TEXAS (January 1, 2021)—Vice President Mike Pence’s lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice asked the courts to dismiss Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) Emergency Motion.
“The Senate and the House, not the Vice President, have legal interests that are sufficiently adverse to plaintiffs to ground a case or controversy under
Article III. Defendant respectfully request denial of plaintiffs’ emergency motion because the relief that plaintiffs request does not properly lie against the Vice President.”
Later, Friday evening a Texas federal judge dismissed the case stating “One crucial component of jurisdiction is that the plaintiffs have standing. This requires the plaintiffs to show a personal injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and is likely to be redressed by the requested relief.”
“The problem for Plaintiffs here is that they lack standing. Plaintiff Louie
Gohmert, the United States Representative for Texas’s First Congressional District, alleges at most an institutional injury to the House of representatives. Under well-settled Supreme Court authority, that is insufficient to support standing.”
“The other Plaintiffs, the slate of Republican Presidential Electors for the State of Arizona (the “Nominee-Electors”), allege an injury that is not fairly traceable to the Defendant, the Vice President of the United States, and is unlikely to be redressed by the requested relief.”
But the controversy remains “it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same
shall have been made.”
The Judge’s order further stated “On December 14, 2020, electors convened in each state to cast their electoral votes. In Arizona, the Democratic Party’s slate of eleven electors voted for Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris. These votes were certified by Arizona Governor Doug Ducey and Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and submitted as required under the Electoral Count Act. That same day, the Nominee-Electors state that they also convened in Arizona and voted for Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence. Similar actions took place in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (with Arizona, the “Contested States”). Combined, the Contested States represent seventy-three electoral votes.”
The state executives in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona failed to certify the Republican or disclosed as required by The Electoral Count Act which gives the state governor a role in certifying the state’s electors, which Section 15 considers in resolving objections.
And since the states executive failed to follow Section 15, there can be no determination which electors aren’t part of the controversy since the electors in 6 states failed to report as required pursuant to the Electoral County Act.
The court did not weigh in on the controversy electorates. Vice-President Pence pursuant to the Act is obligated to count all electorates submitted to Congress including the Republican and Democrat electorates submitted.
Vice-President Mike Pence power is clearly written in the U.S. Constitution and the Electoral College Act.