December 10, 2020:<\/p>\n
According to an article published by press (‘newspunch.com’) today (December 10, 2020), [https:\/\/newspunch.com\/17-states-support-texas-lawsuit-filed-with-the-supreme-court\/]:
\n[Texas filed the lawsuit on Monday, arguing that the battleground states \u201cviolated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures,\u201d as Breitbart News reported.]<\/p>\n
This news is regarding the 2020 US National Election. Namely, that 17 US States have joined the leadership of Texas, in challenging other State’s elections (and consequences as to how they were conducted). Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are the primary states that are central to the lawsuit (due to particularity of observation there in those four states).<\/p>\n
The US Supreme Court is hearing defendants’ arguments, on basis of alleged Constitutional violations. The ruling will be significant in altering the outcome of our 2020 election.<\/p>\n
It should be of great interest to Californians as well. According to the ‘Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association’ (a prominent tax rights advocate) there (here) in California, their Vol. 47, Issue 1 official newsletter, reported that: last November the Superior Court stepped in to limit executive actions of its own governor, which were ruled as being unconstitutional overreaches. I note that this ruling is consistent with the same premise of the 18 States’ arguments at the Supreme Court now. Specific to CA, that Governor Newsom exploited state emergency (‘COVID-19’ health crisis) to issue more than 50 executive orders; which emulated through action, the privileges reserved only lawfully to the legislature; enumerated in our State Constitution – (and limited to) the<\/em> legislature<\/em> – even in a state of emergency.<\/p>\n More specifically, the ‘HJTA’ states it in this language, “In the months following the declaration of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Newsom issued more than 50 executive orders that changed<\/strong> California law, including an order requiring<\/strong> counties to mail<\/strong> ballots to all voters and meet other requirements<\/strong> for the November election.” This is action reserved for the legislature only, the ‘HJTA’ asserted, according to the Court’s ruling as it concurred.<\/p>\n Not every county in California, necessarily wished to comply with such progressive voting requirements. Even in a state of emergency. Even if the Governor could argue otherwise.<\/p>\n It’s important to realize that many voters, in California and elsewhere, welcome vote-by-mail. So, was the governor simply doing those persons who are in favor of such method, a favor? Well that’s not the point. According to (wikipedia.org) [https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Postal_voting_in_the_United_States], Californian counties have (since 2016) passed “SB450”. This was an approval (through legislation) by voters (for the system of voting) in each of the counties to: tolerate, comply with, or accept, mail-in ballot systems (“opting in”). However, the law as it is described by ‘wikipedia’, mandates<\/strong> in its own provision, that counties have individual discretion<\/strong> as to “opt in” or to not [in other words: agree to (or request) the distribution of ballots, to county’s voters, for the election]. The county can not be compelled nor bypassed by the State’s Governor (and Executive office) without the legislature. And, not all counties necessarily opted in for 2020. These distinctions are significant to understand, as the court aim to preserve the Constitutional rights and general autonomy of each county (especially in a declared “state of emergency”, where rights are even more at risk than at other normal times). So as to be free from pressure and potential discrimination, fraud potential, or “irregularity”, if opting out<\/strong> as a county from a particular voting method, an executive order cannot and should not overrule such option.<\/p>\n As the article published by California’s ‘HJTA’ group continued to state, “During an emergency, the governor is permitted to suspend<\/em> specific laws, but not to amend<\/em> laws or create<\/em> new laws, the court said”. Evidently, this is the overreach which impacted the method by which many Californians voted. As it was stated and ruled by the court, by requiring counties to mail ballots to all voters and to meet other certain (but herein omitted) obligations, <\/em>the opt-in privilege of counties to use their own discretion as to whether or not they would want to, had been disregarded – and disregarded unlawfully. As mentioned, the Governor cannot amend laws or create new laws (as he did) even in a time of a “state of emergency” (eg. pandemic). As to the impact this had on the national election, we do not yet fully know.<\/p>\n Important to note also, ‘wikipedia’ also specifies the following about California’s vote-by-mail practice, as it existed on November 2020: “For 2020, all counties will be authorized to do so, and as of April 8, 2020 the following ten additional counties have opted in: Amador, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Los Angeles, Mariposa, Orange, Santa Clara, and Tuolumne.” Note that it is here said that the counties will be “authorized” to opt in; but, this in no way permits a requirement<\/strong> of such action. Moreover, upon all 58 of her counties. Only 10 counties have opted in, according to this source of information. Without reading the actual law, the description here is quite clear about the founded argument, which by the way the Superior Court of California ruled last November to support.<\/p>\n In closing, the basis for last November’s Superior Court ruling in California – is very much resembled by today’s Supreme Court action involving the 18 US States that are challenging other States, respectively. While California’s Superior court trial [ruled by Judge Sarah Heckman – (also according to “Taxing Times” newspaper (HJTA)] has already passed… clearly, today’s Supreme Court suit (now in December) has the same legal standing and merit as our state’s, as California’s Constitution has defended here for Californians so far. What we have to find out now, is the verdict, regarding 18 States with a seemingly identical premise (eg. unlawful overreach, that is specific to unlawful executive action, with regard to an election), as the Supreme Court hear and decide those cases now. This can most certainly change these election outcomes in a huge way. And, justice can be served.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" December 10, 2020: According to an article published by press (‘newspunch.com’) today (December 10, 2020), [https:\/\/newspunch.com\/17-states-support-texas-lawsuit-filed-with-the-supreme-court\/]: [Texas filed the lawsuit on Monday, arguing that the battleground states \u201cviolated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting …<\/span> Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,7,11,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-featured-content-not-owned-by-film-shorts-tv","category-news-and-politics","category-us-politics","category-world-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2952","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2952"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2952\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2962,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2952\/revisions\/2962"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.film-shorts.tv\/wpress.cfonseca160\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}