Texas Lawsuit Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Vacate Electors in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; Agrees to Hear Case, on Docket

The justices could declare the entire law
Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit Tuesday to invalidate the presidential election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan. File photo: ShutterStock.com, licensed.

AUSTIN, TX – The state of Texas is suing the four swing states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin through the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that these four states violated the Constitution by making changes to voting rules through executive actions, a change that can only be done through the state legislative process as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. As relief Texas is asking the court to “temporarily restrain the Defendant States from voting in the electoral college” later this month.

Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit Tuesday to invalidate the presidential election results also arguing that those states used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to unlawfully change their election rules. The following statements is from the official motion for preliminary injunction filed by Texas:

“The Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election violated the Electors Clause, which renders invalid any appointment of presidential electors based upon those election results. For example, even without fraud or nefarious intent, a mail-in vote not subjected to the State legislature’s ballot-integrity measures cannot be counted. It does not matter that a judicial or executive officer sought to bypass that screening in response to the COVID pandemic: the choice was not theirs to make. “Government is not free to disregard the [the Constitution] in times of crisis.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ___ (Nov. 25, 2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). With all unlawful votes discounted, the election result is an open question that this Court must address.”


Ad Disclosure: This site earns revenue from ads, some within content. You can support independent journalism and help us stay afloat by donating or purchasing our merch following us on social media (Facebook | Twitter | Youtube | Instagram | LinkedIn | Pinterest | Flipboard | Feedspot) or just sharing content you like.

Allowing the unconstitutional election results in Defendant States to proceed would irreparably harm Plaintiff State and the Republic both by denying representation in the presidency and in the Senate in the near term and by permanently sowing distrust in federal elections. This Court has found such threats to constitute irreparable harm on numerous occasions. See note 2, supra (collecting cases). The stakes in this case are too high to ignore.

Experts in election law were quick to dismiss the likelihood of the nine Supreme Court justices taking the case, however, the lawsuit has officially been docketed by the Supreme Court meaning that the high court has agreed to hear the case.

Republican Tex Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general, has offered to present the case to the high court as Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani was hospitalized with COVID-19. Crus has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court.

Comment via Facebook

PALM BEACH WEATHER