No. 22O155 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendants. ___________________ On Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint GEORGIA’S OPPOSITION TO TEXAS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT AND ITS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY RELIEF Christopher M. Carr Attorney General of Georgia Andrew A. Pinson Solicitor General of Georgia Counsel of Record Ross W. Bergethon Deputy Solicitor General Drew F. Waldbeser Assistant Solicitor General Office of the Attorney General 40 Capitol Square SW Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404) 458-3409 [email protected] Counsel for the State of Georgia* Brian D. Boone William H. Jordan Brandon C.E. Springer Bryan W. Lutz J. Stephen Tagert* Lee A. Deneen ALSTON & BIRD LLP William J. Repko 101 S. Tryon Street #4000 ALSTON & BIRD LLP Charlotte, NC 28280 1201 West Peachtree Street (704) 444-1000 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 [email protected] (404) 881-7000 *Admitted to practice in New [email protected] York only. Joseph H. Hunt Erik S. Jaffe ALSTON & BIRD LLP James A. Heilpern* 950 F Street, NW Joshua J. Prince Washington, D.C. 20004 SCHAERR|JAFFE LLP Telephone: 202-239-3300 1717 K Street NW, Suite [email protected] 900 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 787-1060 [email protected] *Admitted to practice in Virginia. Counsel for the State of Georgia i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .........................................................1 STATEMENT ................................................................2 ARGUMENT .................................................................7 CONCLUSION ............................................................ 31 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Alabama v. Arizona, 291 U.S. 286 (1934) ............................... 27, 29, 30 Alfred L. Snapp & Son v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) ........................................... 16 Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) ............................................. 7 Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976) ....................................... 8, 11 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ..................................... 18, 20 Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct. 1942 (2018) ....................................... 22 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (per curiam) ........1, 10, 23, 30 Bush v. Palm Beach Cnty., 531 U.S. 70 (2000) ....................................... 19, 26 Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) ........................................... 14 Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911) ........................................... 29 iii Democratic Party of Georgia v. Raffensperger, No. 1-19-cv-5028-WMR (N.D. Ga.) ................... 12 Escanaba Co. v. City of Chicago, 107 U.S. 678 (1883) ........................................... 28 Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U.S. 439 (1945) ........................................... 17 Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ....................................... 14 Gov’t of Manitoba v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ..................... 15, 16 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) ........................................... 17 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907) ........................................... 8, 9 Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004) ........................................... 17 Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) ..................................... 14, 15 Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1 (1900) ................................................. 9 Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ............................................. 7 Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 (1981) ............................................. 9 iv Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U.S. 1 (1939) ............................................... 11 McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) ......................................... 10, 18 Mississippi v. Louisiana, 506 U.S. 73 (1992) ................................... 6, 7, 8, 9 Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 (1901) ............................................. 9 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ........................................... 28 Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009) ........................................... 20 Pearson et al. v. Kemp et al., No. 1:20-cv-04809-TCB (N.D. Ga.) ............... 6, 12 Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 426 U.S. 660 (1976) (per curiam) ........... 8, 10, 16 Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) ........................... 19, 20, 22 South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256 (2010). .......................................... 13 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) ................................. 13, 17 Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983) ............................................. 9 v Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ........................................... 17 Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ................................7, 22, 28, 29 Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513 ......................................................... 6, 12 Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-04651-SDG (N.D. Ga.) ..................... 6 Federal Statutes 3 U.S.C. § 2 ............................................................. 31 3 U.S.C. § 5 ...................................................... passim 3 U.S.C. § 7 ............................................................. 31 3 U.S.C. § 15 ........................................................... 30 State Statutes Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 50-13-1 through 50-13-44 ............. 12 O.C.G.A. 21-2-31(2) .................................................. 3 O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-10 ................................................ 23 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31 ...................................... 23, 24, 25 O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-132 ................................................ 3 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-286(a)(1)(C) .................................. 24 vi O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386 .................................................. 3 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B) .................................. 24 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) .................................. 24 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-498 .................................................. 5 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-523 ................................................ 26 Rules Rule 183-1-14-.13 ................................................... 25 State Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15 ............................ passim State Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15 and (ii) ...................... 12 Constitutional Provisions Eleventh Amendment ............................................ 17 U.S. Const., 12th Amendment .............................. 27 U.S. Const. Amendment XII .................................. 30 U.S. Const. Article I, § 4, cl.1 ................................. 18 U.S. Const. Article II, § 1, cl. 2 ....................... passim U.S. Const. Article II, § 1, cl. 4 .............................. 18 Other Authorities Boland v. Raffensperger, No. 2020-CV-343018 (Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct.) ................................................................. 6, 12 vii Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2019) ................................................ 4 Trump et al. v. Raffensperger et al., No. 2020-CV-343255 (Fulton Cnty. Sup. Ct.) ........................................................... 6, 12, 13 1 INTRODUCTION “None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 111 (2000) (per curiam). That is as it should be, given that the Constitution vests each State with the power to “appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. And that reality requires that Texas’s motions challenging the results of the presidential election in Georgia be denied. Contrary to Texas’s argument, Georgia has exercised its powers under the Electors Clause. Georgia’s legislature enacted laws governing elections and election disputes, and the State and its officers have implemented and followed those laws. To ensure the accuracy of the results of that process, it has completed three total counts of the vote for its presidential electors, including a historic 100 percent manual recount—all in accordance with state law. It has, consistent with its authority under 3 U.S.C. § 5, authorized its courts to resolve election disputes. See Bush, 531 U.S. at 112 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring, with Scalia, J. and Thomas, J.) (“In most cases, comity and respect for federalism compel [this Court] to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of state law”— a practice that “reflects [the Court’s] understanding that the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements of the will of the States as sovereigns.”). It has defended its election process in 2 multiple lawsuits in the State. And the disputes that challengers have filed in the State have all resolved in Georgia’s favor. Texas nevertheless asks this Court to transfer Georgia’s electoral powers to the federal judiciary. Respect for federalism and the constitutional design prohibits that transfer of power, but this Court should never even reach that issue because the Court’s rules governing its original jurisdiction, constitutional limitations on standing, and principles of federalism all preclude the exercise of this