Texas Sovereignty Act Filed in 2021

As of January 20, 2021, the federal government is in the hands of those who would destroy the Constitution and the liberties of Texans.

Texans desperately need their elected officials to protect them from the coming tyrannical onslaught. 

Just in time, Representative Cecil Bell, Jr. has filed the Texas Sovereignty Act in the 87th Texas Legislative Session in the Texas House on January 20, 2021.  The bill number is HB 1215.

Summary of Texas Sovereignty Act
HB 1215

Basic Approach

Provide streamlined approach for the Texas legislature to formally declare that specific acts of the federal government are unconstitutional.  Creates a standing legislative committee to review federal actions for constitutionality.  The full legislature votes on declared unconstitutional acts and the governor reviews.  Federal actions subject to Texas review are legislation, regulations, executive orders, federal judicial orders or decisions, and treaty enforcement.

Once an act is declared unconstitutional, law enforcement can arrest and prosecute federal agents who attempt enforcement action under the color of declared unconstitutional acts under the Texas penal code, including explicitly, the Texas Official Oppression Act (Texas Penal Code 39.03).  While maintaining the ability of local district and county attorneys to prosecute, the attorney general is also given prosecutorial power to prosecute federal agents if a federal act has been declared unconstitutional.

Details 

  • Explicitly states that this bill does not prohibit a public officer who has taken the oath from interposing to stop acts of the federal government which in the officer’s best understanding and judgment, violate the Constitution.
  • Includes canons of construction guiding the analysis of the constitutionality of federal acts. The canons urge reliance on the text and structure of the Constitution and in cases of ambiguity, on sources that evidence original intent.
  • Allows Texas citizens to seek an opinion about the constitutionality of a federal action in a Texas court.

Rationale

Our state and nation are dying because the federal government is violating the Constitution every day in many ways – and no one is stopping them.  The feds will never limit their own power.  Texans must honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, and stop federal action in Texas that violates the Constitution.  This requires the exercise of independent judgment about constitutional meaning, rejecting the notion that the federal judiciary is the sole or final arbiter of constitutional meaning.

This approach relies completely on Texans and Texas officials to secure the liberty of Texans, and can be implemented immediately.  No relying upon, or waiting on other states to secure our liberty.

Click here for a downloadable PDF one page summary of the Texas Sovereignty Act.

Representative Bell has filed this bill in the two previous Texas legislative sessions.  In 2019, it was HB 1347, and om 2017, it was HB 2338.  In 2017, Senator Brandon Creighton filed it in the Texas Senate as SB 2015.

In 2017, the bill gained 5 joint authors and 8 co-authors.  A substitute passed out of committee in the House and died in Calendars.  The language that passed out of committee in 2017 is the starting point for what was filed in 2019 and 2021.


Who Will Stop?

At the heart of the constitutional enforcement idea is independent judgment AND action about constitutional meaning - especially by those serving us in government.

I have laid out what I and others think the Constitution says about the powers and duty of Mike Pence when he presides over the electoral vote count. I have also presented Jenna Ellis' tweak to that proposal.

The fact is, that IF Pence is persuaded that he has the power and duty to stop the illegality and the unconstitutionality and the fraud and the coup that is in process of being perpetrated, there is nothing that will stop him in his implementation.

And note, those engaged in the coup are asking who will stop them. Mike Pence is the man who can - and he has a duty to do so.


Letter to VP Pence re His Constitutional Duty in Counting Electors

Dear Vice President Pence:

I urge you to read and adopt the constitutional understanding urged in Gohmert v. Pence in the count of the elector votes on January 6.

I know it would be easier for you to take the actions that are within your plenary constitutional power and duty if the federal judiciary issued an opinion in agreement with the reasoning in the filings of the plaintiffs in Gohmert v. Pence, but your oath is to your best understanding of the text of the document and intent of the framers, not what others, even a court, tell you it means.

To save the Constitution, the Union, rule-of-law, the trust of the American people in our government, and liberty, I believe you have a constitutional duty to do the following on January 6:

  1. When you are confronted with the choice of which envelope of electoral certificates you are to open and count from Arizona, you should declare that you find the election in Arizona was not conducted in the manner the Arizona legislature directed, and therefore there are no legitimate electors appointed from Arizona to count. (If the Arizona legislature self assembles and directly appoints the GOP electors who have already voted for Trump, you should declare that the Elector Clause in Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires you to count the elector slate chosen by the legislature.)
  2. If as the Electoral Count Act in Title 3 of the United States Code Section 15 directs, a written objection to your count is made by one or more House members and one or more Senators, you should rule the objection out of order because that section (3 U.S.C. 15) and section 5 is unconstitutional. (You can see the logic for that position in the filings of Gohmert v. Pence.  I will summarize that logic below.)
  3. Because of the known facts of failure to comply with state election law in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, (and maybe other states, including the dueling elector New Mexico) the procedure used for Arizona should also be followed for them.
  4. Note that the Twelfth Amendment sets the number of electoral votes to determine who wins as “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” If you declare that an illegally conducted election appoints no one, then the electoral votes for the states who have conducted illegal and unconstitutional elections are not counted in the numbers needed to make a majority, and the majority of the states that did appoint electors will determine who becomes President and Vice President.

Here is a summary of the logic of the constitutional reasoning in Gohmert v. Pence by the plaintiffs:

  1. The Electoral Count Act, Section 15 submits the dispute over the “count” of electoral votes to both the House of Representatives and to the Senate. The Twelfth Amendment does not delegate that power to Congress.  The Twelfth Amendment delegates the power to count to the President of the Senate alone.
  2. The only role Congress plays in choosing the President under the Twelfth Amendment is when no one candidate receives a majority of the electors appointed. When that condition applies, it is the House that picks the President by state delegation.  Nowhere does the Constitution give any role in picking the President to the Senate.
  3. The Electoral Count Act’s design to default in dueling elector controversies to that certified by the governor of a state is unconstitutional because the Elector Clause in Article II, Section 1, clause 2 gives plenary power to the state legislatures to make this decision. The Twelfth Amendment puts the decision on which of two dueling slates of electors, if any, to count squarely on you as President of the Senate.
  4. The Electoral Count Act, as a procedural law for Congress, is unconstitutional because it is an attempt by one legislature to bind the legislative authority of its successors, a notion which centuries of law and the Constitution rejects.
  5. The Electoral Count Act violates the Presentment Clause of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 because it tries to cast a vote or resolution without presenting it to the President for approval.
  6. By purporting to be a law that governs the procedure of the House and the Senate, the Electoral Count Act violates Article I, Section 5, clause 2 by interfering in each chamber’s plenary power to set their own rules of procedure.
  7. The Electoral Count act violates the doctrines of non-delegation, separation-of-powers, and anti-entrenchment.

The happy situation here is that you, by acting according to your best understanding of your constitutional power and duty and the facts, have the power to save the very document you have sworn you will follow.

I am not the only one who has said that if the coup in progress is allowed to prevail, rule-of-law, our Constitutional Republic, potentially our Union, and our liberty will be greatly damaged, if not lost.  And restoring constitutional, limited government might not happen for generations.  Indeed, if the theft of the election is allowed to stand, we may enter that thousand years of darkness that Ronald Reagan talked about in his “Time for Choosing” speech in 1964.

I believe you to be a man guided by morality and principle.  It could be that you are hesitant to exercise your constitutional power to stop the coup because you know that it will be viewed by some as self-interested.  After all, if you do your constitutional duty, you will gain another term as Vice President.

Please understand that this is a decision based on principle – the principles of the Constitution and the principles that stealing is wrong and violating the individual, natural rights of the citizens of the United States is wrong.  The people you will be serving by following the Constitution are not only current citizens of the United States, accurately representing their true votes.  But you will also be serving millions if not billions of Americans and others around the world by preventing them from living miserable lives under tyranny. By exercising your constitutional duty, you will not be engaged in a selfish act, but a selfless one.

I will remind you that two Presidents of the Senate have exercised their plenary constitutional power to count disputed electors they thought most proper in our history.  One was Thomas Jefferson who counted electors that ultimately made a difference in him becoming President.  I am glad for America that he did.  It meant that we were free much longer than we otherwise would have been.

I have one alternative procedural path you may wish to take that may give the American people more information from which they can judge your decision in this matter.  Although I believe you put yourself in the best procedural posture for a correct count by following my first procedural point above, you may choose to use the debate that comes from Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act when a decision is counted and objected to, to educate the American people.

So, call this alternative 1A.  When Arizona comes up, note that there are two sets of electors and declare that it is your intent to count the electors certified by the governor (the Biden votes).  Then, at least one House and one Senate member will present an objection in writing to that count using the procedure in Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act.  This will split the two chambers apart for debate, where evidence of the coup can be presented to the American people, many of whom because of massive media and big tech censorship, will hear it for the first time.  After such evidence has been presented, you can sustain the objection and refuse to count any Arizona votes after seeing the evidence of how the election was not conducted in accordance with the manner directed by Arizona law.

If you choose alternative 1A, you still will have to declare the default provisions of Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act to be unconstitutional and to declare that it is your decision to make about what votes, if any, to count under the Twelfth Amendment.

In addition to the filings in Gohmert v. Pence, I have read several other articles on this topic which may interest you.  Here is one at The Epoch Times by Peter Svab.  And another at American Thinker by Ted Noel.

Know that you are in our prayers as you make this momentous, historic decision.

Toward liberty,

Tom Glass
Hockley, Texas
President, Texas Constitutional Enforcement
www.txce.org

 


Gohmert v. Pence Filing is Wonderful Constitutional Reasoning

Click on this link to read the original filing in Gohmert v. Pence attempting to have two sections of the Electoral Count Act declared unconstitutional and to declare that the President of the Senate (Vice President Mike Pence) is the sole arbiter of what electoral votes are counted from contested states.

I consider it to be a beautiful and sound piece of legal and constitutional reasoning, well worth the time of any citizen interested in constitutional government.

The case has been assigned to Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle in the Tyler, Texas in the Eastern District Court, a Trump appointee.

The attorney who signed this complaint is William Lewis Sessions of the Dallas law firm of Sessions & Associates. If the name sounds familiar, he is the son of former FBI director fired by Bill Clinton, William S. Sessions.  He is also the brother of former Congressman and Congressman-elect Pete Sessions.


Election Word of 2020 - Plenary

The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin have the power and duty to save rule-of-law, election integrity, the Constitution, and our liberty.
If only they will use it.
Art. II, Sec. 1, §2 of the U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct . . ." the electors to vote for president.
What is known as the supremacy clause in Art. VI, Sec. 2 says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
That means that state legislatures can convene on their own for the purpose of directly selecting electors despite any state constitutional or statutory restrictions that apply to non-elector selection matters.
Plenary is just another word for no one can stop them.

Letter to State Legisltures Re Their Constitutional Power and Duty

This is a generic letter designed to be sent to the GOP state legislators of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin.  See this link for the contact information for them.  I urge you and as many others as you can persuade to send this letter or something modified to suit your style as soon as possible.  For optimum results, they need to act by end of day Sunday, December 13.

 

Subject:  Please Exercise Constitutional Power and Duty to De-Certify Elector Election and Directly Appoint Electors

Senator [or Representative] [Fill in Blank]:

Please act to de-certify the presidential elector election in your state and directly appoint the GOP electors.  As I am sure you are aware, the deadline that maximizes success by this action is Sunday, December 13 because it will provide your approval of those electors meeting and voting on the date Congress has chosen, December 14, and then sending their results to the President of the U.S. Senate.

YOUR U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND DUTY

I hope that you understand your Constitutional power and duty to take these actions.

The Source of Your Power

Art. II, Sec. 1, §2 of the U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct . . ." the electors to vote for president.  The Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore put it this way, “the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary.”  531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).  Webster defines plenary as “full; entire; complete.”

You Are the Fact Finder and the Judge of What Evidence is Germane and Credible and Which Burden of Proof to Apply

Part of your plenary power is oversight to determine whether the election was conducted in the manner your state’s legislature has directed in law.  Since you are the final decision maker, you get to – indeed are required to -- decide what burden of proof, what evidentiary standard, what evidence you consider, and the persuasiveness of the evidence you have seen.

If you choose, you can de-certify the election only because the law has not been followed in the conduct of the election.  You can place the burden on the people conducting and certifying the election to prove to you that the law was complied with.  And you can require that they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Given the evidence available in your state, there is certainly reasonable doubt about whether your state’s election law has been followed and whether any results of the unlawful process are trustworthy.

The epistemological question we face is the reality that once illegal ballots have been mixed in with legal ballots, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent of the corruption.  That is why it is important to get the rationale for your decision, the burden of proof, and the evidentiary standard down properly.

I have heard the Democrats and media imply that evidence has to be ruled upon by a fact finder in a court of law before you can make a decision about it.  That is simply not true under the Constitution.  In the elector selection process, plenary means that you decide everything and as the fact finders in this process, it is your judgment and wisdom that matters.

The Buck Stops With You

The Constitution does not allow you to sluff off this decision or your independent judgment to someone else.

The bottom line is that the buck stops with you on the selection of electors from your state.  The fate of rule-of-law, election integrity, and the future of our Republic and liberty fall squarely on your shoulders.

The Courts Might Opine on Whether Your Election Law was Violated, but You Alone Can Provide the Remedy

The U.S. Supreme Court might save you from having to do your duty to determine whether the election was conducted in the manner in which you directed.  I wouldn’t count on it.  But they might.

But even if they do, you and your fellow legislators alone still have the duty to remedy a failed, de-certified election.  You also have the unquestioned, unreviewable power to remedy the situation by directly appointing the GOP electors from your state.

Supreme Court precedent and federal law is clear about your ability to remedy a failed election for electors.  You can directly appoint GOP electors once the election is de-certified for lack of reliability.

“The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See [McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1,] 35 (1892)“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).

The McPherson case quoted former Justice Joseph Story from his Commentaries on the Constitution where he said that “direct choice by the legislature” of electors “has been firmly established in practice ever since the adoption of the Constitution, and does not now seem to admit of controversy even if a suitable tribunal existed to adjudicate upon it.” (emphasis added).  Clearly the judiciary has never thought it had the power to tell state legislatures how to pick its electors.  The judiciary might opine on whether the election was conducted in the manner in which you directed, but I seriously doubt that it will remedy any deficiencies in that regard.

Chief Justice Fuller hammered the point home in McPherson: “The power and jurisdiction of the state is exclusive.” And “The question before us is not one of policy, but of power.”

Federal law also supports your Constitutional duty to provide the remedy.  Title 3 of the United States Code, §2 reads: “Failure to make choice on prescribed day - Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

When Your State Constitution Constrains You and the U.S. Constitution Empowers You, Which is Supreme?

Answer:  The U.S. Constitution delegation of power to you is supreme over your state constitution.  If your state constitution requires a super majority for the legislature calling itself into session or even prohibits the legislature from calling itself into session, your U.S. Article II mandate overrules those state constitutional restrictions.  You can constitutionally call your legislature into session.  And it is your duty to do so under these circumstances.

Another angle on this action on behalf of your federally delegated powers is that a meeting to de-certify and/or directly appoint electors is not a special session as usually meant by that term.  It is an emergency meeting to fulfill federal constitutional duties.

While the following of the constitutional scheme is always to be admired, it is a misunderstanding of what the federal constitutional path and grant is to state that the state constitution prohibits your exercise of your plenary power.

It is indeed seemingly paradoxical that the Article VI supremacy clause enables state sovereignty against a state constitution, but once one applies the supremacy clause to Article II’s delegation of plenary power to you and your fellow legislators, it makes sense.

Put another way, plenary is just another way for saying no one will stop you.  Nor should anyone stop you from doing what is necessary to perform your constitutional duty to insure that the selection of presidential electors is done according to rule of law.

What Happens if You Don’t Remedy a Failed (i.e., un-certified or de-certified) Elector Election?

Answer:  You take your state out of the race and make it much more likely that the fraudulent/illegal election in your state will mean that Biden wins.

The Twelfth Amendment details how elector votes are to be counted.  The important words to be focused upon are “a majority of the . . . Electors appointed.”  We see in Article II that states appoint electors.  If every state and the District of Columbia (see the 23rd Amendment) appoints electors, the magic number of electoral votes needed to avoid kicking the decision to Congress is 270.

But what if you and your state legislature or a court de-certifies the election, but no remedy to appoint new electors is provided by you?  Your state is out of the game completely.  And THAT changes the number elector votes necessary (“a majority . . . appointed”) to pick the president without going to Congress.

Let’s do the math on one scenario. Assume that all five (PA, MI, GA, AZ, and WI) of the GOP controlled legislatures out of the six states in play (or a court) declare(s) the election fraudulent. And assume that the Democrat-controlled legislature in Nevada and the courts allow its governor to certify the Biden electors.  That would mean that the total electors appointed would be 465 instead of the expected 538. A majority for picking the president would then be 233. Before counting the six states in play, Trump leads Biden by 232 to 227. If Nevada is added to that array for Biden and if the 5 other states have walked off the field by refusing to appoint electors, Biden wins 233 to 232 without going to Congress.

The point is that stopping certification of your state’s election alone, without you directly appointing electors, is unlikely to stop the corruption of the election from rewarding the malefactors in your state with a Biden victory.

THE “RESULTS” OF A CORRUPTED ELECTION REPRESENT THE THWARTING OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

Politically, the biggest argument against doing your duty to enforce the election laws of your state and the U.S. Constitution is the charge that by de-certifying and remedying that with direct appointment you are “thwarting the will of the people” or “reversing the results of an election.”

Those charges, of course, are completely untrue.  If the corruption in question produces reasonable doubt about the integrity of the “results,” they do NOT represent the will of the people.  Corrupted results represent a victory for those who would steal our rule-of-law, our Constitutional Republic, and our liberty.  Corrupted results represent the will of wannabe tyrants – not the people.

Put another way, a corrupted election no more represents the will of the people than a bank heist represents the will of the depositors.

SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES

I have done my own research on this topic by reading the Constitution, the Supreme Court precedent, the federal statutes in question, as well as the commentary by the Congressional Research Service.

The source that has most influenced me was the presentation of Chapman constitutional law professor John Eastman to a committee of the Georgia Senate on December 3, 2020.  This direct testimony and his answers to questions is a constitutional tour-de-force on the issues you face in this decision.  There is no better time spent than to watch the 37 minutes of this video if you have not seen it.  Professor Eastman makes clear that the plenary power delegated to you by the U.S. Constitution is supreme to your state constitution and statutes.  He says that means that you can call your chamber into session with a simple majority for this purpose, even if your state constitution says differently in other circumstances:

https://www.facebook.com/texasconstitutionalenforcement/videos/1354286434913314

I first started thinking about this issue after reading this article by Daniel Horowitz ( https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-yes-state-legislatures-do-indeed-have-the-final-say-over-this-election ).  That was a follow up to his original article (https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-state-legislatures-rectify-election-fraud ).

I found a great introduction to the federal statutes on the elector process at the Congressional Research Service:  https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641

These two articles on the general topic of the role of the state legislatures in elector selection may be useful as well. The first is entitled, “State Legislatures’ Exclusive Power to Choose Electors.” ( https://www.texasfreepress.com/post/state-legislatures-exclusive-power-to-choose-electors )  The second is entitled, “Presidential Endgame Being Set Now.” ( https://www.texasfreepress.com/post/presidential-endgame-being-set-now ).

FALLBACK POSITIONS IN CASE YOU CANNOT PERSUADE YOUR FELLOW LEGISLATORS BY DEC. 13

The Rutherford Hayes Strategy

If your fellow state legislators fail to join you by December 13 in directly selecting electors, I have a fallback plan called the “Rutherford Hayes Strategy.”  Persuade the GOP electors in your state to meet on December 14, vote, and send their results to the President of the Senate.

This will buy you time between December 14 and January 6 when the envelopes are opened by Vice President Pence for you and your fellow legislators to directly appoint them.  When Vice President Pence is confronted with two slates of votes from your state, he will be constitutionally bound to use the elector votes from those you have appointed.  I wrote this article to discuss that idea more:

https://www.texasfreepress.com/post/independent-gop-elector-action-can-buy-time

The Election Day Failure Strategy

This might be called the “Never Retreat, Never Surrender” legal strategy.  The argument is that the federal statute says that a state has to select electors on one day, general election day, November 3, 2020.  If the selection is not made on that day, the statute says it is a failed election and the selection is void.  For the states in that position (one of which the author maintains is yours) to have valid electors, the state legislature must directly appoint them.

Here is the link to the paper on this topic:  https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/11/18/elections-undecided-by-midnight-are-void-9-0-decision

The author says that the right people (and I presume you as a legislator would have standing) in each state merely have to file a federal suit to this effect and it is highly likely to win.  He cites Supreme Court precedent to back up his argument.

Note that if this argument is successful, it will be the federal judiciary (probably the Supreme Court) that de-certifies, and IF the states in question are going to get electors, you will STILL be on the hook as a state legislator to appoint your electors directly.

I note that without the six states in question, Trump currently has a lead of 232 to 227. Of the six states in play, the state legislatures in five of them for a total of 73 electoral votes are controlled by GOP legislatures. Only Nevada with 6 votes has a Dem-controlled legislature.

CONCLUSION

I consider you to be like the men at the Battle of the Bulge.  In the war to protect rule of law, election integrity, the Constitution, and our liberty, you are in the breach while the enemies of all that are trying to punch through right now.  I can only watch from afar and hope that you stem the tide.  I urge you to lead your legislature to exercise your constitutional power and duty, and save the Union.  And please do it now!  The clock is ticking.

Toward liberty,

 

Tom Glass

Texas Constitutional Enforcement

www.txce.org

Read more

State Legislator Contact Info

State Legislative Contact Information for Republicans in

 Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin

 

 

Pennsylvania (20 elector votes)

 

State Senate

 

Senator Name

Email

Capitol Office

Argall, David G

[email protected]

(717) 787-2637

Arnold, David

[email protected]

(717) 787-5708

Aument, Ryan P

[email protected]

(717) 787-4420

Baker, Lisa

[email protected]

(717) 787-7428

Bartolotta, Camera

[email protected]

(717) 787-1463

Brooks, Michele

[email protected]

(717) 787-1322

Browne, Patrick M

[email protected]

(717) 787-1349

Corman, Jake  *

[email protected]

(717) 787-1377

Disanto, John

[email protected]

(717) 787-6801

Gordner, John R

[email protected]

(717) 787-8928

Hutchinson, Scott E

[email protected]

(717) 787-9684

Langerholc Jr, Wayne

[email protected]

(717) 787-5400

Laughlin, Daniel

[email protected]

(717) 787-8927

Martin, Scott

[email protected]

(717) 787-6535

Mastriano, Doug

[email protected]

(717) 787-4651

Mensch, Bob

[email protected]

(717) 787-3110

Phillips-Hill, Kristin

[email protected]

(717) 787-7085

Pittman, Joe

[email protected]

(717) 787-8724

Regan, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 787-8524

Scavello, Mario M

[email protected]

(717) 787-6123

Stefano, Patrick J

[email protected]

(717) 787-7175

Tomlinson, Robert M

[email protected]

(717) 787-5072

Vogel Jr, Elder A

[email protected]

(717) 787-3076

Ward, Judy

[email protected]

(717) 787-5490

Ward, Kim L  **

[email protected]

(717) 787-6063

Yaw, Gene

[email protected]

(717) 787-3280

 

*    President Pro Tempore

** Majority Leader

 

State House

 

Representative Name

Email

Capitol Office

Barrar, Stephen

[email protected]

(717) 783-3038

Benninghoff, Kerry A  **

[email protected]

(717) 783-1918

Bernstine, Aaron

[email protected]

(717) 783-8322

Boback, Karen

[email protected]

(717) 787-1117

Borowicz, Stephanie

[email protected]

(717) 772-9925

Brooks, Bob

[email protected]

(717) 782-2895

Brown, Rosemary M

[email protected]

(717) 260-6171

Causer, Martin T

[email protected]

(717) 787-5075

Cook, Bud

[email protected]

(717) 783-8655

Cox, Jim

[email protected]

(717) 772-2435

Culver, Lynda Schlegel

[email protected]

(717) 787-3485

Cutler, Bryan  *

[email protected]

(717) 783-6424

Day, Gary

[email protected]

(717) 787-3017

Delozier, Sheryl M

[email protected]

(717) 783-5282

Diamond, Russ

[email protected]

(717) 787-2686

DiGirolamo, Gene

[email protected]

(717) 783-7319

Dowling, Matthew D

[email protected]

(717) 783-5173

Dunbar, George

[email protected]

(717) 260-6132

Dush, Cris

[email protected]

(717) 787-3845

Ecker, Torren C

[email protected]

(717) 783-8875

Emrick, Joe

[email protected]

(717) 260-6159

Farry, Frank A

[email protected]

(717) 260-6140

Fee, Mindy

[email protected]

(717) 772-5290

Fritz, Jonathan

[email protected]

(717) 783-2910

Gabler, Matt

[email protected]

(717) 260-6142

Gaydos, Valerie S

[email protected]

(717) 787-6651

Gillen, Mark M

[email protected]

(717) 787-8550

Gillespie, Keith

[email protected]

(717) 705-7167

Gleim, Barbara

[email protected]

(717) 772-2280

Gregory, Jim

[email protected]

(717) 787-9020

Greiner, Keith J

[email protected]

(717) 783-6422

Grove, Seth M

[email protected]

(717) 783-2655

Hahn, Marcia M

[email protected]

(717) 783-8573

Heffley, Doyle

[email protected]

(717) 260-6139

Helm, Susan C

[email protected]

(717) 787-1230

Hennessey, Tim

[email protected]

(717) 787-3431

Hershey, Johnathan D

[email protected]

(717) 783-7830

Hickernell, David S

[email protected]

(717) 783-2076

Irvin, Rich

[email protected]

(717) 787-3335

James, R. Lee J

[email protected]

(717) 783-8188

Jones, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 783-8389

Jozwiak, Barry J

[email protected]

(717) 772-9940

Kail, Joshua D

[email protected]

(717) 260-6144

Kaufer, Aaron D

[email protected]

(717) 787-3798

Kauffman, Rob W

[email protected]

(717) 705-2004

Keefer, Dawn W

[email protected]

(717) 783-8783

Keller, Mark K

[email protected]

(717) 783-1593

Klunk, Kate A

[email protected]

(717) 787-4790

Knowles, Jerry

[email protected]

(717) 787-9029

Lawrence, John A

[email protected]

(717) 260-6117

Lewis, Andrew

[email protected]

(717) 783-2014

Mackenzie, Ryan E

[email protected]

(717) 787-1000

Mako, Zachary

[email protected]

(717) 772-5398

Maloney Sr, David M

[email protected]

(717) 260-6161

Marshall, Jim

[email protected]

(717) 260-6432

Masser, Kurt A

[email protected]

(717) 260-6134

Mehaffie III, Thomas L

[email protected]

(717) 787-2684

Mentzer, Steven C

[email protected]

(717) 787-1776

Metcalfe, Daryl D

[email protected]

(717) 783-1707

Metzgar, Carl Walker

[email protected]

(717) 783-8756

Mihalek, Natalie

[email protected]

(717) 783-1522

Millard, David R

[email protected]

(717) 783-1102

Miller, Brett R

[email protected]

(717) 705-7161

Mizgorski, Lori A

[email protected]

(717) 260-6407

Moul, Dan

[email protected]

(717) 783-5217

Murt, Thomas P

[email protected]

(717) 787-6886

Mustello, Marci

[email protected]

(717) 787-7686

Neilson, Ed

[email protected]

(717) 772-4032

Nelson, Eric R

[email protected]

(717) 260-6146

Oberlander, Donna

[email protected]

(717) 772-9908

O’Neal, Timothy J

[email protected]

(717) 787-3315

Ortitay, Jason

[email protected]

(717) 787-1281

Owlett, Clint

[email protected]

(717) 772-5371

Peifer, Michael

[email protected]

(717) 783-2037

Pickett, Tina

[email protected]

(717) 783-8238

Polinchock, F. Todd

[email protected]

(717) 787-5452

Puskaric, Michael J

[email protected]

(717) 260-6122

Pyle, Jeffrey P

[email protected]

(717) 783-5327

Rapp, Kathy L

[email protected]

(717) 787-1367

Reese, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 783-9311

Rigby, Jim

[email protected]

(717) 772-9924

Roae, Brad

[email protected]

(717) 787-2353

Rothman, Greg

[email protected]

(717) 783-2063

Ryan, Francis X

[email protected]

(717) 783-1815

Sankey, Tommy

[email protected]

(717) 787-7099

Saylor, Stan

[email protected]

(717) 783-6426

Schemel, Paul

[email protected]

(717) 783-5218

Schmitt, Louis C

[email protected]

(717) 787-6419

Schroeder, Meghan

[email protected]

(717) 705-7170

Simmons, Justin J

[email protected]

(717) 783-1673

Sonney, Curtis G

[email protected]

(717) 783-9087

Staats, Craig T

[email protected]

(717) 783-3154

Stephens, Todd

[email protected]

(717) 260-6163

Struzzi, James B

[email protected]

(717) 705-7173

Thomas, Wendi

[email protected]

(717) 772-9926

Tobash, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 260-6148

Toepel, Marcy

[email protected]

(717) 787-9501

Toohil, Tarah

[email protected]

(717) 260-6136

Topper, Jesse

[email protected]

(717) 787-7076

Turzai, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 772-9943

Walsh, Justin M

[email protected]

(717) 783-3825

Warner, Ryan

[email protected]

(717) 787-1540

Wentling, Parke

[email protected]

(717) 783-5008

Wheeland, Jeff C

[email protected]

(717) 787-2885

White, Martina A

[email protected]

(717) 787-6740

Zimmerman, David H

[email protected]

(717) 787-3531

 

*     Speaker of the House

**   House Majority Leader

 

News reports state that Pennsylvania Speaker of the House, Bryan Cutler, has said that he does not think the legislature has the plenary power to de-certify an election or directly appoint electors, and that the PA legislature is currently out of session, anyway.

 

Some Pennsylvania legislators tried to sign a resolution telling the Secretary of State and Governor not to certify.  That, of course, stops short of claiming their plenary power.  Those who have signed on as co-sponsors of the resolution are Reps. Russ Diamond, Eric Nelson, Paul Schemel, Greg Rothman, Frank Ryan, Dawn Keefer, Mike Jones, David Rowe, Michael Puskaric, Barbara Gleim, Bud Cook, Cris Dush, Stephanie Borowicz, David Zimmerman, Daryl Metcalfe, David Maloney, Dan Moul, Brad Roae, Kathy Rapp, Jim Cox, Rob Kauffman, Matthew Dowling, Eric Davanzo, Rich Irvin, Aaron Bernstine, and Andrew Lewis.

 

 

Michigan (16 elector votes)

 

State Senate

 

District

Name

Contact

District 8

Pete Lucido

[email protected]

District 10

Michael MacDonald

[email protected]

District 14

Ruth Johnson

[email protected]

District 15

Jim Runestad

[email protected]

District 16

Mike Shirkey

[email protected]

District 17

Dale Zorn

[email protected]

District 19

John Bizon

[email protected]

District 21

Kim LaSata

[email protected]

District 22

Lana Theis

[email protected]

District 24

Tom Barrett

[email protected]

District 25

Dan Lauwers

[email protected]

District 26

Aric Nesbitt

[email protected]

District 28

Peter MacGregor

[email protected]

District 30

Roger Victory

[email protected]

District 31

Kevin Daley

[email protected]

District 32

Ken Horn

[email protected]

District 33

Rick Outman

[email protected]

District 34

Jon Bumstead

[email protected]

District 35

Curt Vanderwall

[email protected]

District 36

Jim Stamas

[email protected]

District 37

Wayne Schmidt

[email protected]

District 38

Ed McBroom

[email protected]

 

State House

 

District

Name

Contact

District 17

Joseph Bellino

[email protected]

District 24

Steve Marino

[email protected]

District 30

Diana Farrington

[email protected]

District 32

Pamela Hornberger

[email protected]

District 33

Jeff Yaroch

[email protected]

District 36

Douglas Wozniak

[email protected]

District 38

Kathy Crawford

[email protected]

District 39

Ryan Berman

[email protected]

District 42

Ann Bollin

[email protected]

District 43

Andrea Schroeder

[email protected]

District 44

Matt Maddock

[email protected]

District 45

Michael Webber

[email protected]

District 46

John Reilly

[email protected]

District 47

Hank Vaupel

[email protected]

District 51

Mike Mueller

[email protected]

District 56

Jason Sheppard

[email protected]

District 57

Bronna Kahle

[email protected]

District 58

Eric Leutheuser

[email protected]

District 59

Aaron Miller

[email protected]

District 61

Brandt Iden

[email protected]

District 63

Matt Hall

[email protected]

District 64

Julie Alexander

[email protected]

District 65

Sarah Lightner

[email protected]

District 66

Beth Griffin

[email protected]

District 70

James Lower

[email protected]

District 72

Steven Johnson

[email protected]

District 73

Lynn Afendoulis

[email protected]

District 74

Mark Huizenga

[email protected]

District 77

Tommy Brann

[email protected]

District 78

Brad Paquette

[email protected]

District 79

Pauline Wendzel

[email protected]

District 80

Mary Whiteford

[email protected]

District 81

Gary Eisen

[email protected]house.mi.gov

District 82

Gary Howell

[email protected]

District 83

Shane Hernandez

[email protected]

District 84

Phil Green

[email protected]

District 85

Ben Frederick

[email protected]

District 86

Thomas Albert

[email protected]

District 87

Julie Calley

[email protected]

District 88

Luke Meerman

[email protected]

District 89

Jim Lilly

[email protected]

District 90

Bradley Slagh

[email protected]

District 91

Greg VanWoerkom

[email protected]

District 93

Graham Filler

[email protected]

District 94

Rodney Wakeman

[email protected]

District 97

Jason Wentworth

[email protected]

District 98

Annette Glenn

[email protected]

District 99

Roger Hauck

[email protected]

District 100

Scott VanSingel

[email protected]

District 101

Jack O'Malley

[email protected]

District 102

Michele Hoitenga

[email protected]

District 103

Daire Rendon

[email protected]

District 104

Larry Inman

[email protected]

District 105

Triston Cole

[email protected]

District 106

Sue Allor

[email protected]

District 107

Lee Chatfield *

[email protected]

District 108

Beau LaFave

[email protected]

District 110

Greg Markkanen

[email protected]

 

* Speaker of the House

 

Georgia  (16 electoral votes)

 

State Senate

 

District

Senator

Email

1

Ben Watson

[email protected]

3

William Ligon

[email protected]

4

Billy Hickman

[email protected]

7

Tyler Harper

[email protected]

8

C. Ellis Black

[email protected]

9

P. K. Martin IV

[email protected]

11

Dean Burke

[email protected]

13

Carden Summers

[email protected]

14

Bruce Thompson

[email protected]

16

Marty Harbin

[email protected]

17

Brian Strickland

[email protected]

18

John F. Kennedy

[email protected]

19

Blake Tillery

[email protected]

20

Larry Walker III

[email protected]

21

Brandon Beach

[email protected]

23

Jesse Stone

[email protected]

24

Lee Anderson

[email protected]

25

Burt Jones

[email protected]

27

Greg Dolezal

[email protected]

28

Matt Brass

[email protected]

29

Randy Robertson

[email protected]

30

Mike Dugan

[email protected]

31

Bill Heath

[email protected]

32

Kay Kirkpatrick

[email protected]

37

Lindsey Tippins

[email protected]

45

Renee Unterman

[email protected]

46

Bill Cowsert

[email protected]

47

Frank Ginn

[email protected]

49

Butch Miller

[email protected]

50

John Wilkinson

[email protected]

51

Steve Gooch

[email protected]

52

Chuck Hufstetler

[email protected]

53

Jeff Mullis

[email protected]

54

Chuck Payne

[email protected]

56

John Albers

[email protected]

 

State House

 

District

Representative

Email

1

Colton Moore

[email protected]

2

Steve Tarvin

[email protected]

3

Dewayne Hill

[email protected]

4

Kasey Carpenter

[email protected]

5

Matt Barton

[email protected]

6

Jason Ridley

[email protected]

7

David Ralston  *

[email protected]

8

Matt Gurtler

[email protected]

9

Kevin Tanner

[email protected]

10

Terry Rogers

[email protected]

11

Rick Jasperse

[email protected]

12

Eddie Lumsden

[email protected]

13

Katie M. Dempsey

[email protected]

14

Mitchell Scoggins

[email protected]

15

Matthew Gambill

[email protected]

16

Trey Kelley

[email protected]

17

Martin Momtahan

[email protected]

18

Kevin Cooke

[email protected]

19

Joseph Gullett

[email protected]

20

Michael Caldwell

[email protected]

21

Scot Turner

[email protected]

22

Wes Cantrell

[email protected]

23

Mandi L. Ballinger

[email protected]

24

Sheri Gilligan

[email protected]

25

Todd Jones

[email protected]

26

Marc Morris

[email protected]

27

Lee Hawkins

[email protected]

28

Chris Erwin

[email protected]

29

Matt Dubnik

[email protected]

30

Emory Dunahoo

[email protected]

31

Tommy Benton

[email protected]

32

Alan Powell

[email protected]

33

Tom McCall

[email protected]

34

Bert Reeves

[email protected]

35

Ed Setzler

[email protected]

36

Ginny Ehrhart

[email protected]

43

Sharon Cooper

[email protected]

44

Don Parsons

[email protected]

45

Matt Dollar

[email protected]

46

John Carson

[email protected]

47

Jan Jones

[email protected]

49

Chuck Martin

[email protected]

52

Deborah Silcox

[email protected]

67

Micah Gravley

[email protected]

68

J. Collins

[email protected]

69

Randy Nix

[email protected]

70

Lynn Ratigan Smith

[email protected]

71

Philip Singleton

[email protected]

72

Josh Bonner

[email protected]

73

Karen Mathiak

[email protected]

97

Brooks Coleman

[email protected]

98

David Clark

[email protected]

103

Timothy Barr

[email protected]

104

Chuck Efstration

[email protected]

106

Brett Harrell

[email protected]

109

Dale Rutledge

[email protected]

110

Andrew Welch

[email protected]

112

Dave Belton

[email protected]

114

Tom Kirby

[email protected]

115

Bruce Williamson

[email protected]

116

Terry Lamar England

[email protected]

117

Houston Gaines

[email protected]

119

Marcus A. Wiedower

[email protected]

120

Trey Rhodes

[email protected]

121

Barry Fleming

[email protected]

122

Jodi Lott

[email protected]

123

Mark Newton

[email protected]

129

Susan Holmes

[email protected]

130

David Knight

[email protected]

131

Ken Pullin

[email protected]

133

Vance Smith

[email protected]

134

Richard H. Smith

[email protected]

138

Mike Cheokas

[email protected]

140

Robert Dickey

[email protected]

141

Allen Peake

[email protected]

144

Danny Mathis

[email protected]

145

Rick Williams

[email protected]

146

Shaw Blackmon

[email protected]

147

Heath Clark

[email protected]

148

Noel Williams, Jr.

[email protected]

149

Jimmy Pruett

[email protected]

150

Matt Hatchett

[email protected]

151

Gerald E. Greene

[email protected]

152

Ed Rynders

[email protected]

155

Clay Pirkle

[email protected]

156

Greg Morris

[email protected]

157

Bill Werkheiser

[email protected]

158

Larry "Butch" Parrish

[email protected]

159

Jon G. Burns

[email protected]

160

Jan Tankersley

[email protected]

161

Bill Hitchens

[email protected]

164

Ron Stephens

[email protected]

166

Jesse Petrea

[email protected]

167

Jeff Jones

[email protected]

169

Dominic LaRicca

[email protected]

170

Penny Houston

[email protected]

171

Jay Powell

[email protected]

172

Sam Watson

[email protected]

173

Darlene K. Taylor

[email protected]

174

John Corbett

[email protected]

175

John LaHood

[email protected]

176

Jason Shaw

[email protected]

178

Steven Meeks

[email protected]

179

Don Hogan

[email protected]

180

Steven Sainz

[email protected]

 

* Speaker of the House

 

 

Arizona (11 electoral votes)

 

State Senate

 

Senator

Distr

Pty

Email

Phone

Sylvia Allen

6

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5409

Sonny Borrelli -- Majority Whip

5

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5051

Paul Boyer

20

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4173

Kate Brophy McGee

28

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4486

Heather Carter

15

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5503

Karen Fann -- President

1

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5874

David C. Farnsworth

16

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-3020

Eddie Farnsworth -- President Pro Tempore

12

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5735

David Gowan

14

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5154

Rick Gray -- Majority Leader

21

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5413

Sine Kerr

13

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5955

Vince Leach

11

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-3106

David Livingston

22

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4178

J.D. Mesnard

17

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4481

Tyler Pace

25

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5760

Frank Pratt

8

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5761

Michelle Ugenti-Rita

23

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4480

 

State House

 

Representative

District

Email

Phone

John Allen

15

[email protected]

(602) 926-4916

Nancy Barto

15

[email protected]

(602) 926-5766

Leo Biasiucci

5

[email protected]

(602) 926-3018

Walter Blackman

6

[email protected]

(602) 926-3043

Shawnna Bolick

20

[email protected]

(602) 926-3244

Russell "Rusty" Bowers -- Speaker

25

[email protected]

(602) 926-3128

Noel Campbell

1

[email protected]

(602) 926-3124

Frank Carroll

22

[email protected]

(602) 926-3249

Regina E. Cobb

5

[email protected]

(602) 926-3126

David L. Cook

8

[email protected]

(602) 926-5162

Timothy M. Dunn

13

[email protected]

(602) 926-4139

John Fillmore

16

[email protected]

(602) 926-3187

Mark Finchem

11

[email protected]

(602) 926-3122

Travis W. Grantham

12

[email protected]

(602) 926-4868

Gail Griffin

14

[email protected]

(602) 926-5895

John Kavanagh

23

[email protected]

(602) 926-5170

Anthony T. Kern

20

[email protected]

(602) 926-3102

Jay Lawrence

23

[email protected]

(602) 926-3095

Becky A. Nutt -- Majority Whip

14

[email protected]

(602) 926-4852

Joanne Osborne

13

[email protected]

(602) 926-3181

Kevin Payne

21

[email protected]

(602) 926-4854

Warren Petersen -- Majority Leader

12

[email protected]

(602) 926-4136

Steve Pierce

1

[email protected]

(602) 926-5584

Tony Rivero

21

[email protected]

(602) 926-3104

Bret Roberts

11

[email protected]

(602) 926-3158

Thomas "T.J." Shope, Jr. -- Speaker Pro Tempore

8

[email protected]

(602) 926-3012

Bob Thorpe

6

[email protected]

(602) 926-5219

Ben Toma

22

[email protected]

(602) 926-3298

Kelly Townsend

16

[email protected]

(602) 926-4467

Michelle Udall

25

[email protected]

(602) 926-4856

Jeff Weninger

17

[email protected]

(602) 926-3092

 

 

 

Wisconsin (10 electoral votes)

 

State Senate

 

Senator

District

Email

André Jacque

1

[email protected]

Robert Cowles

2

[email protected]

Dale P. Kooyenga

5

[email protected]

Alberta Darling

8

[email protected]

Devin LeMahieu

9

[email protected]

Stephen Nass

11

[email protected]

Scott Fitzgerald

13

[email protected]

Luther Olsen

14

[email protected]

Howard Marklein

17

[email protected]

Dan Feyen

18

[email protected]

Roger Roth

19

[email protected]

Duey Stroebel

20

[email protected]

Van H. Wanggaard

21

[email protected]

Kathy Bernier

23

[email protected]

Patrick Testin

24

[email protected]

Dave Craig

28

[email protected]

Jerry Petrowski

29

[email protected]

Chris Kapenga

33

[email protected]

 

 

State House

 

District

Representative

Email

1

Joel Kitchens

[email protected]

2

Shae Sortwell

[email protected]

3

Ron Tusler

[email protected]

4

David Steffen

[email protected]

5

Jim Steineke

[email protected]

6

Gary Tauchen

[email protected]

13

Rob Hutton

[email protected]

15

Joe Sanfelippo

[email protected]

21

Jessie Rodriguez

[email protected]

22

Janel Brandtjen

[email protected]

23

Jim Ott

[email protected]

24

Dan Knodl

[email protected]

25

Paul Tittl

[email protected]

26

Terry Katsma

[email protected]

27

Tyler Vorpagel

[email protected]

28

Gae Magnafici

[email protected]

29

Rob Stafsholt

[email protected]

30

Shannon Zimmerman

[email protected]

31

Amy Loudenbeck

[email protected]

32

Tyler August

[email protected]

33

Cody Horlacher

[email protected]

34

Rob Swearingen

[email protected]

35

Mary Felzkowski

[email protected]

36

Jeffrey Mursau

[email protected]

37

John Jagler

[email protected]

38

Barbara Dittrich

[email protected]

39

Mark Born

[email protected]

40

Kevin David Petersen

[email protected]

41

Joan Ballweg

[email protected]

42

Jon Plumer

[email protected]

49

Travis Tranel

[email protected]

50

Tony Kurtz

[email protected]

51

Todd Novak

[email protected]

52

Jeremy Thiesfeldt

[email protected]

53

Michael Schraa

[email protected]

55

Mike Rohrkaste

[email protected]

56

Dave Murphy

[email protected]

58

Rick Gundrum

[email protected]

59

Timothy Ramthun

[email protected]

60

Robert Brooks

[email protected]

61

Samantha Kerkman

[email protected]

62

Robert Wittke

[email protected]

63

Robin Vos  *

[email protected]

67

Rob Summerfield

[email protected]

68

Jesse James

[email protected]

69

Bob Kulp

[email protected]

70

Nancy VanderMeer

[email protected]

72

Scott Krug

[email protected]

75

Romaine Quinn

[email protected]

82

Ken Skowronski

[email protected]

83

Chuck Wichgers

[email protected]

84

Mike Kuglitsch

[email protected]

85

Patrick Snyder

[email protected]

86

John Spiros

[email protected]

87

James W. Edming

[email protected]

88

John Macco

[email protected]

92

Treig Pronschinske

[email protected]

93

Warren Petryk

[email protected]

96

Loren Oldenburg

[email protected]

97

Scott Allen

[email protected]

98

Adam Neylon

[email protected]

99

Cindi Duchow

[email protected]

* Speaker of the House


Death by Lockdown

Frederick Bastiat taught us with his Broken Window Fallacy and Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson that you always have to look at the seen and the unseen. In other words, in order to determine the true effect of a governmental action, you have to compare a model of the world with the policy against a model of the world without the policy. And you can't just narrowly focus on one aspect of the implementation of the policy, you have to look at the big picture to include all of the effects of the policy.
Applying that lesson to lockdowns and mask mandates You can't just look at what has happened with COVID this year. You have to model what would have happened had there not been lockdowns, and you have to analyze ALL causes of death (and other effects) in both scenarios.
Tom Woods knows this lesson deep in his bones. And he has applied it for us to see. This is just one of his many devastating commentaries on the topic. The piece is called Death by Lockdown.

El Paso Texas Appellate Court Stops County Lockdown!

Good news to be thankful for! Yesterday, the Eighth District Appellate Court in El Paso granted a temporary order halting enforcement of El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego's COVID lockdown edicts, which he had extended through December 1.

Recall that this is the case filed by El Paso businesses that want to stay open reported on yesterday that the Texas Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin had declined to expedite, opting to wait for the Eighth District to get the job done.

The order to stop enforcement of the edict is temporary until a full trial on the merits can be conducted.

Ken Paxton's AG office has intervened on behalf of the State of Texas on behalf of the businesses, so the case name is State of Texas v El Paso County. The case number is 08-20-00226-CV.

The businesses who filed the suit are Pizza Properties, Inc., Wing Daddy's, Toro Burger Bar, Charcoaler, LLC, Triple A Restaurants, Inc., CC Restaurant LP, FD Montanta, LLC, WT Chophouse, LLC, Verlander Enterprises, LLC, and Bakery Ventures I, LTD.

The businesses are being represented by Kemp Smith LLP with lead attorney Mark Osborn and assisted by Shelly Rivas and Deborah Trejo.

Harry County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Travis County, the City of Austin, and Fort Bend County Judge KP George filed amicus briefs on behalf of the El Paso County Judge.

The Eighth District order was issued by a three judge panel led by Chief Justice Jeff Alley. He was joined in his order by Justice Gina Palafox. Justice Yvonne Rodriguez dissented.


State Legislatures Have Final Say on Their Electors

In the race for President of the United States, there are now two burning questions.  First, who makes the final decision about who the electors are from a state?  And second, when there is evidence of widespread fraud, but the fraud has been so effectively done that one can only prove fraud exists, but not its exact scope, what is the remedy to be implemented by the final decision maker?

Let’s go first to fundamentals -- the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution -- to determine who makes the final decision.

Article II, Section 1 says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”

Later it says:  “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States . . .”

And in the Twelfth Amendment, we find the following process for what happens after the electors meet and vote in their state:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, . . .  they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed . . .

So, we have our answer to the first burning question.  It is the state legislature that picks its electors.  The governor does not.  The state judiciary does not.  The state secretary of state does not.  The federal judiciary does not.  The STATE LEGISLATURE does.  Once again, we see the proof of the framer’s design that the states are the masters of the federal government.

In the first presidential election under the U.S. Constitution in 1788, only 11 states had ratified the Constitution and participated in the federal elections. (North Carolina and Rhode Island were the holdouts that only ratified after the First Congress and Senate had been assembled and after George Washington was president.)

That year, New York’s legislature could neither decide on a manner to select its electors, nor did it directly select electors.  As a result, only ten states selected electors and elected George Washington in 1788.  Half of those state’s electors were chosen directly by their state legislature.  The others had various schemes for voters picking the electors.  One other had the voters pick a short list, and the state legislature pick the final electors from the voter selected short list.

And we come to the second question, what if a state legislature passes a statute that directs the manner in which electors are to be chosen, and the people conducting the election engage in election fraud, or allow it to occur?  And let us assume that investigation produces evidence that fraud certainly occurred, but the extent of the fraud is not known because those executing the fraud were successful in covering their tracks?  Who decides what to do then?  And what is the remedy for massive fraud successfully covered up by the fraudsters?

It is clear that it still is the state legislature that decides whether the election to select electors was conducted in the manner in which they directed.  If the state legislature thinks there is enough doubt that the election was conducted honestly, they have the power to select the electors themselves.  The Constitution made them the sole decider on choosing electors from their state.

But what role does the United States judiciary, especially the U.S. Supreme Court have in all this?

Article III, Sec. 2 says:  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, . . .  to Controversies . . . between Citizens of different States.”  So I read that if a presidential or vice-presidential candidate has a controversy over whether a citizen of a particular state is not conducting the election in the manner by which the state legislature has directed via state statute, the federal judiciary can opine on whether the election officials are following the law and issue orders that the law be complied with.

Given the facts on the ground in Pennsylvania, there may be enough ballots that were received after election day, the counting of which violates Pennsylvania law, that the U.S. Supreme Court can order that those ballots not be counted and change the result from what would have happened had those ballots been illegally counted.

There may be other such situations in other states, but I do not know the details.  Other state procedures may catch voter fraud in states enough to change currently announced counts.  For instance, it is known that software rejected as insecure by Texas authorities has been found in one county in Michigan to be fraudulently changing Trump votes to Biden votes.  It is my understanding that this was caught by counting paper backup ballots.  There are lots of other counties in Michigan using the same vendor that need to have the electronic results checked against paper.  That could be outcome determinative.

But what if despite the Supreme Court’s order, election officials in Pennsylvania mixed in votes received after election day with all the other votes?  There is no way now to determine the lawful results.  What if there is other evidence of fraud, but insufficient evidence to prove the fraud’s extent?

Do not count on the U.S. Supreme Court to save us.  They do not think - and I agree with them - that they have the authority to declare fraud and set a remedy for the fraud by choosing a slate of electors.

The state legislature can declare that the Trump electors are the electors from its state in such a situation, though.  They just have to have the commitment to honest elections and the Constitution and the will to do so.

Republicans control both the House and the Senate in the following states:  Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  The Nevada legislature is Democrat.  I am assuming from the evidence available at the moment that North Carolina and Alaska are Trump wins without any need for further action.

Assuming Biden gets Nevada (not a certainty), without the five Republican states in play, Georgia (16), Pennsylvania (20), Arizona (11), Michigan (16), and Wisconsin (10), Trump has 232 elector votes and Biden has 233.  Trump needs 38 votes to get to the majority.

There are several permutations that get him to 270.  Pennsylvania, Georgia, and any one of the others is one likely scenario.  And if a thorough vetting of Nevada shows in an honest count that Trump won it, all that Trump needs from the five Republican legislative battleground states is 32 votes.  Pennsylvania and either Georgia or Michigan does it there.  Any combination of three of the five states does it.

So, bottom line, if the right three Republican legislatures take their oaths to the Constitution and honest elections seriously, then rule of law, the American people, and Trump win and the forces who would destroy our Constitution and liberty lose.

Pictured is the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg.