Trump declares ‘we will be INTERVENING’ in Texas election challenge, adds it’s ‘the big one’

President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday that his administration would be participating in Texas’ lawsuit against four battleground states challenging their election results.

“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” the president wrote on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336668083822473221

On Tuesday, Texas filed suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, alleging that each made changes to voting procedures and rules via state courts or executive actions, not through their legislatures, as required by the U.S. Constitution.

The suit filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court because it is the only court authorized by the Constitution to hear disputes involving states, also alleges that there were differences in rules and procedures for voters in different counties in some of the states, which Texas claims is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.

Finally, Texas officials argue that because changes to voting rules were made on the state executive level and in-state courts, they created “voting irregularities” that tainted the final results.

The Lone Star State is asking the High Court to order the other states to allow their legislatures, all of which are controlled by Republicans, to choose electors under Article II of the Constitution.

“Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted,” the lawsuit says.

“Whether well-intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures,” the suit continues. “The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.

“This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?” the suit asks.

The Supreme Court accepted the case hours after it was filed and placed it on the docket.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is also arguing that voters in his state were affected by the allegedly unconstitutional voting changes in the other states because in “the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the president and vice president, equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

He added: “Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes.”

Paxton is also asking the High Court to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for “defendant states’ certification” of their electors in order to allow investigations underway to be completed.

“The only date that is mandated under the Constitution…is January 20, 2021,” Paxton noted, in reference to Inauguration Day.

Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana have since joined Texas’ case.

“These elections in other states where state law was not followed … affects my voters because these are national elections, and so if there are fraudulent things or things that affect an election and state law is not followed as is required by the Constitution it affects our state,” Paxton told Fox & Friends Wednesday.

“We can’t go back and fix it, but we can say, OK, let’s transfer this to the legislature … and let them decide the outcome of the election. That would be a valid constitutional situation,” he added.

Jon Dougherty

Comments

Latest Articles