Speaker 4
When a state court
Speaker 3
makes a ruling on what a state law means, whether it's a state statute or state constitution,
Speaker 3
court, a US Supreme Court reviewing that would
Speaker 4
intervene only if, for
Speaker 3
example, it's such an egregious
Speaker 2
misinterpretation as to violate fair notice due process of law. She had no idea that that was coming because they just took something that said X and they made it mean the moon is made of green cheese or something like that just completely no connection whatsoever to what the statute actually says or the constitutional provision X. So egregious as to be a violation of due process of law, just the rule of law, fair
Speaker 3
notice. Another way of saying
Speaker 3
state Supreme Court
Speaker 2
were dealing with a purely state law election for a dog
Speaker 3
state governor, is it such an extreme interpretation that the
Speaker 2
US Supreme Court would try to get involved?
Speaker 3
And the idea of ordinary judicial review, we argue in our brief and I see nothing really in the opinion that pushes hard
Speaker 3
should be pretty much the same standard if it involves a congressional election or for that matter or presidential election. And here's another reason why because it makes
Speaker 2
sense for state constitutions and state laws to
Speaker 2
integrate state elections with federal elections so that the rules for to repeat absentee ballots for dog catcher and congressional representatives and US senators and presidential electors for that matter, the rules for absentee ballots are the same, the filing dates are the same, the precinct places are the same, etc. etc.
