Texas files lawsuit against key states at Supreme Court over election result

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the shock move today.

Filing suit at the Supreme Court this morning, the state of Texas has alleged that “certain officials” in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Michigan exploited “the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.”

Although numerous allegations of fraud have been dismissed by judges in the key states, the latest lawsuit is a change of direction for allies of President Trump, using litigation between states in the hope of having their case heard at a federal level.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together,” Paxton, a Republican, said today.

“Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution.”

“By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” Paxton claimed.

“Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”

The plaintiff claims that mail-in voting was not protected from fraud in the four states and thereby diminished the “weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

Although many US election officials have insisted the 2020 presidential election was “the most secure in American history”, the lawsuit alleges that the result was “less secure” in the defendant states and electoral college votes from those states should not be counted.

“This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.”

“Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.”

“Without Defendant States’ combined 72 electoral votes, President Trump presumably has 232 electoral votes, and former Vice President Biden presumably has 234. Thus, Defendant States’ electors will determine the outcome of the election. Alternatively, if Defendant States are unable to certify 37 or more electors, neither candidate will have a majority in the Electoral College, in which case the election would devolve to the U.S. House of Representatives under the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

The Supreme Court, which is not obliged to hear the case, is also being asked to delay the December 14 deadline for the casting of Electoral College votes.

Share mdi-share-variant mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-printer mdi-chevron-left Prev Next mdi-chevron-right Related
Comments are open

Do you agree with Senator Keogan that people on long-term unemployment benefit should have to do community service for the money?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...