There are 17 states now joining in support of the Texas case before the Supreme Court, what is Iowa doing?

Preliminary note: We would appreciate readers forwarding any feedback received from Iowa elected officials or other political leadership regarding Texas v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al

While 17 states have done so (article below) this is the sort of stuff you may be hearing as to why Iowa political powers have not done anything substantial to support the Texas lawsuit. 

“Well gee-wiz V’PAC  don’t you know Iowa has a terrible Attorney General so we are just stuck on the sidelines” – It is the ~~ there is nothing we can officially do ~~ sort of response we addressed in our earlier post

Or “YOU HAVE NO IDEA what it takes to call a special session of the legislature” We would simply offer the succinct reponse we dont care when the political call is compelling (and for your own electoral good).

And there are the non-answers:

“The Governor is monitoring the situation and rest assured is very concerned”

Or the one that gags a dung beetle  “Iowa’s election process is very secure and fair and it is too bad other states don’t have our wonderful system” (highhanded integrity violations occurred this election, no system has a high degree of security that has politicians emphasizing vote by mail)

And there is the “many of us have publicly voiced our deep concern and objection to what appears to be suspicious occurrences in other states and called for a hearing sort of response.Probably from those impressed by a press release issued by the Iowa Republican State Central Committee.

All of this falls short of using their political standing and prestige to arrange for an amicus filing of their own, perhaps joined by other states or political entities or civil rights organizations. The money, which would be minimal in the scheme of things, could be readily raised from their contacts.

But what about standing?

Of course the concept, one of the more fungible legal concepts, is often invoked helter skelter by biased jurists to deny a hearing to a litigant  with cogent arguments they could not with a straight face deny if the case were to be heard. The same biased jurists will agree to hear cases on matters they want to resolve from a litigant with a strained level of injury, if any, just because the matter might come up or for whatever reason they view the matter as ripe.

In our judgement any voting citizen ought to be able bring these election integrity matters in an election they voted in  (perhaps consolidated with others ) and have the matter heard at an appropriate level. But as we are told the Texas case is on the docket or at least at a stage being entertained by SCOTUS such that surely adding or joining in an amicus filing would be possible. If nothing else we plead with elected  Republicans leaders to show Republicans in the state your concerns (for your own good) by seriously helping to fund efforts of others using your political auspices.

Is it “too late”

Well it was not too late for other states earlier today. That said there are other cases still potentially active (although ultimately SCOTUS will have be the decider).  Those have not advanced as fast because of the advantage a dispute between states has under the Constitution as they are afforded the right to direct hearing when it involves a dispute between states. On some Team Trump and Team Powell/Wood have been unreasonably, or for corrupt reasons, denied standing or been told they are “too late”  for trial or appeal. But some of those are actually still appealable.

They have lots of evidence of violations of statutory civil law or actual criminality that a judicial system with dependable integrity would hear.  What is the harm in trying to bring the evidence to trial with sworn testimony rather than let matters fester?

We understand SCOTUS declined “injunctive relief” regarding a compelling case brought by legislators in Pennsylvania ,which given testimony of monumental fraudulent activity and lawlessness in the public record, seems outrageous.  However the turn-down was for the immediate injunction requested and not technically, we are told, a turn down of a hearing on the corruption. So we wonder if the key issues are not covered in the Texas case (which involves Pennsylvania).

Regarding our challenge to  Senator Cruz.

We posted our irritation with Senator Cruz a couple of days ago regarding his overwrought slander of a no effect overwrought comment by attorneys trying to do the best for America. We stand by that criticism . We went on to ask of the good senator what he has done other than issue Tweets about the election frauds perpetrated against President Trump and those who voted for him.

Reports after we posted our comments (as a matter of time-line and nothing else) that Cruz offered to argue the Pennsylvania case before SCOTUS and later issued a statement of being disappointed in SCOTUS for not hearing it.  We now read that President Trump has asked him to argue the Texas case.   We think that regardless of whether the great work of preparing the legal  briefs is done by others, that preparation for relating it to the court in oral arguments is a generous offer. We are not sure that Trump is in control of who argues it however and also whether it is arguably the best idea.  Just inklings about jealousies at SCOTUS, but we are confident Cruz could carry the day before an objective Court but also that others are capable.  Given their history (Trump and Cruz) the offers between them speak well of both.

0

0