It seems to me there are some interesting legal issues involved in the new SCOTUS case. It seems clear that Texas has standing, as the outcome of these states’ elections effects the citizens of Texas.
It should be easy enough to prove that these states violated Article II Section I Clause II of the Constitution when the state courts, using court orders, imposed de facto changes to election law without the approval of the state legislatures. But no court likes to take up a case unless the violation being cited can be shown to have effected the outcome. If some Constitutional violation could be shown to have occurred but it only occurred in one small precinct, SCOTUS would almost never take the case, because it could likely be shown that the violation didn’t effect the final outcome.
So Paxon needs to show not just violation of the Constitution, but needs to prove that the violation likely changed the outcome. Since they’re arguing this on Constitutional grounds, it’s unclear to me the degree to which they can use evidence of fraud to make their case. For example, Dominion vote switching effected the outcome, but the vote switching is a criminal violation of the law, not a violation of Article II Section I Clause II. It seems to me that they would have to prove that Constitutional violations alone (i.e. Court orders that allowed late ballots to be accepted, signature validations to be waived, etc.) changed the outcome of the election. Should still be easy enough to prove, I would imagine,
but the argument will be a little less straight forward than it would be if the broader issues of voter fraud, voter intimidation, etc. were allowed to be presented. That’s my take anyway. I’m not a lawyer.
It will likely include the fact that despite the obvious fraud, the states certified the election. Further the states violated their own state constitution by changing election rules without legislative action. I’m still liking the 1997 9-0 SCOTUS ruling that election DAY is just that. A day.
Trump was ahead by 800,000 votes in PA. Then, after they counted the late votes (all fraud), he was a little behind. Tossing out those votes gives him the state. Wisconsin, Georgia and Michigan had the same issue. Big leads overcome with late ballots.
I don’t think it’s hard to show that the illegal changes affected the outcome.