They’re asking election administrators to use their data to purge voter registrations, which means names could be removed in a less public process than a formal voter challenge. The strategy could mean electors won’t be summoned in advance to defend their voting rights and the identities of those seeking to purge voters might not be routinely public.
Supreme Court Justice ducks under the desk with a crayon…
Oh hey look there it is! Right there in the constitution.
You joke, but I have always thought that the reason why the modern Conservative movement leans so heavily on the Founders is that they want to call a constitutional convention to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, and become the new Founders who courts 200+ years from now have to defer to.
That would be a hell of a trick when over 60% of the country doesn’t agree.
Prepare to be tricked. They need 34 states to call a new convention, and already have 28
https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/
60% of the population disagrees, yes. However…
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures
So, 34 red state legislatures can propose an amendment. To be ratified, it requires 3/4 of the states (38 out of 50) to ratify it.
For either of those steps, I’m not sure if the citizens of those states have any say in the matter or if the legislatures can do it all themselves (plus or minus any veto from the governor of those states or legislative overrides of those).
So, they need 34 states to propose an amendment and 38 to pass it. As some else in this thread said, they already have 28.
