or more states. people realize, and under a federal The Constitution provides the republic, they run more independent Supreme Court “original jurisdiction,” of the federal government than most or the power to hear the case initially people realize. Voting processes are for such cases. The Supreme Court presented, then voted on by all parties has “exclusive jurisdiction” for such that represent the people of each lawsuits, meaning no other court has state. The American democratic the power to hear a case when a state process is the most important part of sues another state. maintaining a republic, and while questions should always be raised, Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has the un-elected Supreme Court has held that it is not required to accept a always maintained an inability to complaint filed by one state against over-legislate and overrule legislation another. That is why, to initiate its that is voted on by the people. lawsuit, Texas filed a “Motion for Leave,” or a motion asking permission The Supreme Court closed the case by to file its complaint. Procedurally, denying Texas’s request to file its then, what the Supreme Court did on complaint against the four swing Friday was to deny Texas “leave” or states, stating that “Texas has not permission to file the complaint demonstrated a judicially cognizable against the four putative defendant states.” The Federalist
21
