Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » State of Texas suing GA, MI, WI and PN over changes to their election rules. Will go straight to SCOTUS. Will they prevail? .

State of Texas suing GA, MI, WI and PN over changes to their election rules. Will go straight to SCOTUS. Will they prevail? .

(Updated...)

Texas suing means no state courts. Texas wants Trump-electors or a do-over of the election.

What happened?

The State of Texas just filed a lawsuit against Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin.

Why is this relevant and how is it different from the other lawsuits?

The other lawsuits have mostly been filings made by or on behalf of the voters in each state with the claim that they have been disenfranchised. For instance, a Georgian voter or the Georgian Republican Party filing a lawsuit. The first court for these is the state-level courts, which are (as we know) infiltrated by leftist activist judges. The state-level judges have been throwing out the lawsuits claiming procedural issues like filing too late or that the person filing it has "no legal standing." These lawsuits thus have to be appealed to the Supreme Court on various points of law (mostly regarding constitutionality) and the states themselves will start arguing that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear some of these matters which should be left to state courts.

The new Texas lawsuit however is the State of Texas itself making a claim that if these phony results are certified and electors are selected on the basis of the phony results in these states, Texas' own electors are being disenfranchised. Since the State of Texas is the claimant, the only appropriate court is the Supreme Court.

What is the remedy Texas is asking for
Texas is asking for (in summary)

1. An injunction stopping the states from certifying the results
2. An injunction stopping the states from appointing electors based on those results
3. Direction to each state's legislature to appoint new electors if electors have been appointed based on the phony results or appoint no electors at allirection to conduct a special election to appoint electors

4. Essentially, Texas seems to be asking for a special election (a do-over) in each of these states. The legislature can appoint Trump-electors too of course but they would never have the balls to do that.

What are the grounds on which the lawsuit is brought?

This lawsuit provides a very helpful overview and summary of the cases which are being brought in each state: 

Pennsylvania

1. Unlawful changes to voting rules (removing signature verification
2. Poll workers kicked out / not allowed to observe in breach of election rules
3. Curing ballots which was against state law - only allowed in mostly Democrat counties
4. On Nov 2nd (day before election!), records show that 2.7m mail-in ballots were sent out. On Nov 4th (day after election!), records show
 1m mail-in ballots were sent out. How is this possible?!
5. Late / problematic ballots were not segregated (contrary to Alito's order), mixed in with legitimate ballots making it impossible to trace.

Georgia

  1. Unlawful changes to the process of verifying/counting absentee ballots 

Due to this, the rejection rate on mail in ballots was 0.37% in 2020 versus 6.42% in 2016!

Michigan

  1. Unlawful changes to voting rules making it easier to vote by absentee ballot and destroying safeguards (are we starting to see a pattern here?!)
  2. Secretary of State technically had no power to distribute a single absentee ballot!
  3. Poll watchers and inspectors kicked out
  4. Rules were not followed when opening and counting the ballots, statutory signature verification requirements were completely ignored
  5. 174,000+ absentee ballots counted without a registration number, probably because the same ballots were run through machines multiple times at the TCF counting center
  6. Threats of violence to the Republican canvassers that initially voted not to certify but were threatened by the leftist mob and later recanted via affidavit.

Wisconsin

1. Unlawful changes to voting rules... You don't even need me to repeat this first one do you...
2. Hundreds of unmanned drop boxes in the 5 biggest Democrat cities
3. Election officials literally encouraged people to declare themselves as "indefinitely confined" to get around signature verification and photo ID.
4. Addresses were written onto envelopes where there was none in order to accept some absentee ballots with no addresses
5. Ballots were backdated

What are the merits / are we likely to be successful?

The answer is that the merits are there but the only obstacle is whether the SC thinks the remedy Texas is asking for is appropriate.

To explain briefly, it is almost beyond doubt that these states changed rules unlawfully, kicked vote watchers out etc. Like there is literally no way the Democrats/States can say that there was no fraud without calling every witness a liar, every video doctored and somehow justifying what the election officials literally declared.

The problem is the remedy. It is open for the judges to say that there was fraud afoot but not enough fraud to require a revote, or an injunction against certification/electors. This is why you see in every case/hearing, Rudy / Lin / Sidney emphasizes the number of illegal ballots. So the challenge for Texas is to prove that the harm done by the illegal ballots is enough for the SC to provide the remedy that it wants.

Posted - December 8, 2020

Responses


  • 19942
    Thanks.
      December 9, 2020 8:16 AM MST
    1

  • 32527
    This is a different case.
      December 9, 2020 6:02 AM MST
    0

  • 19942
    (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

    This was today's unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.  They refused to stop Pennsylvania from certifying the election in favor of Trump.

    THE END This post was edited by SpunkySenior at December 8, 2020 9:41 PM MST
      December 8, 2020 9:33 PM MST
    1

  • 32527
    This Case (the Parnell case) is STILL PENDING.

    Only thing denied was an emergency injuction. 

    Case OPEN

    The TX case now has fact 8-10 other states have joined the suit. The SCOTUS has told the 4 defendant states they must file a response this week. 

    This case (TX+10) is very much open...

    This post was edited by my2cents at December 9, 2020 7:13 AM MST
      December 9, 2020 7:06 AM MST
    0

  • 19942
    It should be obvious that the SCOTUS has had enough of Trump and his frivolous lawsuits.
      December 9, 2020 8:10 AM MST
    1

  • 32527
    Trump lawyers have filed 5 cases as of yesterday.  Every case filed is not by the Trump lawyers. Most are by concerned Americans. 
      December 9, 2020 8:40 AM MST
    0

  • 13251
    Concerned Americans = Trump lawyers and loyalists. Many other concerned Americans know it's over.
      December 9, 2020 10:22 AM MST
    1

  • 32527
    Many of these organizations that have filed are involved in fighting against voter fraud every year.  Long before Trump even ran for office. 
      December 9, 2020 12:02 PM MST
    1

  • 13251
    DENIED! SCOTUS chose not to dirty its hands with such a ridiculous, nakedly political lawsuit. Had enough now?
      December 11, 2020 5:29 PM MST
    1

  • 32527
    And still not one judge has had the courage to examine the evidence.   
    TX +20 was denied only by standing. Not  because of evidence.  A miscarriage of justice. This post was edited by my2cents at December 11, 2020 5:41 PM MST
      December 11, 2020 5:40 PM MST
    0

  • 22853
    Every year. So that means Trump was probably not elected in 2016, either.   ;)
      December 11, 2020 6:21 PM MST
    1

  • 32527
    It means there are people committing fraud during every election. They are arrested and jailed every election.  
    Given that there were not Dems contesting the results in court in 2016...I assume it was not as widespread as this time around. 
      December 11, 2020 6:32 PM MST
    1

  • 13251
    Why do all of you think that if Trump lost, there had to be cheating and a rigged election? Is it because that's what he said? You need to get your mind around the idea that there was no more cheating and fraud than in any other election, and Biden won fair and square, just as Trump won fair and square in 2016.
      December 11, 2020 6:42 PM MST
    1

  • 22853
    Agreed.
      December 11, 2020 6:49 PM MST
    1

  • 22853
    In some ways, I was just joking around, anyway. But thanks, though, too. :)

    Despite whatever productive things he may have accomplished, I strongly believe that if any of us behaved in our jobs for four years, like he has in his - - simply by his public Tweets and his public name calling of co-workers - - we'd have been fired long ago. But I'm going to choose to not debate. I know we strongly disagree about the man. (And I realize I've gone off topic of your question.)
    At least we have macaroni and cheese and tuna. :)
      December 11, 2020 6:47 PM MST
    2

  • 32527
    I agree. Trump is very blunt and would not last as an employee in most places. 
    I vote on policy. And it has a long time since America had a leader who was worried about the American people first.  I was not sure about him even I first voted for him...but he did or at least attempted to do what he campaigned on. 

    Yes we disagree...but at least we know we can always enjoy dinner. :)
      December 11, 2020 8:31 PM MST
    1

  • 13251
    And furthermore, why is it so hard to believe that Trump lost? His approval rating was never higher than about 45%, and it was often in the 30s. The majority of voters found him toxic and unlikeable, and so he lost the election. Get over it and move on. And dump the conspiracy crap, it's unhealthy for you mentally and for the country in general. You will have a chance to vote again in 2024.
      December 11, 2020 7:00 PM MST
    0

  • 32527
    You know this was not the only case. And the only thing they ruled on was standing.  There is 2 cases getting ready to be appealed to SCOTUS...and they have no standing problems. 
    Another goes to WI Supremes tomorrow. 
    And one other still making the journey up the courts. 

    I want the evidence to be heard in court. That has not happened. 
      December 11, 2020 8:23 PM MST
    0

  • 13251
    What about all the suits dismissed by other courts? If they had evidence, why didn't they present it? We can only assume that there is none. Trump's loss is the gift that keeps on giving!
      December 11, 2020 8:32 PM MST
    0

  • 32527
    The judges did not hear the cases.  They did not listen to even one witness. 
    Why assume there is no evidence? Why not watch/listen some of the witnesses themselves. It is on twitter. (Maybe still on youtube) Why not listen and decide for yourself? 
      December 11, 2020 8:47 PM MST
    0

  • 13251
    I have decided. I believe the authorities who said the election was safe and secure, and there is no significant evidence of fraud. All the noise that you are desperately hoping will steal the election from Biden stems from Trump's inability to accept the reality that he lost and be gracious in defeat, as has every losing candidate before him. Apparently, you don't get it.
      December 11, 2020 8:52 PM MST
    0

  • 32527
    So you are doing as the judges....deciding without examining the evidence.   Letting the media etc decide for you.   No I do not get that all.   

    (Like every other candidate before him??? Do you not remember Hillary? She is still going on about Russians and Comey etc.  Or Al Gore....2000 was still not settled at this point.  But at least he got his day in court. Ballots were examined. Trump has not had that as of yet.
      December 11, 2020 9:12 PM MST
    0

  • 13251
    This election is not as close as the one in 2000 and is thus not comparable. And Hillary at least gave a concession speech.
      December 11, 2020 9:42 PM MST
    0

  • And to no one's surprise, they did not prevail. The Supreme Court is doing its job. The Supreme Court is not there to serve a particular party or president.  This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 11, 2020 6:50 PM MST
      December 11, 2020 5:14 PM MST
    2

  • 32527
    Evidence has still not been heard or examined in a courtroom. This was only dismissed based on TX standing.
      December 11, 2020 6:34 PM MST
    0