Missouri Is Latest State to Join Texas in SCOTUS Lawsuit Against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

Eric Schmitt, the attorney general from Missouri, announced on Twitter late Tuesday that his state is “in the fight” after Texas announced its election challenge that would invalidate the 62 Electoral College votes from four battleground states and award President Trump with a second term.

“Election integrity is central to our republic,” Schmitt, a Republican, tweeted. “And I will defend it at every turn. As I have in other cases—I will help lead the effort in support of Texas’ #SCOTUS filing today. Missouri is in the fight.”

Schmitt’s tweet came shortly after Ken Paxton, the attorney general from Texas, explained his motivation behind the suit to Fox News’ ‘Hannity.’

He said that election management in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—the states named in the suit—directly impacted voters in the his state. In particular, he pointed to changes that were made to expand mail-in voting amid the coronavirus pandemic.

It is quite clear in the Constitution that what Galatians513 has written is correct.

Here is the text of the Twelfth Amendment dealing with the election of the President, with emphasis added to the key language:

"The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

Texas argues that four states (with a total of 62 electoral votes) did not follow proper procedures. If SCOTUS agrees and grants the most drastic remedy that is even arguably available to it – the striking of those states' appointment of electors – then the total number of electors appointed drops from 538 to 476, a majority is 238, and Biden still has 244, which is enough. The election would not go to the House.

The only way this changes is if the state legislatures then step in and appoint electors, and choose to appoint the Trump electors. Indications so far are that these legislatures have a few members calling for that step, but that the Republican "leadership" in each is in get-along-to-go-along mode, and will not support appointing electors. This is why so many people are saying that pressure on state legislators is important right now.

This attitude by Republicans is also why so many conservatives are saying that they are done with the Republican Party and that it is time to explore other options. If Biden is inaugurated on January 20, an important question will be: Should there be a new party, or is the existing Constitution Party a suitable vehicle?

Yes. Any elector who does not vote whether by choice or by legal impedence or by refusal of Congress to accept their vote still counts. Hayes had a lead of 20 votes, but an absolute majority of electors by only 1. By blocking that single vote, the Democrats could prevent his election.

The legal battle raged then, not over whether Hayes could be elected by a majority of votes cast as opposed to a majority of electors appointed, but over whether the Democrats could legally block a single one of those electors.

“All 4 states require the governor to call a special legislative session in order for the legislatures to vote on electors. NONE of the four have any interest in doing so!”

I would think that if the USSC took us that far by invalidating the electors for those 4 states, you might see a change in attitude the Republican-controlled legislatures of 1 of those 4 states. You see part of the problem is the slanted news reporting that has belittled every argument made by the Trump campaign. If the USSC were to rule against that prevailing viewpoint, that would be an earthquake.

You need the majority of the electoral votes, that is 270 in this case.

See my post #42. You need a majority of the electors appointed. Therefore, it depends on how Biden drops below 270. If some of the Biden states fail to appoint electors, or if the appointments (which I think have already been made) are retroactively nullified or vacated, and there is no new appointment, then the total number of electors is fewer than 538, and the needed majority is fewer than 270.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.