Texas Republicans Lose Case to Deny Votes

Lance Manly

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- A bid to invalidate 127,000 drive-thru ballots cast in Texas' most populous county was struck down in U.S. district court just under 24 hours from the start of Election Day voting.

Judge Andrew S. Hanen said a petition by Texas Republican activist Steve Hotze and three candidates had "no standing," allowing Harris County's early ballots in question to be counted.

Comments (10)
No. 1-5
Eddie_T
Eddie_T

The good guys win. Rare these days.

Jeff Dog
Jeff Dog

If three of the plaintiffs are candidates who stood to gain an advantage from a favorable ruling you would think they would have standing.

Herkie
Herkie

I'm dreaming of a Blue Texas
Just like the one I used to know
Where the Nazis wither and fascists dither
when they hear judges their cases throw
I'm dreaming of a Blue Texas
Just like the one I used to know
Where the Nazis wither and fascists dither
when they hear judges their cases throw
I'm dreaming of a Blue Texas
With every ruling they can write
May your days be merry with care
And may all your Texas be fair
I'm dreaming of a Blue Texas,
Just like the one I used to know
May your days be merry with care
And may all your Texas be fair
I'm dreaming of a Blue Texas,
With every ruling they can write
May your days be merry with care
And may all your Texas be fair…

No standing. Yep. Shoulda seen that coming.

"One of the requirements to bring a claim in federal court is the establishment of Article III standing—that is, a would-be plaintiff must establish at the outset of a case that he or she has suffered (or imminently will suffer) a concrete, particularized “injury in fact” to a legally protected interest, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged action, and that a favorable judgment would likely redress the injury.

Yet even if a plaintiff satisfies these criteria, other standing doctrines may still prevent a federal court from hearing his or her case. Among these are the doctrines of prudential standing and political subdivision standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit recently addressed both of these doctrines in a case the court has now heard three times on issues of standing—and likely will again."

Prudential Standing

Prudential standing requires plaintiffs to raise claims based on individual, as opposed to generalized grievances. This doctrine, unlike Article III standing, is based on prudential rather than constitutional constraints. It embodies the federal judiciary’s self-imposed limits on the exercise of its jurisdiction, so as to avoid judicial intervention on abstract questions of public significance that might be more competently addressed by other governmental institutions.

Political Subdivision Standing

Political subdivision standing allows local governments to sue their creating state under a limited set of circumstances. What those precise circumstances are, though, is unclear.

At that point it becomes very messy as to whether the "republican form of government" and the if the federal government stands to enforce individual rights or government rights, and the court did not have the authority to determine which without getting into the mertis of the case and that could not be done on a motion to dismiss.

Two things come to mind, one is standing can be a really complex issue that courts are very reluctanct to overstep. And the other is that plaintiffs must be very careful when considering if legal precedent will even allow them to file in a particular court.

I think this was a good ruling especially since the state courts had already ruled that the defendants had no case, and it is state law and state and local governments they were trying to have overruled. Essentially what the judge did here was throw it out based on the fact that these people were judge shopping with what the judge considered a frivolous suit to advantage their own cause. It is not the case that failure to advance your own case is automatically an "injury to your cause." Federal courts are not required to "help out a pal" as it were.

Sechel
Sechel

i thnk Republicans are once again appealing to the full Federal district to take up the case. I expect once again they get told to go away


Global Politics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY