17 states join Texas in lawsuit questioning election results

/ December 10, 2020

By Fred Lucas | The Daily Signal

President Donald Trump says his campaign supports the lawsuit filed by Texas at the U.S. Supreme Court seeking new elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin because of voting irregularities in those states.  A total of 17 states have joined the court challenge in less than two days.

“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning.

Trump was referring to his reelection campaign, not his administration. Intervention can come in the form of filing legal briefs in support of a plaintiff or plaintiffs.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, announced the lawsuit Tuesday against the four states, where election results show Trump was defeated Nov. 3 by former Vice President Joe Biden. Each state went for Trump in 2016.

Seventeen other states so far have joined Texas in the case before the Supreme Court, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee.

Other states signing on by Wednesday night are Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia, The Daily Wire reported.

The New York Times reported that Trump has asked Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, if he would make oral arguments in the case if it reaches the Supreme Court, and Cruz agreed. Cruz has argued nine times before the high court, mostly in his previous post as Texas solicitor general, the Times noted.

The Texas-led lawsuit is an attempt to “disregard the will of the people” and “tear at the fabric of our Constitution,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, and Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, all Democrats, said in a joint statement.

“It is past time for the president and our fellow states and elected officials to stop misleading the public about this year’s election and to acknowledge that the results certified in our states reflect the decisions made by the voters in a free, fair and secure election,” the three attorneys general said.

Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr, a Republican, did not join the statement.

Texas alleges that the four other states violated the right of Texas voters when they changed election rules without authorization by their respective state legislatures.

The suit argues that each of the four states violated the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2), which Texas argues vests “state legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.”

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin violated election law and thus their electoral votes–as they currently stand–should not be counted.

The four states must “conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors.”

All four states have Republican-controlled legislatures. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have Democratic governors and secretaries of state, who supervise elections.

The complaint by Texas has merit but it’s not likely the Supreme Court will hear it and highly unlikely that a majority of the seven justices would side with Texas if the court did hear the case, said Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project.

“Texas is asking for extraordinary relief,” Snead told The Daily Signal. “From a practical standpoint, there is no way states could comply [by holding a new election]. States plan and prepare for months for elections.”

Snead added that if the high court rules in favor of Texas, it might offer a different form of relief, such as having state lawmakers appoint electors. That, he said, would open up a new set of political questions.

The cast of plaintiffs is growing as numerous Republcan attorneys general announced they were getting involved with an amicus brief.

“After reviewing the motion filed by Texas in the U.S. Supreme Court, I have determined that I will support the motion in all legally appropriate manners,” Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Ruttledge tweeted Tuesday. “The integrity of our elections is a critical part of our nation and it must be upheld.”

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt tweeted: “Election integrity is central to our republic. And I will defend it at every turn. … Missouri is in the fight.”

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery said his office has “consistently taken the position” that only state legislatures can change election laws.

“This office pressed that argument in cases defending Tennessee’s election laws against pandemic-related challenges and in amicus briefs in cases involving similar challenges in other courts. This is not something new,” Slatery said in a public statement Wednesday. “Texas’s action in the Supreme Court seeks to vindicate the same important separation-of-powers principles, and that is why we joined Missouri’s amicus brief in support of that action.”

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry also announced that his state would join the suit.

“Millions of Louisiana citizens, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the country, have deep concerns regarding the conduct of the 2020 federal elections,”  Landry said in a statement. “Deeply rooted in these concerns is the fact that some states appear to have conducted their elections with a disregard to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, many Louisianans have become more frustrated as some in media and the political class try to sidestep legitimate issues for the sake of expediency.”

The Texas lawsuit asserts the high court should decide the matter since Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court—not lower federal courts—original jurisdiction over “controversies between two or more States.”

The complaint by Texas says that Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, “unilaterally” changed election laws on absentee and mail-in votes, as well as rules on signature verification, without legislative approval.

The Texas suit also asserts that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican,“unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”

It states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”

The lawsuit says that Wisconsin’s elections commission “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin Legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”

“Texas does a good job of describing what happened in each state and why the actions of government officials making unauthorized, unilateral changes in the rules may have violated the Constitution and affected the outcome of the election,” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation, wrote in a recent analysis for The Daily Signal.

“But by almost any measure, this is the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass,” wrote von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and of Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. “While the questions raised are serious ones, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will address them at this time. As Texas points out, these issues will likely be repeated in future elections. If the Supreme Court does not take up these issues now, it may well have another opportunity in the future.”

Image courtesy of Public domain

Related posts

24 thoughts on “17 states join Texas in lawsuit questioning election results”

  1. With due respect to Senator Benning – I have no idea what or why he may or may not be doing bc I have not asked him and neither do you.

  2. Sen.Benning, the issue is that these states didn’t follow the Constitution,
    Federal & State. Apparently, Texas cares about what is written in the
    Constitution and the effect on its citizens.

    We shouldn’t have to worry about the left-leaning fools in California as long
    as we follow what’s written in the Constitution.

    It’s inconceivable to me that states would blatantly try to change the rules
    in order to get an inept person into office…..follow the money or perks that
    these elected officials accepted mostly RINOs as we have in Vermont.

    I don’t believe this election was not fair or honest………..

  3. It is inconceivable to me that anyone calling themselves a supporter of the federalist system designed by our United States Constitution would support one state’s ability to drag another state before the United States Supreme Court because they didn’t like the outcome of the other state’s election.

    It is inconceivable to me that anyone calling themselves a Republican, who supports Texas’ unprecedented attempt, doesn’t stop to think about the precedent created if Texas was to succeed. Wouldn’t liberal California be able to thwart the will of the citizens of Texas in a future election?

    It is sad that our Republican party has reached the point we are in. The titular head of our party has apparently succeeded in convincing a passionate portion of us that the election system in our country is broken. Forty-seven courts and the vast majority of states have certified the validity of their election. Each has found no merit to the evidence of fraud claim being supported by daily tweets.

    At what point do we recognize that it is not the system that is broken?

    • As one who is on record as a Trumphater call me unsurprised Senator Benning. If shoe was on other foot I have a feeling you would not complain. comment ignores massive election fraud which occurred on full display in living color – that is if we choose to believe our lying eyes. I find this disturbing as it places our entire nation in jeopardy – by removing cardinal principal which forms structure of entire Constitutional Federalist governance of the US replacing rule of law with the rule of men and we cannot allow this to happen. And yes this could set a precedent for all states as basis for future violations of constitution which affect other states including Cali.

      Answer to problem at hand: Don’t violate the Constitution, cease legislative and executive actions which cancel legislative action, making of bad laws which are unconstitutional so that SCOTUS doesn’t need to intervene.

      We have three branches of government. Executive and judicial cannot simply cancel laws that were enacted by legislatures because they feel like it. The place for constitutional disputes which this most certainly is would be SCOTUS. As a lawyer and lawmaker shouldn’t you know these things.

      Executive and judicial cannot simply cancel laws that were enacted by lawmakers elected by We The People because they feel like it. States that do not follow Constitutionally directed law as a result of legislative action but by judicial or executive fiat changing horses in the middle of the stream causing the rest of our union to suffer the ruinous consequences need to be reigned in.

      • Federalist argument is misapplied. It’s not “administering elections” at dispute here – its the changing of laws made by duly elected legislatures by We The People – as a former legislator you of all ppl should know this lol.

        We are not a Tin-Pot dictatorship or Banana Republic. Founding Fathers never expected that our nation would be overrun by the Communist Party and the sickos acting as enablers who are enemies of us all. Those who are traitors to our Republic, do not like our laws and form of governance have many choices in fascist dictatorships to choose from and should leave our great nation instead of attempting to turn us into them.

        • Stardust: The United States Supreme Court just agreed with me. That’s the same United States Court populated by several Trump appointees. Are they now wrong too?

          • Hi Senator: Sometimes comments don’t appear at intended destination – comment was to Mr Freitag however yes I do believe SCOTUS got this wrong. I don’t care who appointed them they’re – not God. 😀

    • That is pretty rich, pretty rich.

      It’s inconceivable that a Vermont office holder, who knows and has stated publicly that Ms. Molly Gray may not be qualified to hold office as she doesn’t meet the constitutional standard says nothing.

      Not only that is afraid to say something, as it may make their lives difficult should the ruling not go their way. Perhaps you would like share the emails and discussion we had on this topic?

      It’s spineless representatives that won’t stand up for what is right, fair and just that puts our country for sale to corporate lobbyists and foreign countries.

      There is much going on within Vermont’s boarders that we needn’t get into others business. It’s inconceivable that anyone who calls them selves an American would not question what the hell is going on.

      Vermont has filed with The Supreme court as amicus for Penn I believe.

      No it’s Republicans that do nothing, say nothing that are pimping for the NWO that are a serious problem.

      Better to identify as God Fearing American than any affiliation with the corrupt political systems and those whom foster them.

    • This case deserves to be heard. The rampant and probably accurate accusations of fraud must be addressed. Now, not later. For one reason. It cannot be tolerated nor allowed to occur again. If as Texas alleges, the four states- did not follow the law regarding elections then remedy is due the remaining 46 states that did. Vermont changed it’s voting laws this year- In the Legislature. As I remember, The Governor was excluded from the process, to his dissatisfaction. But you were there and probably remember the process. Were the 2020 Election law changes in Vermont changed in accordance with the US Constitution? Should not very state be required to follow the same laws?
      One does not have to be affiliated with any political party to understand the consequence of
      a fraudulent election. In 2016 the USA embarked on a plethora of investigations triggered by the losing presidential candidate, costing tens of millions of dollars, without finding fraud.
      Certainly, this country can wait a few weeks to see where this leads.
      Perhaps it should be incumbent of you as a Vermont Senator to verify that our election of 2020 was conducted lawfully and above reproach. To insure to all Vermonters that our system is in fact- Not Broken

      • Mr. Bammo, you are conflating Texas’ attempt to nullify another state’s right to conduct elections as it sees fit with whatever happened here in Vermont. Since the United States Supreme Court, populated by a strong portion of Trump appointees I might add, just agreed with me that Texas did not have standing to make this argument, let’s set that discussion aside and move to your Vermont argument.

        As I type this I am not aware that any Vermont town clerk has raised an alarm that fraud was committed within their town’s jurisdiction. Absent concrete evidence presented by a clerk and confirmed by a court as having merit, demanding that I “verify that our election of 2020 was conducted lawfully and above reproach” sounds just a tad bit premature.

        And why, if you are a Republican, would you want to be raising the specter of fraud in the 2020 election that needs to be investigated? The election results in Vermont showed stronger support for Republicans than many predicted. Pundits were proclaiming Republicans would be losing even more legislative seats. Instead, Republicans actually gained seats, and some of those came at the expense of liberal incumbents. Donald Trump outpolled David Zuckerman, and received more votes himself than he had in 2016. Like him or not, Republican Phil Scott received more votes than any Republican has in a very long time. In short, Republicans did quite well in this election.

        In the absence of confirmed fraud, with the reality that Donald Trump, Phil Scott and Republicans in the legislature all improved their numbers, are you seriously implying Vermont’s election should be thrown out for fraud? Seriously?

  4. Some other thoughts on this law suit:

    Texas Sen. John Cornyn said, I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it”. “Why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections? “We have a diffused and dispersed system and even though we might not like it, they may think it unfair, those are decided at the state and local level not at the national level”.

    Georgia’s Republican Attorney General in his response said, ” Contrary to Texas’s argument, Georgia has exercised its power under the Electors Clause. Georgia’s legislature enacted laws governing elections and election disputes and the State and its officers have implemented and followed those laws. Texas nevertheless asks this Court to transfer Georgia’s electoral powers to the federal judiciary. Respect for federalism and the constitution design prohibits that transfer of power”.

    • John,

      The US Constitution says, Secretaries of State shall not make changes to election procedures, in violation of law, without FIRST obtaining approval of LEGISLATURES.

      SECRETARIES OF STATE
      https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/here-is-a-write-up-about-a-voting-irregularity-that-led-to-many

      Secretaries of State, in at least 4 states, made last-minute changes to Election rules, in violation of State and Federal law, and the US Constitution, to count the late and fake ballots, which likely had been fabricated for Biden, without verification and meaningful observation by GOP poll watchers.

      Secretaries of State, in at least 4 states, selected the State Electors, in direct violation of the US Constitution, which says the State Legislature must select the State Electors.

      Whereas, the Bethpage, NY, illegal operation had been planned in detail and executed months in advance of the Election, such a leisurely pace was no longer possible.

      Sloppiness took place
      Mistakes were made
      Windows were boarded up to hide what was going on
      Poll watchers were kept at a distance, or out of the building, with help of the local police.
      Counting machines broke down.

      It all looked like an out-of-control THIRD WORLD BANANA REPUBLIC

      In very short order, about 400,000 Pennsylvania mail-in ballots, appeared after Election night, to help reduce the rest of the 700,000-vote-gap in favor of Trump.

      The legacy US Media quickly proclaimed Biden THE President-elect, which, by law, would be done by the US Congress in January, 2021.

      The legacy US Media pitched-in with clever blathering about “free and fair elections, and “no widespread voter fraud that would alter the outcome” to make things appear plausible/palatable to at least 75 million befuddled Americans, who had voted for Trump.

      COVID was made the scapegoat!
      https://www.thedailyfodder.com/2020/12/breaking-bombshell-report-fi…

  6. Here’s a wonderful article, seems like a national problem, not just Vermont.

    The Freedom Caucus rules….it should be it’s own party, Vermont needs something like this. John Klar was prevented from doing is Agripublican thing….

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/both-the-roar-of-the-lion-the-voice-of-the-people-being-shut-out-by-republi

    There needs to be wholesale change in our country. Trump is GOAT……..and what is happening, where is the support?

    Where is the support for just plain unconstitutional things going on in Vermont, if you aren’t inclined to mix it up supporting our President…

    How about fixing all the problems in Vermont???? We got our own homegrown problems.

    This is exactly why we started the gr33nm0unta1nparty, of which I can’t spell our for certain reasons.

    • May I suggest you repurpose your party website into a comment platform for you and others to lead discussions of the things you find important, including other likeminded ppl who would like to discuss bipartisan issues – and start your own comment platform and caucus.

    • Donovan would likely be too busy defending the unconstitutional GWSA, if Scott were to challenge it.

      That law should not exist, because Vermont is just a flea on an elephant’s a..

      Anything GWSA mandates will have ZERO effect on the climate.

      Vermont should focus only on ENERGY EFFICIENCY of housing and transportation

      It is invisible
      It makes no noise.
      It would save money for Vermonters, so they could pay even more taxes to feed the insatiable demands of the Dem/Prog Socialist Vermont government

Comments are closed.