Active Now

CosmicWunderkind
Kittigate
Randy D
Thebigd
RosieG
my2cents
Glenn_Blaylock
Stu Spelling Bee
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


  • 8853
    Which means that Texas had no business bringing the suit. Same difference. If there was so much evidence, it would have been presented in one court or another.
      December 11, 2020 8:55 PM MST
    0

  • 24511
    Over 500 witnesses. Videos, auto, rules being changed by Governors and courts instead of the state legislature as mandated by the Constitution.
      December 11, 2020 9:17 PM MST
    0

  • 8853
    Witnesses saying things does not equate to hard evidence. It's just hearsay.
      December 11, 2020 9:40 PM MST
    0

  • 24511
    No. Hearsay is when a person testifies to what they "heard another person say" that why is is called "hearsay." And not allowed in court in most circumstances. 

    Testimony by first person witnesses is called evidence. 
      December 12, 2020 5:35 AM MST
    0

  • 8853
    Whatever. The bottom line is it's not enough to change anything, and Trump lost. Stop denying and deal with it.
      December 12, 2020 7:18 AM MST
    0

  • 24511
    Not whatever.  That is a fact.  And it is not over yet. 

    New cases coming and they will have no questions about standing to file. 
      December 12, 2020 9:05 AM MST
    0

  • 8853
    Whatever. What court can they try after SCOTUS? Judge Judy? The food court? The Electoral College votes will be certified Monday. They have run out of courts and time. Concerned Americans have heard enough of Trump's crap, and enough is enough! Why can't you accept reality?
      December 12, 2020 9:15 AM MST
    0