I’ve read many letters recently that ask why I signed onto the Amicus Brief and many who have misconstrued what the Amicus Brief says in the first place, so I’d like to clear that up.
The Amicus Brief states, "The offices of president and vice president were created by the U.S. Constitution, and when a state legislature exercises its power to determine the manner in which electors are chosen, that power is governed solely by the federal Constitution. No state constitution, state law, state governor, state election official, or court can alter or constrain that grant of power. More than a century ago, this court applied the plain meaning of the electors clause and recognized the exclusive authority of the state legislatures to act for the people with respect to selection of electors.
The court explained: “The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states. This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions.”
Simply put: Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that presidential electors must be appointed according to rules established by each state’s legislature. Yet in the months before the 2020 election, the constitutional authority of state legislatures was simply usurped by various governors, state courts, state election officials and others when state election laws were deliberately changed in certain states without the approval of the states’ legislatures. This raised a constitutional question, which is why I signed onto the Amicus Brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al.
The Amici respectfully asserted it is the solemn duty of the Supreme Court to provide an objective review to determine for the people if indeed the Constitution had been followed and the rule of law maintained. The Amicus Brief was intended to focus on a broader constitutional question by asking the Supreme Court to uphold the clear constitutional authority of the state legislatures to establish the manner by which electors are appointed. In the end, the state of Texas raised an important constitutional question. It was asked; the Supreme Court decided not to answer that question, and I respect the Court’s decision...
To be clear: I don’t support anything except the constitutionally grounded methods to question the system I don’t support anything other than an orderly transition of power – that said, we cannot be afraid of asking the tough questions.
… Over the past several years, many Americans have questioned the transparency and accuracy of our electoral system. In 2005, congressional Democrats challenged the electoral votes of Ohio during the 2004 presidential election; in 2016, many believed bad actors from outside of the United States worked to undermine our election processes; and following the 2020 election, I heard from many constituents whose confidence in the election has been shaken because of perceived examples of irregularities and potential fraud in the voting process.
… Among our most fundamental institutions is the system of free and fair elections that we rely upon, and any erosion in that foundation jeopardizes the stability of our republic. It is critical for our republic to restore the confidence of all Americans in our electoral processes and that we ensure all elections are secure.
-Rep. Rob Wittman
1st Congressional District of Virginia