Opinion
Featured Image
 Brandon Bourdages / Shutterstock.com

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

December 11, 2020 (American Thinker) — On Tuesday, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The suit alleged that because these states conducted elections that violated their own laws, they tainted the integrity of the vote, something that damaged not only their own citizens, but also the citizens in other states. Because this is an intelligent, powerful case, it's no surprise that eight other states have already joined the litigation.

To date, we've seen a multiplicity of lawsuits filed, although, significantly, none has come before the Supreme Court for substantive review. Courts in various states, however, have proven resistant to these suits.

As I noted here, partisan judges are issuing what I will politely call “garbage” decisions. Judges are refusing to consider the evidence, with only one Nevada court attempting to do so. Instead, they make variations of the argument that, if courts were to consider Trump's claims, they would run the risk of “disenfranchising” Biden voters.

— Article continues below Petition —
Stand with Texas in Supreme Court voter fraud challenge
  Show Petition Text
1445 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 2500!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

PETITION UPDATE (12/12/2020)

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case filed by the state of Texas.

PETITION UPDATE (12/11/2020)

6 states have formally joined Texas in its Supreme Court suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—four battleground states who ran illegal and unconstitutional elections.

Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah have formally joined Texas and agree that the defendant states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify unlawfully enacting last-minute changes and ignoring both federal and state election laws, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.

While Missouri and 16 other states filed an amicus brief with the Court supporting Texas, 20 other states plus the District of Columbia signed an amicus brief supporting the 4 defendant states.

Please SIGN this petition and STAND with Texas, as the state seeks justice in the 2020 general election for all citizens of the United States.

'6 states formally join Texas in law­suit defend­ing the secu­ri­ty of the 2020 election'https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/6-states-formally-join-texas-in-lawsuit-defending-the-security-of-the-2020-election

____________________________________________________________________

The state of Texas has filed suit against Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia in the Supreme Court over changes which those states made to their election rules, claiming they violated the U.S. Constitution in the process.

Here is the central part of the argument: if Texas were to allow possible voter fraud to go unchecked in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, it would be akin to committing fraud upon the people of Texas, who cast their ballots within the framework of the law.

Indeed, this would apply equally to all citizens who voted within the framework of the law across the United States!

Thankfully, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is stepping up to vindicate the right of all Texans - and, all Americans - to have every legal vote be counted.

But, the Supreme Court has only until Thursday morning to either accept or decline hearing the case.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition, now.

The main claim that Texas makes is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia violated the Electoral Clause of the U.S. Constitution by changing their election rules on mail-in ballots by executive or judicial action, rather than by action from the legislature.

But, America is a land of laws, and most people play by the rules. Citizens also want our state executives and judiciaries to play by the rules.

Bypassing state legislatures, even during a pandemic, cannot be justifiable as it goes against our system of checks and balances, and, ultimately, as it is the legislatures who have the power, vested by the people, to make determinations about state electoral regulations.

Texas also alleges that the defendant-states further violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by applying different election rules for different parts of their respective states, meaning that election rules were not the same for every citizen of each state.

Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because in disputes between states, the Supreme Court is the court of "first impression." But, the Court only has a limited window to accept or decline hearing the case.

Please SIGN and SHARE this important petition today.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'‘This is the big one’, says Trump of Texas SCOTUS election challenge' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-is-the-big-one-says-trump-of-texas-scotus-election-challenge

'Texas asks Supreme Court to toss 4 states’ election results over illegal mail ballots' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/texas-asks-supreme-court-to-toss-4-states-election-results-over-illegal-mail-ballots

  Hide Petition Text

That is a singularly dishonest argument. Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote. No one was deprived here. What Trump is doing, with his request that every legal vote count, is asking that courts invalidate illegal votes. You cannot disenfranchise an illegal voter, whether that “voter” is dead, a computer algorithm, or a form filled out in a Chinese print shop.

Do you know what happens when you invalidate fraudulent votes and count only legal votes? You identify the winner and loser in an election, as has happened in America since 1792. Those who voted for the losing candidate were not disenfranchised; they just voted for the losing candidate.

The Texas lawsuit argues that the four defendant states changed their mail-in voting rules without going through the constitutional, legislative process. By doing so, they assured illegal mail-in votes, meaning that all votes under the new “rules” were illegal from the get-go. These invalid votes override the will of those who legitimately cast votes, tainting the national election.

After all, we are a federation of states. While the individual states control their own election rules, each state is affected by the election outcomes in the other states. Texas attorney general Ken Paxton's statement about the lawsuit perfectly sums up the correct legal standard:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. 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,” said Attorney General Paxton. “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.” 

Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution. The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution. 

Because this is a suit between two states, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. It's also a factually pure case, which does not require looking at the reams of evidence demonstrating fraud.

If you want a good overview about why the case is really huge, Jay Sekulow, one of America's most brilliant constitutional lawyers, and his team at the American Center for Law and Justice explain the procedure and the substance:

(Here's more about the role the House of Representatives could play. Also, you can see the lawsuit here.)

No wonder it appears that eight other states have joined the case (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina). The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the Supreme Court justices are willing to show the necessary courage to ensure that the will of the people, and not the will of the corruptocrats, prevails in this election.

UPDATE: As of Wednesday afternoon, the most current list of states that have signed on to the Texas litigation says that, in addition to Missouri (represented by state AG Eric Schmitt), 16 other states have joined the case:

Schmitt's brief was joined by 16 other states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.