Texas officials have filed suit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court against several swing states, alleging their ballot results are tainted due to unlawful pre-election changes and therefore should be invalidated.
The suit alleges that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all violated the Constitution’s elector’s clauses because each one made changes to voting procedures and rules via state courts or executive actions, not through their legislatures, as required.
In addition, Texas officials argue that differences existed in rules and procedures for voting in different counties within the same states, which is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.
Also, the Lone Star State argued that because of the executive-level and court-ordered changes made in the other states, “voting irregularities” occurred which tainted the outcome.
Each of those states allegedly went for Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order states to allow their legislatures — all of which are controlled by Republicans — to appoint their electors, as per 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 suit 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.”
Texas officials filed their case directly with the Supreme Court because under Article III it is the court of first impressions when it has original jurisdiction, including disputes between states.
“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.
Join BizPac Review on Parler!
“These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution,” the suit contends.
“By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution,” it continued.
Roscoe B. Davis, a retired law enforcement officer, noted on Twitter that the Texas case is not about proving or disproving election fraud.
“The genius behind this is they don’t have to prove fraud, there’s no doubt there are ‘election irregularities’ all that has to be proven is that they changed election laws by executive order and not by legislation as required by the US Constitution. Article II, Section 1 Clause 2,” he wrote.
https://twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1336258011397058560
“All these Governors and Sec of States making these changes out in the open make the case pretty clear,” he added. “The Defense is going to claim it was a COVID Pandemic, mark my words, it’s all they got, it was their excuse for everything in every state.”
But, he notes further, “Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 is really clear and there is no Pandemic clause.”
https://twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1336258022797086720
“The relief being sought has not only precedent (Election of 1836) it has constitutional verbiage [sic] to back it up. Not asking for the SCOTUS to throw out ballots, just follow the Constitution and the 12th Amendment of a Contingent Election,” Davis wrote.
The relief being sought has not only precedent (Election of 1836) it has constitutional verbage to back it up.
Not asking for the SCOTUS to throw out ballots, just follow the Constitution and the 12th Amendment of a Contingent Election.
— Roscoe B Davis🎖⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@RoscoeBDavis1) December 8, 2020
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Jon@bizpacreview.com
Jon is a staff writer for BizPac Review with 30 years' worth of reporting experience, as well as an author and U.S. Army veteran. He has a BA in political science from Ashford University and an MA in national security studies/intelligence analysis from American Military University.
- Jan. 6 committee chair Benny Thompson offers a stunning take on potential Trump criminal actions - January 2, 2022
- Life-long New Yorker posts ‘sad’ Twitter ode on post-pandemic Big Apple being ‘shadow of its former self’ - January 2, 2022
- NYPD officer shot in head in police lot as he slept in vehicle between shifts - January 2, 2022
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
