22O155 Bullock
22O155 Bullock
22O155, Original
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
________
TEXAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
1
Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.6, amicus states that this brief
was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and
that no person or entity other than amicus, its members, or its
counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the
preparation or submission of this brief.
2
The Montana Attorney General joined an amicus brief of
Republican Attorneys General urging this Court to accept the
Texas suit. His participation is a surprise. As detailed throughout,
nearly identical claims arose in litigation in Montana this fall and
were resoundingly rejected by a federal district court in Montana.
2
There are many reasons to reject Texas’s
extraordinary lawsuit. One reason is simply that it is not
a procedurally appropriate way to challenge state
election laws. As this Court has repeatedly emphasized,
challenges to state election laws should occur in an
orderly fashion, on a non-emergency basis, well in
advance of elections, according to ordinary rules of civil
procedure. They should not be raised in the Supreme
Court, on an emergency basis, in an effort to overturn
the result of an election that has already occurred.
ARGUMENT
3
See, e.g., Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction, Tex. Voters All. v. Dallas County, No. 4:20-cv-775 (E.D.
Tex. Oct. 15, 2020), 2020 WL 6578026; State Defendants’ Response
to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Tex. League of
United Latin Am. Citizens v. Abbott, No. 1:20-cv-1006 (W.D. Tex.
Oct. 8, 2020), 2020 WL 6692910; Texas Secretary of State Ruth R.
Hughs’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Texas All. For Retired Ams. v. Hughs, No.
5:20-cv-128 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2020), 2020 WL 6603307.
13
pronouncements are or whatever the reason those
pronouncements allegedly violate the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
Respectfully submitted,