Texas is suing the election results in the Biden winning battlefield states

Washington – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against four key states won by President-elect Joe Biden, alleging that they illegally enacted changes to their voting laws that led to electoral irregularities and distorted the results of the presidential election.

Paxton, accused of bribery and abuse of office, is asking the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline for the presidential election certificate to allow investigation into alleged irregularities. He also wants the court to block “the use of illegal election results without review and confirmation by state legislatures.”

Paxton has filed lawsuits against Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan that have verified their election results and formalized Mr. Biden’s victory over President Trump. Mr. Biden was considered the winner of the presidential election on November 7 and has begun the transition process, but the president refuses to agree.

The Supreme Court set a deadline of 3 p.m., Thursday afternoon, for the four states to file a response before considering the case.

Trump praised Texas’ efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, calling Paxton’s case “very strong.” The president also filed a motion for leave to intervene with the Supreme Court, arguing that Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia together have enough electoral votes to influence the outcome of the Electoral College vote and that “there is clearly a stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.”

“This is the big one. Our country needs a victory,” Mr Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

Similar lawsuits launched by Mr. Trump’s campaign, which allegedly alleged widespread electoral fraud and sought to block the verification of election results, were rejected, and federal and state court judges found no evidence to substantiate allegations of illegal voting.

In challenging the election results of the four battlefield states, Paxton claims that government officials used the coronavirus epidemic to change their election rules, thereby “weakening the integrity of the urns.” He also claims to have “flooded” their states with ballots that were returned by post or box, while easing the requirements for signature verification and witnesses. As a result of these efforts, Paxton claims the election results are “illegal.”

A Michigan and Wisconsin attorney described the lawsuit as a frivolous, undeserved effort.

“The motion filed by the Texas Attorney General is an advertising ploy, not a serious legal submission,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. “The loss of confidence in our democratic system is not attributable to the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia or Pennsylvania, but rather to partisan officials like Mr. Paxton, who represent loyalty to the people rather than loyalty to their country.”

Nessel noted that the Michigan issues raised in the Paxton lawsuit were initiated and dismissed by both state and federal courts.

“Mr. Paxton is under the dignity of the Attorney General’s Office and the people of the great state of Texas,” he said.

Wisconsin lawyer Josh Kaul said the state Department of Justice “wants to protect our democracy from attack.”

“I feel sorry for Texas people for wasting their tax dollars on such a really embarrassing lawsuit,” he said in a statement. “Texas is just as likely to change the outcome of the Ice Bowl as it is to overthrow the will of Wisconsin voters in the 2020 presidential election.”

Mr Trump, meanwhile, praised Paxton’s legal efforts, thus responding “for courage and brilliance!” “God bless Texas” tweet.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in cases “to which a State is a party”, which allows such disputes to be brought directly before the Supreme Court. In fact, when states are unable to settle their disputes, the Institute of Legal Information says the Supreme Court is the only court that has jurisdiction to adjudicate a case. In cases where the Supreme Court exercises its original jurisdiction, it acts as a trial court and generally appoints a “master” to make recommendations for the hearing of evidence and a decision.

According to the Federal Judicial Center, the Supreme Court rarely exercises its original jurisdiction, issuing opinions in only 123 “original” cases between 1789 and 1959. Most of the original cases filed involved disputes between two or more states, and typically involved border and water disputes.

It is unclear how quickly the Supreme Court will examine Paxton’s request, as December 8 is the deadline for states to settle election disputes and nominate their constituents.

Adam Brewster contributed to the report