I read the brief filed by Texas, and it looks like they have quite a strong case against those four states. But I don’t understand why Texas requested a special election to appoint presidential electors in those states. If they held special elections, those states would most likely run into all the same problems with fraud and lawbreaking that happened in the original election. The only real relief from these problems is to direct the State Legislatures to appoint presidential electors, and throw out the results from the rigged elections in those four states. Texas appears to ask for that relief if the states have already appointed electors.
I’m not sure why their brief asks for different kinds of relief depending on whether the states have already appointed electors. That may be determined by timing to some extent, and if they’ve already appointed electors there may not be enough time for a special election. Just some thoughts there, and I’m not sure why Texas asks for different kinds of relief in different situations.
Who knows if the SCOTUS will hear this case, but they should because it’s a strong case. This kind of rigged election is how nations being a descent into tyranny and corrupt one-party systems.
Correction to my last post (it’s very late here in AZ)—I intended to type the following:
This kind of rigged election is how nations begin a descent into tyranny and corrupt one-party systems.
Which they have already refused to do.