Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

Breitbart ^ | Dec 7, 2020 | Joel B. Pollack

[demkicker]

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.

[Ancesthntr]

“ John Cornyn is not happy about this.”
—————
Being from Texas I can say the following:

1) I am proud of Paxton and his crew for submitting this suit; and

2). I don’t give a rat’s ass if Cornholio is happy or not - in fact, better that his deep state self ISN’T happy.

He only wins because his opponents are the worst imaginable candidates, not because anyone actually likes the opportunistic SOB.

[Taxman]

DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS!

[Dr. Franklin]

At what point do the Republican Secretaries of State and Attorneys General in the states that POTUS won, file federal law suits presenting the cumulative evidence of fraud across the various contested states as violations of the 14th Amendment, and dilution and disenfranchisement of their citizens? Why not now and why not give it a try?

It’d seem to me that: (1) this would be one way to fast track the situation to SCOTUS (2) present all the evidence gathered by Giuliani, Powell and others (3) that the issue of standing will be moot (4) given certifications of the vote in the contested states, that the matter will be ripe, and (5) create a federal case that can be subjected to further investigation.

This was a creative way to get the case to SCOTUS by its original jurisdiction, meaning that the court can decide to hear the facts of the fraud if it wants. The lower courts have been playing cutesy games refusing to address the obvious fraud in the election with arguments of lack of standing, laches, no actual harm, mootness, etc. The Court now has a clay pigeon shoot of all of these cases it can combine if it wishes. Texas's argument certainly is unprecedented, as was the use of the Equal Protection Clause in Bush v. Gore, and this builds on that.

It's an interesting argument, that even if SCOTUS doesn't agree with it, the issue is now there for Congress when it counts the electoral votes in January. Congress is the ultimate judge of the elction, per the U.S. Constitution. As long as the Safe Harbor isn't granted, then V.P. Pence presiding over the joint session isn't bound to recognize electors certified by the state governors. We are watching history unfold!

[Taxman]

Great meme, Travis!

Taxman Bravo Zulu!

[Zeddicus]

GOVERNOR DESANTIS: Please get Florida on board with this.

Would love to see a class action suit in the SCOTUS with all the Trump states as the plaintiff class, if that’s even a thing.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Yes, and I love the fact that the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.”

SCOTUS can just say that the election is over, rules were broken and States need to legislatively fix this for the next election cycle.

[The MAGA-Deplorian]

Texas has no standing when they take a deeper dive into Harris, Dallas and Tarrent counties that are all blue and all vote the same as these states!

[prairiebreeze]

Guess we’ll see just how owned John Roberts is by the left. Or not. Hopefully he will hear the case.

[CottonBall]

no we should just hand the country over to those that will destroy it!!!

where is your testosterone

[isthisnickcool]

This chess move was planned long ago. Trump stuns me sometimes. Look at the sum of all the parts. The guy is scary smart.

[woweeitsme]

I haven’t read through all the comments, but I believe that PA’s legislature agreed to some of the changes (specifically mail-in voting...idiots!) that were implemented.

[Dr. Franklin]

I still think they will rule that it is nonjusticeable under the political questions doctrine (as they should), but it’s at least a nice try.

The question of was there fraud and to what extent?, is a judicial issue. People will go to jail from this. What to do about it, and how to count the votes is ultimately a political question committed to Congress in January. SCOTUS can and should weigh in on that, even though the remedy is political.

It will be curious to see what happens. I certainly think Texas has standing to complain that illegal ballots were cast in other states for its citizens, as that is a violation of federal law and puts its citizens in criminal jeopardy. Beyond that narrow issue, I don't know that the argument has merit, but I am not deciding the case.

[DrewsMum]

Yes except Texas did the same thing!

[PMAS]

*

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Florida needs to join the Texas suit. And perhaps some other states as well.

[CarolinaReaganFan]

and long overdue.
The downside here is that this appears to allow legislatures to do their duty (if i understand correctly) rather than force them to decide. I’d have a warmer feeling if they ask SCOTUS to direct state legislatures to determine electors by disallowing the standing results. I’m not sensing that it does this.Did i miss something?

[SteveH]

> Texas has no standing when they take a deeper dive into Harris, Dallas and Tarrent counties that are all blue and all vote the same as these states!

although the changes can be argued by texas as not affecting the outcome of texas from an extra-state perspective (touche to recalcitrant judges)

[wittyone]

Read the article? I’ve been here long enough to know that’s only a desirement, not a requirement.

There's an article?

[SteveH]

> and long overdue.
The downside here is that this appears to allow legislatures to do their duty (if i understand correctly) rather than force them to decide. I’d have a warmer feeling if they ask SCOTUS to direct state legislatures to determine electors by disallowing the standing results. I’m not sensing that it does this.Did i miss something?

one possibility is for the USSC to take the case and then hold off on any decision, leaving the electors contested. if the electors are contested, the electoral college cannot vote. if the the electoral college cannot vote, the matter goes before the house for a state by state caucus vote. at this point the majority R states could play hardball and vote to re-elect Trump.

[luvie]

Pinging Texans...and wondering what the heck this even means.