No! It just means you have 2 different countries running, one under the constitution, the other not. There were 18 states banded together - not just Texas! You can see a clear divide between rural and urban voters in this divide. What don't you understand about who is allowed to make the rules for elections? Under the warped Georgian rules (not constitutional), 2 people from 2 sides came together and decided the election rules. In essence they become "the Legislature". Is that what you are saying? It wasn't "the State" that made the changes. It was people behind closed doors that supposedly represented their parties and became in effect the Legislature in this instance. The people have no say in creating new frameworks of rules and regulations is the SCOTUS conclusion we now have. If 2 parties agree, then make new rules. Some places the lower courts are being used to make these new rules. That is unconstitutional.
Oh boy... you really like to use the word "unconstitutional", don't you?
It seems you are really confused about all of this. We have one country, one constitution and one law. That law says that one (of more) states can not determine what happens in other states. If a state doesn't like the way another state conducts it's business, they can lobby to change the law that allows that state to run it's own affairs. You don't go the SCOTUS for it.
What don't you understand about who is allowed to make the rules for elections? Under the warped Georgian rules (not constitutional), 2 people from 2 sides came together and decided the election rules. In essence they become "the Legislature". Is that what you are saying? No, that's what you are saying. What you don't seem to get is that if officials in one state do something incorrectly, it's primarily up to that state to deal with the matter. If the state decides there is no problem, that's it. It's over and done. That state has conducted it's own business in the way it saw fit under the provisions of the law. If an official from another state doesn't like it, that's just too bad.
What is wrong with using a Legislature and legislating (like the constitution called for) in terms of managing the "manner of elections"? There likely should be a great tidal wave of lawsuits brought forth so that arguments can be made and agreements struck. That is all part of politics!
No tidal wave of law suits needed. Just have the lawmakers in Washington change the rules, so that a state doesn't have the right anymore to conduct it's own business in the way it wants to. But be careful what you are wishing for, because before you know it you have other states demanding that your state acts in a way that you may not like....
The country isn't going to stay together very long when there is no constitution to govern it by and no one wants to enforce its rules and even interpret what was meant by the Legislature or allowed to bring anything before it. If you want to change the very constitution and make a "sanctimonious" change , go through the proper channels as laid out by the forefathers and have it passed through the House and Senate. This can be done if you think you have the will of the people behind it. Don't subvert the will of the people and real democracy by declaring that there should be any controversial disputes between set of states.
Nobody is subverting the will of the people. The people in Texas got to vote and that produced a result. The same goes for other states. That in turn resulted in a national result and the election of Joe Biden as President. The system worked perfectly. Your problem is that those states that voted for Trump didn't get the outcome they wanted, which is why they are now complaining about the other states, but that's total BS. How do you think the states who voted for Biden (which are more than just the swingstates now being complained about) will feel if Texas and the other 17 states had gotten their way, resulting in Trump staying in office? In an election this is a winner and a loser.... Live with it and try again next time.
The whole thing is bogus anyway. If the Republicans really felt that the outcome of the election in Georgia was somehow rigged, than why are they still participating in the Senate run off elections on January 5th? You either believe in the system or you don't. When you don't, you demand for changes before you participate and accept the possible consequences of that decision. But that's not what is happening here. The Republicans simply want their cake and eat it too... FFS in the elections they are complaining about the won seats in the house and (possibly) held on to the senate. If the election was unconstitutional, those results should be thrown out too, but nobody is asking for that.... Why is that?
Again, that is my opinion. Something serious as elections should actually be very transparently and not done in secrecy to hammer out new rules. We see happens with allowing mail-in/harvest votes and never ending election deadlines that don't need new rules invented on a play by play basis. They need to be agreed upon by the Legislature. Not judges and not individuals, but by representatives of voters. I stand by the constitution and what is says. If it was good enough two hundred years ago, it is good enough today and should be relied on. Finally what is the purpose of even having a SCOTUS if they avoid controversy at all costs and don't want to clarify a very clearly laid out constitutional clause? You don't like it, go through the proper channels provided to change it. No sense even having an appointed body like the SCOTUS if that is all they do. They might as well be termed for 14 years (example) and kicked off at the end of their stay. They are not there to be used to make laws, but interpret them against the present constitution. Making laws is up to the legislative assembly (senate/congress) and needs to be voted on so the populous is represented! This still is supposed to be a democratic society not a plutocratic society where a few rich rule!
Finally what is the purpose of even having a SCOTUS if they avoid controversy at all costs and don't want to clarify a very clearly laid out constitutional clause? SCOTUS did not rule not to hear the Texas case to avoid controversy. There would have been controversy regardless of what they would have decided. They did not hear the case because Texas has no say in how another state runs it's business. It's really very simple and I don't understand why you are struggling to comprehend this....
Maybe you can understand football and baseball. There is a set of rules. During the game, you don't just arbitrarily change the rules yourself or by the referee so that you give your team 5 downs to make 10 yards because they need one more play to carry on and win the match! That change has to be brought up and the majority of fans agree to. Not only do the fans in the stadium, need to agree, but the fans watching games across the entire country need to agree. Otherwise the game is absurd. The referee is not allowed to change rules on a play by play basis. No fans would watch if this happens nor allow it. It is the same with state and federal laws. If all are playing the same game on the same playing fields, there should be the same rules applied to all - otherwise it is dysfunctional and a farce and the game will become 2 different games. You will have a situation like in the 2 baseball leagues. However, they have to agree on rules when they meet each other at the World Series.
[/size]
Your reasoning is flawed because there were no rules changed during play. Some measures were taken prior to the game because of Covid-19 (and many more states did that than the ones you complain about, so why not question the elections there as well?). If you didn't like those changes you should have complained prior to the start of the game.
Also, you don't declare yourself the winner of a game at half time, as Trump did when he was still ahead. You let the game play out and then see who the winner is. You don't ask for the counting of votes to be stopped simply because the mail in votes, that were counted last, are going against you.
My biggest problem with all the whining that's going on is this; there were a great many states who made provisions because of Covid-19 before the election. Some were Republican controlled, others Democrat controlled. If you really feel that those changes have resulted in fraud and an unfair election, why are you only complaining about the states that Trump needs to overturn the result of the election? Why not complain about all the states, including those where Trump won?
