[Hoot Gibson]

I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?

I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about.  That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

No, I caught your confession that you do not have enough knowledge to know what you are talking about. 

As for relying on vector as a source of knowledge, you might want to rethink that one.

I am not going to presume to speak for anybody but myself, but I have consistently advocated government decisions made as close to the source of government funding as possible. Conservatives - and my political philosophy is consistently conservative, do not trust decisions made by the federal government except when absolutely necessary. A Kentucky County Fiscal Court should not have the authority to declare war on North Korea and Congress should not be dictating the curricula used by local school districts.

So, what you have done is to take vector's assertion that three conservative posters all prefer having the federal government decide elections over state governments. So, you are basing your opinion on a blatant lie, which is mostly what one finds in vector's posts. When appealing the results of an election, a candidate or other person or group who believes that they were denied a fair election has to decide whether the election violated state or federal law and file accordingly. The law is not a team sport, where you get to freely choose which court you want your lawsuit to be heard. I know that will come as a shock to your three fellow liberal posters, but it is really okay to think for yourself and not to speak and act as if you are port of the Borg.

In reality, no disputed presidential election is likely to ever be settled by a state court ruling. The Supreme Court may refuse to hear lawsuits that may impact the outcome of an election, as it did in the case of the 2020 election, but it is a safe bet that lawsuits will be filed if the plaintiff is unhappy with the results obtained in state court.

The 800+ page bill that Democrats are trying to pass is nothing but a naked power grab that will be nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court if it is ever enacted into law. Most of the issues surrounding the 2020 elections were the result of extending deadlines for absentee ballots and mailing unsolicited ballots to all registered voters in some cases. So, does it really make sense for the federal government to force states to extend deadlines for receiving absentee ballots past election day, while eliminating voter IDs? There is really no excuse for extending the opportunities for election fraud to the entire nation.