“The alleged injury to Congressman Gohmert requires a series of hypothetical – but by no means certain” events, “the judge wrote in his 13-page verdict issued Friday night. “Plaintiffs assume what the Vice President will do on January 6, what electoral votes the Vice President will count or reject from disputed countries, or whether a representative and a senator will object in terms of section 15 of the Election Act to how every member of the House and Senate will vote on such objections, and how every State delegation in the House would possibly vote under the Twelfth Amendment, without a majority of the electoral vote. ”
“All this makes the alleged injury to Congressman Gohmert far too uncertain to support under the constitution,” Kernodle added.
Kernodle’s ruling did not completely slam the door on the possibility that Gohmert or the prospective voters could get relief in court. The judge dismissed the case without prejudice, which means Gohmert’s lawyers could try to set up the case again so that it would succeed legally. Gohmert, who filed the case on Sunday, asked Kernodle for a final decision on January 4 to allow time for possible appeals.
Gohmert’s lawyers have already indicated that they want to nominate the US government, the House and the Senate, or the parliamentarians of the bodies, as accused. But it is unclear whether the changes will satisfy the judge and there is little time to get relief before the score is scheduled for January 6.
According to Kernodle, Gohmert lacks status under a Supreme Court ruling in 1997, which states that individual lawmakers do not have the right to challenge a line item veto passed by Congress a year earlier. According to the judge’s New Year’s ruling, the prospective voters also did not get status because the damage they claimed was not really attributable to Pence, but to the government Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.), Who Biden’s voters as the winners in his state. Those voters cast their formal ballots on December 14th.
Although the twelfth amendment to the Constitution requires Pence, as vice president, to preside over the January 6 session, his specific powers are set forth in the 1887 Election Act. It requires Pence to introduce voters alphabetically by state, and it sets out a process for Housemates and senators to challenge disputed voters.
Under the Election Act, the challenge would be solved by separate votes of the House and Senate – and in the case of the 2020 election, the challenges would be effectively doomed. The Democratic House majority would certainly oppose them and many Senate Republicans have acknowledged that Biden is the unequivocal winner of the contest.
According to Gohmert’s theory, if Pence refused to accept enough electoral votes to place one of the candidates above the 270 vote threshold, the election would be thrown to the House under a process also set out in the Twelfth Amendment, which gives state delegations a single vote. This wording would benefit Republicans, who are in the House minority but control more state delegations than Democrats.
Pence, represented by attorneys from the Department of Justice, Thursday insisted the court To reject Gohmert’s case against him and argue that he is fighting with the House and the Senate, not the vice president. Pence did not state his own view of his power as presiding officer on Jan. 6, nor did he indicate whether he intends to unveil the unofficial electorate that Trump allies claim he threw to compete with the certified leads submitted. in states such as Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.
The House has submitted its own, more complete assignment, which undermines Gohmert’s attempt as an unconstitutional and thinly veiled attempt to dominate the democratic outcome of the 2020 election. The members would never have provided for a process that enabled a sitting vice president – often, as in this case, a real candidate for the election college vote – to have unilateral authority to choose which voters to count, the House argued.