Lawful elections are at the heart of our freedoms. “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 10 (1964).
Moreover, if this Court agrees with Plaintiff State that Defendant States’ appointment of presidential electors under the recently conducted elections would be unconstitutional, then the statutorily created safe harbor cannot be used as a justification for a violation of the Constitution. The safe-harbor framework created by statute would have to yield in order to ensure that the Constitution was not violated.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff States respectfully request that this Court issue the following relief:
A. Declare that Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
B. Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.
C. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College.
D. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and authorize, pursuant to the Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors.
E. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct such States’ legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.
F. Enjoin the Defendant States from certifying presidential electors or otherwise meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 5, 3 U.S.C. § 7, or applicable law pending further order of this Court.
I love this. I love Texas.
bttt
I wait for action that has meaning to take place. The action that will stop the fraud, the steal and elect Donald Trump to a second term.
OK, The question must be asked because the issue keeps being brought up by the liberal wing of the court everytime a similar lawsuit is filed. Does Texas have any standing as to the internal affairs of these 4 other states?
I just contacted my AG here in Florida asking her to join Texas...
What’s with Lou Dobbs scolding Stephen Miller? This is the job of the states. It is bigger than Trump. Of course Texas needs to do this, Ted Cruz, Paxton. The GOP
4th thread on this same article
Waiting to hear if the Supremes will hear the case.
Looks like this attempt attacks from the constitutional angle, not the fraud angle, which hasn’t borne fruit yet.
Michigan’s crooked leaders deserve this.
If that is correct, then the issue may simply be whether the legislature is empowered to have a rigged election decide the issue. Are they obligated to set aside an imperfect election? When has there ever been a perfect election?
I am having trouble seeing the Supreme Court dictating anything other than pointing out that the legislature has the power to reject the election results or accept the results as they see fit. Would that be enough to help us? I am not so sure.