by WorldTribune Staff, December 9, 2020
Several states are supporting the lawsuit filed on Monday by the state of Texas which challenges what the suit says are unlawful election procedures in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said. (The Supreme Court filing can be viewed here.)
“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. 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.”
The attorney generals of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri issued statements in support of Texas’s case in the Supreme Court.
Trump legal team attorney Jordan Sekulow announced that Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are required to respond to the Texas lawsuit by Thursday.
Sekulow told Newsmax TV: “I can already report now the Supreme Court has put on the docket the parties: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. When you look at the states that were named they have to now respond by Thursday at 3 PM to this bill of complaint. And they have to respond to very specific items. So the Supreme Court is not just considering what Texas filed today they are now going the next step which is we want a response from the states named… Again I think this is very clear. This is the case we’ve been talking about to reach SCOTUS. This is the outcome determinative case. 62 electoral college votes at stake enough to change the outcome of the election.”
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he and/or members of his legal team would join, as intervenors, in the lawsuit.
“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” Trump tweeted.
An intervention, in legal terms, is a procedure that lets a nonparty join ongoing litigation if the case affects the rights of that party. The court considering an application to intervene, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court, has the discretion to allow or deny such a request.
In the complaint to the Supreme Court, Paxton argues that the four battleground states had acted in a way that violated their own election laws and thereby breached the Constitution through enacting and implementing new measures, rules, and procedures right before the Nov. 3 election.
Texas is also asking the Supreme Court to grant a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the four states from taking action to certify their election results or to prevent the state’s presidential electors from taking any official action. The presidential electors are scheduled to meet on Dec. 14.
Sekulow told Newsmax TV: “There are two reliefs sought. One is these legislatures that are all controlled by Republicans can seat new electors because the elections violated the electors clause due process and equal protection. And because of that they can seat new electors… And if it went to the House then Republicans control that 27 to 22 so it would be Republicans choosing the next president if it had to go the House of Representatives… This is the major challenge, the one we were waiting for. It has enough electoral votes at stake to change the outcome… The court is deciding that it wants more briefing and it is great news… This is the end all, be all case.”