UPDATED: SCOTUS Requires PA, WI, GA, MI Reply To Texas Suit
That's really all there is to report for now. The deadline set is 3PM on Thursday. Jordan Sekulow calls this the "be all, end all, case." The case will come before the SCOTUS to be argued on the merits of clear constitutional issues, not procedural motions or petitions for preliminary relief--as has been the case up till now. There are reports that multiple states have joined with Texas' suit.
UPDATE 1: According to Fox, so far Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana have expressed support. Others may, but haven't been confirmed that I've seen.
UPDATE 2: Zerohedge has a blog on the importance of the Texas suit and repeats some of the things I was saying yesterday--it's succinct and very much to the major points:
As one election law expert put it, the US constitution is effectively a contract between the 50 states, including how their president is elected, and Texas is claiming other parties broke parts of that contract. Texas is apparently now supported by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Talk about a divided country. Perhaps not a surprise, the Supreme Court took the Texas case in expedited fashion, and has called for a response by 3PM Thursday.
Yes, it *is* a huge can of worms it is opening if it acts. Yet it is also a can of worms if it doesn’t act when Texas and other states claim:
“Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.”
In short, this *might* be the most significant Supreme Court case since 2000 , which notoriously decided the presidential election in Florida.
Of course, it does *not* mean the Court will rule for Texas – but them taking the case, rapidly, and calling for a response suggests they are taking it seriously. That is something the Twitterati were saying was inconceivable 24 hours ago. It could also explain why the Court denied emergency injunctive relief in Pennsylvania without dismissing the case : because the claim can be rolled into this larger one. We will soon get to hear what the Court has to say on the matter.