It appears both counts are still in play, both based on the same facts. The one count, seems rather dead, if the law was not in effect then (which was the subject of the Delay motion, which motion I don't know the status of at present), and the other is being attacked by Delay right now, not on the merits, but on Earle misconduct in ramming it home right before the statute of limitations ran to the forum shopped grand jury, deprived of some of the facts, maybe.
I'd rather see the argument on the merits than on the rush to get an indictment "as the statute of limitations ran." Some good inside hardball being played, for sure.
1. Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N. D. Tex. 2000), relief denied, 244 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 2000) (unpublished), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001).
"I served as lead counsel for then-Governor George W. Bush in this case involving the 2000 presidential election. The litigation concerned a clause of the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution that provides: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.” U.S. Const. amend. XII. This clause bars a member of the Electoral College from voting for inhabitants of the same state as him or herself for both President and Vice-President. Texas voters brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, arguing that George Bush and Richard Cheney were both inhabitants of Texas, which barred Texas Electors from voting for both candidates. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Texas Electors from casting their votes for both then-Governor Bush and Mr. Cheney."
"The case turned primarily on two legal issues: first, whether the plaintiffs had standing under Article III of the Constitution to pursue their action, and second, whether Mr. Cheney was an inhabitant of Texas or Wyoming. As counsel for then-Governor Bush, I defended the action on his behalf in the district court, filing, along with counsel for Mr. Cheney, a Motion to Dismiss and a Brief and Appendix in Opposition to the Application for Preliminary Injunction. In these filings, I argued on behalf of then-Governor Bush that the plaintiffs lacked constitutional standing to sue under the relevant clause of the Twelfth Amendment, and in the alternative that Mr. Cheney was an inhabitant of Wyoming rather than Texas within the meaning of the Twelfth Amendment. The district court granted the motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiffs lacked standing; it also denied the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on their contention that Mr. Cheney was an inhabitant of Texas. Jones, 122 F. Supp. 2d at 715.
"The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I, together with counsel for Mr. Cheney, filed the brief on behalf of appellees. The brief defended the district court’s holdings regarding standing and Mr. Cheney’s inhabitance. The day after the brief was filed, and the same day as the oral argument, the Fifth Circuit denied the appellants all requested relief. See 244 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 2000) (unpublished). When appellants petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case, respondents waived response to the petition, which petition the Court denied. See 531 U.S. 1062 (2001)."