The end around case has been put together by TX AG Ken Paxton suing GA, MI, WI, and PA at SCOTUS. Bringing this case across multiple jurisdictions gives it a straight lane to the SCOTUS.

This happened just before midnight tonight, will post documents soon

Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states, this is hard tactics

The Great State of Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures.

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.

Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Bush v. Gore 2000

Finally, Texas argues that there were "voting irregularities" in these states as a result of these changes.

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. If this is successful it opens the door for the next step.

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

All these Governors and Sec of States making these changes out in the open make the case pretty clear.

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.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 is really clear and there is no Pandemic clause.

Now when they start screaming Pandemic Crisis, all thee libs that went out for haircuts and Napa Valley Dinners, and seen all over the media, claiming privilege, are screwed

If you can go to the store, go out to eat, go get your hair done, do all the things the political elite were doing, while claiming lockdown and mask mandates, then you can get out and vote, no need for special circumstances!

Game set match

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.

Again

Quote:

"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"

This a very narrow lawsuit that gets straight to the heart of the matter.

Questions are can a state executive ignore legislation when setting election rules?

According to the very specific wording of the US Constitution, no they cannot, there's zero room for ambiguity on that.

Next question is the power of the state legislatures to appoint electors plenary, or are the state legislatures bound by the laws they have passed on how to appoint electors?

The only state in this suit that have bound electors is GA, however there is wiggle room legally.

The way you get around the bound elector in GA is show that they violated their own Constitution, as the US Constitution.

2 factors involved in the GA Constitution violation, with the settlement the Sec of State made to change absentee voting. It violates the GA Constitution

This tactic is an express lane to the SCOTUS that have questions that are being asked elsewhere in other suits, but are best answered by SCOTUS. It cuts out the time consuming process to get to the SCOTUS thru the lower courts.

Here's the filing

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

There are rumors that other states are trying to join this suit

Stupid liberal hacks claiming the PA General Assembly passed Act 77 and thus making the Texas Lawsuit moot need to read up on your own laws. You are wrong on multiple levels regarding Act 77

PA Judge Patricia McCullough issued the injunction in response to a lawsuit filed by Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell, among other plaintiffs in favor of their lawsuit claiming that Act 77, is unconstitutional and therefore void.

That's significant at that level, even though the stacked PA Supreme Court reached down in support of the Sec of State Laches defense. Doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional by the PA Constitution.

Act 77 required a Constitutional amendment by the PA General Assembly to make it binding. That's according to your own State Judge in PA you idiots.

To make things even worse the Sec of State introduced an extended deadline to Act 77 without legislation. On top of that the Sec of State introduced Ballot Curing that isn't even mention in the PA Constitution or Act 77.

So not only have you introduced unconstitutional legislation, you expanded upon it through executive power not legislative power, both egregious from both state level constitutionality and federal constitutionality.

You keep listening to idiots like Laurence Tribe who can't even successfully file amicus, and your heart is going to be broken. Act 77 can only be changed by a constitutional amendment, not by a statute & Judge Patricia McCullough concurred

Then the PA Supreme Court intervening allowing executive deadline extension and ballot curing, that is not at all in Act 77 or the Original PA Election laws, violates Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. We are a country of laws.

See the US Constitution gives state legislatures the right to direct the "manner" of appointing electors, that right is exclusive, & the "manner" set by the legislature can't be varied "at all" by courts or executives, & extending the deadlines and allowing Ballot curing did

Dec 14, btw, is NOT the deadline for "appointing" electors. The statutory deadline for appointing electors is Nov 3 (Election Day). Everything that happens after election day, including later certifications, is just determining *who* was appointed that day, by the election.

The only hard deadline is Jan 20, 2021, until then the litigation and continue. All this panic over safe harbor is such crap.

You hand wringers think that it will take state legislators to do the right thing to make this work, aren't paying close enough attention.

If the Paxton suit is successful, it will disqualify any electors from the four states in question, based the relief being sought

That's 62 electors gone from the final count. That means no one reaches 270 and we have a contingent election & the 12th Amendment kicks in and the House determines the POTUS and the Senate the VP.

Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, & South Dakota have prepared Amicus Briefs to join the Texas Lawsuit, we are expected an even dozen before this is heard by SCOTUS.

Add Missouri that makes Nine and counting

waiting on three more confirmations today

Missouri not only joined it brought 16 other states along with it.

Texas will be heard...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf

Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

In it to win it....

We are at ready in Texas @realDonaldTrump sit back and watch us work

So far the tally in GA adjudicated absentee ballots in these three counties alone are

Fulton: 106,000
Gwinnett: 80,000
Maricopa: 28,000

This is a direct reflection of the unconstitutional settlement entered into by @GaSecofState directly address in the lawsuit

People please stop DMing me that Arizona is supporting the Texas Lawsuit, they are not, they only filed an amicus brief to be heard at the proceedings, to defend their election results, which by the way aren't even questioned in this lawsuit. Brnovich is no friend of the Republic

AZ & NV are cases based on election fraud.

The Texas case is based on constitutionality

AZ election laws are so bizarre it's not worth risking being tossed over trying to include it. Same with Nevada.

These 4 States are on solid legal precedent for constitutional violations

When you go down the rabbit hole of Election Fraud, you open yourself up to be kicked down to a lower court for evidentiary hearings, there's no time for all that.

Texas is arguing straight violations of Article II, Section 1 Clause 2. There is no room for ambiguity there.

The violations of Article II, Section 1 Clause 2 are already documented and have been addressed in lower courts.

The Texas case is going straight at the direct violations of Article II, Section 1 Clause 2.

This case you don't have to prove fraud, just argue constitutionality

This paragraph here is all you need to know.

You ask five hard core constituionalists this question

Either the Constitution is real as you have defended your entire careers or you are all frauds and the US Constitution is just toilet paper

End of argument

See all for of these states have clearly written specific election laws, that the legislation of each state put into place with no severability clauses attached to any of them.

Any variance or changes without legislation, is a direct violation of Article II, Section 1 Clause 2

See criminals always get caught when they take it a step too far. Had they just did the dominion algorithm and stuffed the paper ballots to back u the numbers it would be tied up in court forever until the clock ran out & that was the original plan

But they went one step too far

When they unilaterally went to altering or changing legislation through executive action instead on congress they stepped over a line the can't backtrack on. Green is a heavy drug and makes you do stupid shit. This is what will bring them down.

Well it's officially a gun fight now, and the docket is full, the OK Corral is set, and it's now going to be up to the SCOTUS to decide.

I find this one particularly comical in a way. But The District of Columbia is trying to lead a charge. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163379/20201210144443769_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Motion%20and%20Br.%20of%20Amici%20DC%20et%20al.pdf

Texas's whole argument seemed to be that these states violated the US constitution by not changing election laws through the legislature.

Then the states come back and state that Texas is trying to dictate how other states run their elections, which isn't the case.

Texas is defending the US Constitution plain and simple and is asking the SCOTUS to decide whether the US Constitution is a real living Document or just an old piece of parchment on display in a museum.

This will be a monumental case in American History.

If any one thinks this case will just be tossed or punted they are insane. This has turned out to be the biggest case in SCOTUS History.

Now you know why it was so important to get Amy Coney Barrett seated. There is no room for a tie in this case.

Over and over and over this responses against Texas claim that Texas "dislikes the results of the election", and that is the core motive for filing suit.

That type of response is not gonna fly with SCOTUS, because this is asking for a strict interpretation of the US Constitution

PA basically has said "our biased lower courts in PA made sketchy decisions without reviewing facts, you should listen to them too Supreme Court"

That's a great defense especially to a Judicial body made up of five hard core constututionalists.

Here's a link to the Docket and all the links to the actual documents

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

The PA brief was written with panache. I was impressed they put that together in two days. Of course they had the 3rd circuit ruling in Kelly to fall back on.

Pennsylvania says Texas' request to invalidate its election is a "seditious abuse of the judicial process" and urges the court to "send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated."

So Pennsylvania's response basically says Texas has lied to the Supreme Court.

They basically make the argument that changing the election laws not through legislative action is fine because they were temporary changes....uhhh, don't think that's how laws work

Sorry I'm so far behind, I've been trying to do a little fundraising, locally to get in the fight myself, it's just tough these days given the economic state currently.

The Pennsylvania response seems to go way off in the weeds off topic about vote fraud. This suit is about election law and the constitution.

These states were warned by Alito that working outside of lawful processes was risky. They ignored that.

PA's pleading is just a lot of vitriol, too much vitriol in my opinion, but they are at the heart of the problem & they have their lower court ruling on ACT 77 overhead

I swear it's almost as if they didn't even read it themselves. Kinda like a lot on the left that keep saying Texas is suing about fraud. The defense might be more damning than the actual accusations claimed.

They literally admit to breaking the law as their defense

PA's pleading is just as expected, per usual, a case of facts vs. feelings disguised as facts.

Texas is saying PA's extension of the postmark date violated State legislation that required no ballots RECEIVED after 8pm on Nov 3rd to be counted.

PA's response They were "entitled" to rely on the State Supreme Court's decision to extend the deadline due to COVID.

It was fairly predictable that would be their reasoning to rely on the state supreme court because they don't have an actual legal defense of that action.

The COVID defense was 100% predictable, because the ore we look at the actual Pandemic the more we see the left using it as a tool to grab power at every level of government

In a very Quick Sidebar, the FBI has suddenly decided to subpoena Texas AG Ken Paxton over bribery charges that are being alleged by leftist in Texas.

Chris Wray is trying to intervene in his own way

All this crap about baseless claims? They are very easy to prove in many of the 4 states being sued. Many of there election officials have already admitted to them on TV and in the press.

I'm happy to list just a few examples -

The Republican election officials in Michigan didn't even want to certify the vote in Wayne County where Detroit is until they started receiving death threats from the Dems.

They could not get the counts correct with the voter registrations, that was highly publicised.

The Secretary of State of Georgia signed a decent decree not to audit signatures on mail in ballots but their election law says they have to...The legislature did not approve that.

Wisconsin has strict laws that state mail in ballots have to be requested, yet they got mailed out everywhere without requests. Same in Pennsylvania. Voters can only get a mail in ballot there with an excuse per their laws...

I think all 4 of these states election officials hosed themselves when they went on an all out media blitz gloating about how well they handled the election, some were so giddy about Biden's win, they couldn't help themselves.

They would have been better off to say they followed all the laws in the state, but they went into detail describing the changes they made that went against the laws in their states.

In summary

"We don't have to follow the law because of COVID, it's okay that we didn't follow that law because we can tell you but not let you investigate that there was no fraud, our state constitutions are just pieces of paper & we can do things that go against what it says"

PA didn't follow their laws. Their SOS didn't have the authority to change things.

Using Covid as a defense is laughable when the upper elites of the Democrat Party are on Video thumbing their noses at COVID and the very restrictions they want to impose on the little people

Don't need data show mail-in voting favored dems. They were telling their voters to do that from the beginning. We've hearing from USPS workers & election officials in multiple states that truck loads of ballots were driven across state lines & delivered in the dark of night

PA is literally citing the PA court's insane decision that "the lack of a handwritten date" is a "minor defect" that "does not void the ballot"

Alito specifically reprimanded them for this.

Then they go all in they're doubling and quadrupling down on their open defiance of Alito's order

Bottom line is the Supreme court has to weigh in on the elector clause. They can throw everything else out but there has to be clear definition of who can and can't set election rules. If they don't it's going to be the wild wild west for future elections.

Interesting argument here from officials in Idaho and AZ completely separate from the State AG from AZ Mark Brnovich

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163407/20201210153740090_FINAL%20TO%20FILE%20SCOTUS%20%20SIGNED%202020.12.10%20copy.pdf

The Amici elected officials thus have a distinct perspective on the harms asserted by Plaintiff, and the Amici brief includes relevant material not brought to the attention of the Court by the parties that may be of considerable assistance to the Court. See Sup. Ct. R. 37.1.

Specifically, the brief describes how Article IV, Section 4 demands the requested relief in light of a myriad of evidence of election fraud.

The Guarantee Clause places an obligation upon the United States to ensure that such an illegal election not be carried to fruition.

This Court is the only forum available to any state for the enforcement of (1) the obligation put forth by Article 4, Section 4, that the Union enjoy an actual republican form of government, and (2) the broader principle of fair and honest elections.

The Amici elected officials therefore seek leave to file this brief in order to support Plaintiff State of Texas' showing that there is no adequate remedy at law; that absent the requested relief the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply…

…uncertain election results; and the U.S. House of Representatives will count those votes on January 6, tainting the election and casting into doubt the assurance of free elections in this country.

Said more succinctly,

Plaintiff will suffer serious and irreparable harm unless the injunctive relief herein requested, is granted

The application of the Guarantee Clause to the facts before this Court. It is an issue not raised by the State of Texas in its filings. The Guarantee Clause directs the United States to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." U.S. Const., Art.

IV, 4.

The word "republic" derives from the Latin, res publica, meaning "the thing of the people." As stated in Federalist 57: "The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government."

Federalist 39 makes clear that the essential element of a republic is the appointment of the officers of the government by the great body of the people through a process based on rule of law.

As the facts alleged by the State of Texas demonstrate, the 2020 elections in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin represent the antithesis of a republican form of government.

An elite group of sitting Democrat officers in each of the Defendant States coordinated with the Democrat party to illegally and unconstitutionally change the rules established by the Legislatures in the Defendant States, thereby depriving the people of their states a free…

…and fair election the very basis of a republican form of government.

This Idaho and AZ LT Gov brief is very compelling and a great piece of work well done

All of you libs who say that this case has zero merit & Paxton should be disbarred for filing it, there are tons of briefs in support & few in opposition, Seems like a lot of other parties agree that this has legs at a minimum

Act77 was crafted specifically to be non-severable. It states in the Act itself if 1 part failed, the entire Act was null & void. PA supreme court completely ignored that provision when they said "8:00PM the day of the election" didn't really mean 8:00 PM the day of the election

In a completely separate filing Bryan Cutler, Speaker Of The Pennsylvania House Of Representatives, And Kerry Benninghoff, Majority Leader Of The Pennsylvania House Of Representatives As Amici Curiae In Support Of Plaintiff

They basically go through and explain how the PA State Supreme Court eviscerated the carefully written legislative text passed just last year Act77. This basically helps take care of some of the arguments that these claims have been heard in lower courts

So, here you have the PA speaker of the house, & the PA majority leader of the house, arguably the most important members of the PA legislature, saying that the PA SC usurped the PA legislatures authority to select electors under Article 2, section 1, by rewriting election law.

It's Liberal Lawyers responses like this "Texas has joined the cacophony"

SCOTUS expects more gravitas than just throwing shit on the opposition.

Reading some of the opposition is like feeding time at the monkey cages at your local Zoo.

Lawyers do tend to have logorrhea. Often to their disadvantage. What you can say in court as part of opening or closing statements is one thing. What you say to the SCOTUS is altogether different. This isn't an episode of Judge Judy, this is the highest court in the land

Article 2, section 1, clause 2 is very specific:

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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of…

…Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

When the executive branch ignores the laws of the legislature, or the courts interpret the laws of the legislature so far outside of the intent of the legislature that they are rewriting the laws, Article 2, section 1, clause 2 is no longer being followed.

Did that happen?

Many say yes and a few say no

Now it's up to the SCOTUS to decide

I think the Democrats rolled the dice with Biden and felt like their only shot at winning was asking for forgiveness rather than permission. I pray the SCOTUS gives them a lesson in the Constitution and it burns their Party to the ground.

Here are dimple questions:

Which rules are Texas attempting to retroactively amend?

Who establishes valid voting procedures?

Do you believe in the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution?

Are state, district and appeals courts the final say in legal matters? Specifically those involving disputes between the states?

The US Constitution is the contract individual Americans have with one another in our individual capacity as the ultimate grantors of authority in this great nation. This is the sacred foundation that the great wisdom of the founders had when they penned it 244 years ago

The argument that the states have the right to do their own thing has one piece of opposition some people are overlooking.

Article IV of the US Constitution

The United States shall **guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government**, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

The secondary argument in this is, if states are allowed to not enforce election laws, it's not fair to the states that do. The cheating effectively disenfranchises the voters in other states that do enforce election laws. Lack of equal protection. Bush v Gore

Here lies the root of the equal protections argument. Citizens in other states have to deal with the consequences of a handful of states malfeasance and elected officials they didn't select. This is important all the way down to the individual states that varied county to county

This should be straight-forward. Either these states followed the rules set forth by their legislature, or they didn't. If they didn't, the remedy is to not certify the results and send the election to the House.

Only then would the correct people "suffer the consequences" of the actions of their elected officials.

I'm sorry libs but any attempt to change the Constitution without going through the formalized amendment process is void ab initio, it's really pretty damn simple.

PA did not follow the previous precedent set by previous legislatures in the process of amending the PA Constitution in regards to absentee ballots. They have a clear set of steps that not only involved the legislature, but required a vote by the public and they ignored it.

The previous legislature recognized that they had limits of their power to change the Constitution & had to amend the Constitution in the correct way. "Act 77" didn't do it.

This case argument is still pending in the SCOTUS where Alito only denied the injunctive relief

https://twitter.com/PhillDKline/status/1337258462150057986?s=20

Texas has replied

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163497/20201211110907446_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163498/20201211111125165_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf

If you read it it’s Pretty straightforward. Texas is seeking relief by just qualifying elect doors from the four states in seeking this Supreme Court to take it to the house under the 12th amendment basically

If you read it it pretty straight forward Texas is seeking relief asking the Supreme Court to block electors from these four states taking it to the 12th amendment and the house of representatives to seat the president. Sorry for the last tweet I was typing by voice

WTF is this?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163506/20201211114620451_Amicus%202020-12-11.pdf

I listened to the Wisc case today & The attorney for Biden admits executive branch officials “modified” (i.e., re-wrote the statute by executive fiat) the law pertaining to a voter’s status as “indefinitely confined.”

DIrect violation of Art 2 Sec 1 Clause 2

And not only that, what Biden's attorney just admitted to in court on the record, according to this, would nullify those votes.

More joining in Motion of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 125 Other Members for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163550/20201211132250339_Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20126%20Representatives%20--%20corrected.pdf

I really need to comment on these highlighted parts this is very significant to Michigan

Basically "our numbers are way off, we don't know why, but that can happen for innocent reasons so no harm, no foul"

What a load of crap

Also, 174,000 votes not being tied to a registered voter is insane!!!! They were just printing ballots they have no way to tie them to an actual registered voter! WTF

Also like them calling out the BS highlighted in pink. Promised an audit and then backed out after Certified

Texas is saying that the problem is that the states illegally relaxed election standards.

While there is no smoking gun of fraud, there are many indications of fraud to warrant review.

Texas is doing a good job of demonstrating that the other side has gamed the system here, using a combination of lack of harm pre election and the constitutional deadlines post election to make it very difficult to get a fair shot in court.

Texas addresses the slight of hand related to the rejection rates.

The rejection rates that the SoS relies on for historical precedent are related to absentee ballots.

The historical rejection rates of mail-in ballots is significantly higher (3.3%) than absentee ballots. However, the rejection rates in the 2020 election for mail-in ballots was significantly less than 1%. So, the SoS was purposely deceiving using lies, damn lies, and statistics.

This is a shot to the gut, and the defendants have shown very little defense.

The paragraph just above that last highlight is important

Calling out the worst argument made by the opposition, Wisconsin's argument that the legislature implicitly agreed to changes by the executive and judicial branches by doing what exactly? They didn't vote on it so how?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf