Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Over Presidential Election Results
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a federal lawsuit against the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin contesting the presidential election results.
The lawsuit alleges that the quartet of states made unlawful changes to their election procedures in advance of the general election, and did not secure their mail-in ballots from fraud.
The lawsuit has been filed directly with the Supreme Court, and Attorney General Paxton’s suit seeks to block the electoral college votes from the four states in question (Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). The Electoral College is set to meet at the 50 state capitols on Monday, December 14th, 2020.
"Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. 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," said Attorney General Paxton. "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 lawsuit checks in at just over 150 pages, and the A.G.'s Office also states, "Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards."
The summary of the lawsuit states:
"As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States:
- Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
- Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters–whether lawful or unlawful–in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
- The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.
"All these flaws–even the violations of state election law–violate one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000)(“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law.Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.
"Taken together, these flaws affect an outcome-determinative numbers of popular votes in a group of States that cast outcome-determinative numbers of electoral votes.This Court should grant leave to file the complaint and, ultimately, enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the Defendant States’ legislatures and remand to the Defendant States’ respective legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2."
No word on when the Supreme Court will consider the merits of this lawsuit.