Last week Congressional District 5 (Eastern WA) U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, along with 125 of the 195 other House Republicans collectively lost their minds. In an act of sedition, they signed an amicus brief in support of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s delusional lawsuit to overturn the will of the majority of the American people. (Here’s the amicus brief. Search for your Republican Representative by using CMD-F and entering their name. In addition to McMorris Rodgers you will find Rep. Newhouse of south central Washington and Reps. Simpson and Fulcher of Idaho, all Republicans.) Paxton, Trump, and their supporters would like the rest of us to believe that Paxton’s lawsuit was meant to salvage the presidential election from rampant voting fraud–but that is not what Paxton’s suit addressed. Paxton’s legal claim turned on the idea that the State of Texas (represented by Paxton, its attorney general) had the proper standing with the U.S. Supreme Court to contest the legitimacy of the voting of four other states, specifically four states in which the popular vote was won by Joe Biden: Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
The technical point on which Paxton’s argument turns is extremely narrow. He contends that in each of these four states election rules were changed in the lead up to the November election by state entities that lacked the authority to make those changes. Paxton’s entire argument rests on one clause in the U.S. Constitution: Article II, Section 1, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” Paxton wants the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and invalidate the certified result of the elections conducted in these four states on the grounds that details of the voting rules in those four states were adjusted without specific action by the respective state legislatures.
Paxton argues that these supposed constitutionally invalid voting rule changes in these four states resulted in such massive voting fraud that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to step in and invalidate the election results, thus throwing the selection of Electors to the Electoral College to the choice of the Republican led legislatures of those states. Paxton makes this shameless argument in spite of the fact that these four state have already been the subject of numerous grandstanding lawsuits contesting the results, all of which have been ruled against for lack of evidence and credibility, in many cases by judges appointed by Trump himself. The results of the elections have already been certified, sometimes (Georgia) by long time Republican Secretaries of State, and the Electors appointed by the popular vote were due to cast their ballots last Monday.
Last Friday the Court summarily dismissed Paxton’s suit. The Court said the state of Texas did not have the legal standing to ask the Court to meddle in the electoral affairs of other states. Mr. Trump, in his mob boss mentality, must have figured the conservative members of the Supreme Court “owed him one” after his three conservative appointments to the court. Fortunately, the Justices decided against Trump and in favor of the rule of law.
One might dismiss the 126 U.S. Representatives who signed on to Paxton’s suit as sycophants fawning over Trump and their mutual supporters who have bought into Trump’s more than four years of incessant and baseless rhetoric alleging rampant election fraud. Their whole movement has felt so absurdly faceless as to be humorous–but is no longer funny. Trump and these Republicans are tearing at the fabric of our democracy, fostering a narrative of minority grievance that broke out into Trump supporters roaming the streets of our cities last weekend with paintball guns, real guns, and knives. These actions (and Trump’s continued grandstanding and refusal to concede) threatens the stability of our government in a way this country hasn’t seen since the Civil War. (Read Prof. Heather Cox Richardson’s history lesson from December 10.)
McMorris Rodgers and company will, no doubt, soft pedal the meaning of her signature on the amicus brief. At least she will soft pedal her signature when speaking to the general voters of eastern Washington. Indeed, you can read her statement here. She speaks of “razor-thin margins” and the need for the Supreme Court to answer Paxton’s constitutional questions “so the American people can move forward.” Apparently, a seven million popular vote margin and the need to overturn the popular vote in four major states to change the Electoral College is, in her fevered mind, “razor-thin.” What does she mean by “move forward”? Think, Cathy. Trump lost the election. Does having the Supreme Court deliberating for weeks or months over a hail Mary pass to overturn the electoral will of the people strike you as “moving forward”? You, Cathy, are a member of a Party with a problem, a problem of people led to believe in a fantasy–and you and yours are dependent on those people in order for you to stay in power.
You and your fellow signatories in support of Paxton’s suit are leading your deluded followers toward unrest and rebellion. In a world with proper consequences the U.S. House of Representatives would refuse to seat all of you in January based on Section 3 of Constitutional Amendment 14.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry