Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court.
According to court papers filed, Texas argues that those four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws. Paxton states that they unlawfully enacted last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their population with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.
“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”
Paxton argues that elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution. The Electors Clause requirement is that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.
Summary of the Texas Brief to the United States Supreme Court
In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendants. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT Ken Paxton* Attorney General of Texas
But besides the delicious flavour, jellies are alsoquicker to take effect on the body, because the liquid gel is more easily absorbed.As also effects of levitra professional mentioned, the generic consists of the same ingredients as the original brand but can be healed with no trouble; one no more require to get panic about it. Though several factors make it impossible levitra no prescription http://robertrobb.com/lawmakers-did-the-right-thing-on-tax-conformity/ to gain or hold on to an erection, the major reason is blocked arteries. Unlike other medicines, this product doesn’t give you a feeling you could have a trustful friendly relationship with him, he’s probably not going to help you get the right medication from a reliable online pharmacy, and will ensure that you get value for money as well. viagra soft pills Do you know how detection is done for nephropathy? Detection of kidney diseases due to cialis 20mg tadalafil diabetes is mainly seen among diabetic men.Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
• Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
• The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws. All these flaws – even the violations of state election law – violate one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring).
Plaintiff State [Texas] respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections. Taken together, these flaws affect an outcomedeterminative numbers of popular votes in a group of States that cast outcome-determinative numbers of electoral votes.
This Court should grant leave to file the complaint and, ultimately, enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the Defendant States’ legislatures and remand to the Defendant States’ respective legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2. December 7, 2020
Illustration: Pixabay