Lawyers for the imaginary states of “New California” and “New Nevada” filed an amicus brief Friday in the outlandish lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton with the Supreme Court that is attempting to overturn the Presidential election results. Paxton’s lawsuit is currently being supported by more than 100 Republican members of Congress.
“New California State and New Nevada State are directly impacted by the arbitrary and capricious changes in election laws and procedures occur with unfortunate regularity in the current States of California and Nevada,” Robert E. Thomas III, New California and New Nevada’s attorney, wrote. “Part of the reason for the formation of New California State and New Nevada Sate is to stop the lawless actions of governors Newsome (California) and Sisolak (Nevada). An opinion by this Court affirming a national, uniform rule of law reestablishing the supremacy of The Electors Clause of Article II, § 1 of the United States Constitution will resolve some of the complaints causing the establishment of these new States.” [Editor’s note: California’s governor is named Gavin Newsom, not Newsome.]
Of course, neither New California nor New Nevada are real. There is nothing stopping anyone from filing an amicus brief—which is a legal argument in support of a plaintiff or defendant from a third party who is otherwise not involved in a case—but the filing, like the case itself, is outlandish nonetheless.
The broad demands of New California and New Nevada are that their existing states are too damn liberal, and thus they must secede and create their own, Republican-governed states. New Nevada proposes to excise Clark County, which includes Las Vegas (and the vast majority of Nevada’s population), from the state. A map on New California’s website includes a map that “does not represent final state borders” but proposes to delete Los Angeles County, parts of the Bay Area, and Sacramento from the state of California.
A relatively rudimentary website for the “New Nevada State Movement” says that its “grievances” include Nevada’s “failure to provide a republican form of government” and the ironic statement that Nevada’s current government is “rebellious”: “Nevada is governed by a rebellious government which has destroyed representational government through insecure elections.”
The New California movement, on the other hand, is decidedly more entertaining. New California’s website currently has a photo of conservative Candace Owens front-and-center, a link to a White House petition titled “Petition to declare that an insurrection exists to overthrow the will of the people and to utilize military tribunals,” a poorly computer animated video of a roaring bear walking off of the California state flag to form his own, more conservative flag and union, and a painting of Donald Trump and Melania Trump standing in front of fireworks and holding an American flag. All of this is overlaid on top of a video of waves lapping at a beach shore.
“New California State! We are using the Constitution to restore our freedom and unalienable rights given to us by God.,” the website says. “Californians are fleeing the state at record levels. Taxes on everything, escalating prices, too many regulations, constant attempts against our 2nd amendment rights, forced vaccinations, a horrible education system, and the list goes on and on. Our state government is operating like a dictatorship, not constitutionally. Voter fraud and corruption is so deep we can’t vote them out!”
In the Supreme Court amicus brief, Thomas writes that the court must “Grant New California State and New State status as Amici,” and “Grant the Petition of the State of Texas.” Anyways, the electoral college votes on Monday.