The State of Texas has filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court against Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Texas sets forth an ironclad case against those states that the conduct of the executive branches and courts of those states violated their own state election laws to pave the way for voter fraud in those states. Texas argues that the State of Texas and the other states that followed proper constitutional procedures and “their voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes from each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state.”
Those violations of the state election laws facilitated systematic fraud that allowed unlawful ballots to be counted. Texas claims that the state courts and executive officials engaged in unlawful behavior of waiving and modifying the existing state legislative enactments designed to protect the integrity of elections. Texas alleges in its complaint that “[g]iven the State legislatures’ constitutional primacy in selecting presidential electors, the ability to set rules governing the casting of ballots and counting of votes cannot be usurped by other branches of state government.”
Texas alleged that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin “all materially weakened, or did away with, security measures, such as witness or signature verification procedures, required by their respective legislatures. Their legislatures established those commonsense safeguards to prevent—or at least reduce—fraudulent mail-in ballots.” Doing away with those safeguards created a “massive opportunity for fraud.” Texas cited to U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishing that “[i]nvalid or fraudulent votes debase or dilute the weight of each validly cast vote.” Texas put it simply. “[T]here is substantial reason to doubt the voting results in [those] … states.”
Neither the executive nor the judicial branch of the various states determines the procedures for elections. That function lies solely with the various state legislatures. Supplanting state legislative requirements violated the Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. The Electors Clause states, in pertinent part: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” Under that clause in the U.S. Constitution, the state legislatures have plenary authority regarding the appointment of electors for President and NOT the executive or judicial officers of the state.
Texas alleges that if those states certify the election in accordance with the unlawful electoral process it disenfranchises Texas by debasing their vote for electors. Texas states that “their voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes from each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state.” The actions of the judiciary and executive branches in those states undermined the pre-existing election laws of those states.
Indeed, Texas states that the fraud was so rampant and obvious that it is comfortable in quantifying the infinitesimal likelihood that Biden actually won the election. “The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004).”
10 thoughts on “Texas Files Complaint With U.S. Supreme Court Accusing Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin of Voter Fraud”
Thank you for an excellent summary account of the Texas lawsuit so those who do not have a legal background can easily understand.
Wow, this sure is something!
Thanks for such a clear explanation!
Great article Ed!! I love it!!