Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s conservative base wants him to sign on as a “friend of the court” in the Texas Attorney General’s lawsuit against four states, which changed their voting rules in the middle of the election cycle.
But that ship has sailed. Dunleavy wrote on social media that his administration became aware of the invitation to join the election lawsuit on the evening prior to the deadline.
And there was just no time to give it serious consideration. His administration views such an action through a federalist lens, not wanting other states, such as New York, to turn around and meddle in Alaska’s sovereign elections.
“I, along with Attorney General Ed Sniffen and his staff, worked quickly to try to understand the merits and intended outcome of the case. Before we could make a decision, the short deadline to join the case had passed.
“As governor of Alaska, I have an obligation to thoroughly understand the facts at hand before committing to such a suit.
“I’ll be the first to admit that I was disappointed that we didn’t have enough time to thoroughly review the details. Had this not been the case, we may have come to a different decision.
“Regardless, I will be watching the suit carefully. Electoral integrity remains a cornerstone of our democracy, and every American should know that their vote matters,” he wrote.
In fact, Alaska has election problems of its own and may want to “stick to its knitting.”
A lawsuit against the Division of Elections by a group of citizens in District 27, is challenging the decision of the Alaska Supreme Court to order an injunction prohibiting the requirement of a witness signature on absentee ballots for the General Election, due to COVID-19. The election is all about election integrity, which the group says has been broken in Alaska.
Five Republican lawmakers have requested the governor join the Texas lawsuit in some capacity, and comments on Must Read Alaska stories indicate dissatisfaction for him not having done so, after 17 other states and the president had formally joined in the effort to scrap the elections of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.
The lawsuit by Texas AG Ken Paxton alleges those states ’ “failure to follow and enforce state election laws during the 2020 election.”
The Texas lawsuit seeks to delay the appointment of presidential electors in the four states while allegations of fraud and violations of law can be investigated.
Texas lawsuit detail
- Texas is challenging the way that four states conducted their elections in 2020. Texas claims that the election in these states was flawed because:
- Signature-verification requirements were abolished or undermined in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan;
- Ballots were not handled in a secure manner in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin;
- Mail-in ballots were treated differently in different areas of each state;
- Bipartisan observers were excluded in certain counties;
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the deadline to receive mail-in ballots.
What is Texas’ Legal Argument?
- Texas’s main argument is that the Electors Clause (Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution), which says Presidential electors will be appointed “in such Manner as the Legislature [of the state] may direct,” prohibits non-legislative actors from modifying election procedures during any presidential election.
- Texas alleges that non-legislative actors in each of the four states have altered important statutory provisions enacted by the state’s legislature, and that only the legislature can make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office.
- These alleged alterations, largely justified based on the pandemic, were made either unilaterally by officials, through the settlement of lawsuits, or by a state’s highest court after litigation.
What does Texas Want?
- Texas asks the U.S. Supreme Court to deem the presidential election results in those states unlawful and remand the issue to the states’ legislatures to choose presidential electors.
- Texas also asks the Court to delay the electoral college vote pending the outcome of this lawsuit.
Other Challenges to this Conduct.
- Many of the allegations in the lawsuit about unlawful modifications to elections procedures have been brought up in other cases, including in the case challenging a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court denied a stay.
