On Wednesday, Montana joined 16 other states in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan and State of Wisconsin. Supporting Texas, Montana is urging the court to accept the case against the four states.
Montana Attorney General Tim Fox stated “… the case raises important constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the integrity of mail-in ballots in those defendant states.” Attorney General Tim Fox continued, “For that reason, Montana and 16 other states have filed an amicus brief supporting Texas to encourage the nation’s highest court to address these concerns and bring much-needed finality to this election.”
The amicus (friend of the court) brief argues that:
1. Only laws enacted by state legislatures can establish “the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives.”
2. This law applies to the selection of presidential electors.
3. Non-legislative actors in each of the defendant states (Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin) encroached on the election authority of the legislatures, violating the separation of powers.
4. This violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers undermines the liberty of all Americans.
Other states that have filed amicus briefs include Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
Expressing Montana’s interest in the case, the brief says the State has “a strong interest in safeguarding the separation of powers among state actors in the regulation of Presidential elections. … The States have a strong interest in preserving the proper roles of state legislatures in the administration of federal elections, and thus safeguarding the individual liberty of their citizens.”
Secondly, “States have a strong interest in ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not diluted by the unconstitutional administration of elections in other States. … When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the ‘Legislature thereof’ in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election—including the citizens of amici States.”
And, third, “…for similar reasons, amici States have a strong interest in safeguarding against fraud in voting by mail during Presidential elections. ‘Every voter’ in a federal election, ‘has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.”
