Texas Suing 4 States

Can a state sue another state? The short answer is yes it can, and the state of Texas is having a go against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. It has asked to be heard in the Supreme Court and they have a very well written case that gets right to the heart of the impropriety of the mail in voting.

Anyone who tries to claim that there were no anomalies or impropriety in these 4 states mail in voting, needs to read the allegations contained in the law suit. Texas is challenging the Supreme Court to take action.

The suit starts with a quote

“That form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics”

John Adams

It then goes straight to the Bill of Complaint

“Our Country stands at an important crossroads.
Either the Constitution matters and must be followed,
even when some officials consider it inconvenient or
out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on
display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to
choose the former.”

This is the challenge to the Supreme court where it is challenging them to disregard the constitution!

It goes on with a summery of the situation

Lawful elections are at the heart of our
constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the
candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in
ensuring that the selection of a President—any
President—is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the
American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud
hangs over the 2020 Presidential election

Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19
pandemic as a justification, government officials in
the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and
Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their
legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised
their state’s election statutes. They accomplished
these statutory revisions through executive fiat or
friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.
Finally, these same government officials flooded the
Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent
through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little
or no chain of custody and, at the same time,
weakened the strongest security measures protecting
the integrity of the vote—signature verification and
witness requirements.

“friendly Lawsuits” is saying something. We then get to the action where the Court is being asked to delay the deadline.

This Court is the only forum that can delay the
deadline for the appointment of presidential electors
under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy
at this unprecedented moment and restore public
trust in the presidential election, this Court should
extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant
States’ certification of presidential electors to allow
these investigations to be completed. Should one of
the two leading candidates receive an absolute
majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast
on December 14, this would finalize the selection of
our President. The only date that is mandated under

Following this is the nature of the action and again a challenge is laid out for the SCOTUS

  1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant
    States’ administration of the 2020 election under the
    Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and
    the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  2. This case presents a question of law: Did
    Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in
    the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by
    taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to
    change the election rules that would govern the
    appointment of presidential electors?

So what are the claims of impropriety?

  1. Each of Defendant States acted in a
    common pattern. State officials, sometimes through
    pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and
    sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced
    new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that
    were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining
    what constitutes a lawful vote.
  2. Defendant States also failed to segregate
    ballots in a manner that would permit accurate
    analysis to determine which ballots were cast in
    conformity with the legislatively set rules and which
    were not. This is especially true of the mail-in ballots
    in these States. By waiving, lowering, and otherwise
    failing to follow the state statutory requirements for
    signature validation and other processes for ballot
    security, the entire body of such ballots is now
    constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately
    used to determine allocation of the Defendant States’
    presidential electors.
  3. The rampant lawlessness arising out of
    Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described
    in a number of currently pending lawsuits in
    Defendant States or in public view including:
    • Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about:
    the physical blocking and kicking out of
    Republican poll challengers; thousands of the
    same ballots run multiple times through
    tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of
    thousands of ballots at tabulation centers;
    illegally backdating thousands of ballots;
    signature verification procedures ignored; more
    than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI
    center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;2
    • Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll
    challengers are removed from vote counting
    centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering
    vote counting centers—despite even having a
    court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being
    pulled out from underneath tables after poll
    watchers were told to leave.
    • Facts for which no independently verified
    reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1,
    2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB
    drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion
    voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a
    warehouse in Philadelphia

Ouch! But it gets better check out this one

  1. Expert analysis using a commonly
    accepted statistical test further raises serious
    questions as to the integrity of this election.
  2. The probability of former Vice President
    Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
    States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
    Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
    early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
    2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
    1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President
    Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of
    that event happening decrease to less than one in a
    quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in
  1. Put simply, there is substantial reason to
    doubt the voting results in the Defendant States.
  2. By purporting to waive or otherwise
    modify the existing state law in a manner that was
    wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s
    legislature, Defendant States violated not only the
    Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also
    the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that
    the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the
    Article II process of selecting presidential electors).
  1. The number of absentee and mail-in
    ballots that have been handled unconstitutionally in
    Defendant States greatly exceeds the difference
    between the vote totals of the two candidates for
    President of the United States in each Defendant
  2. In addition to injunctive relief for this
    election, Plaintiff State seeks declaratory relief for all
    presidential elections in the future. This problem is
    clearly capable of repetition yet evading review. The
    integrity of our constitutional democracy requires
    that states conduct presidential elections in
    accordance with the rule of law and federal
    constitutional guarantees.

So will SCOTUS accept the challenge? we now get into FACTS

  1. The use of absentee and mail-in ballots
    skyrocketed in 2020, not only as a public-health
    response to the COVID-19 pandemic but also at the
    urging of mail-in voting’s proponents, and most
    especially executive branch officials in Defendant
    States. According to the Pew Research Center, in the
    2020 general election, a record number of votes—
    about 65 million—were cast via mail compared to 33.5
    million mail-in ballots cast in the 2016 general
    election—an increase of more than 94 percent.

The lawsuit then highlights bi-partisan concernes with the security of mail in ballots. Very Clever.

  1. Concern over the use of mail-in ballots is
    not novel to the modern era, Dustin Waters, Mail-in
    Ballots Were Part of a Plot to Deny Lincoln Reelection
    in 1864, WASH. POST (Aug. 22, 2020),3 but it remains a
    current concern. Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election
    Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 194-96 & n.11 (2008); see also Texas
    Office of the Attorney General, AG Paxton Announces
    Joint Prosecution of Gregg County Organized Election
    Fraud in Mail-In Balloting Scheme (Sept. 24, 2020);
    Harriet Alexander & Ariel Zilber, Minneapolis police
    opens investigation into reports that Ilhan Omar’s
    supporters illegally harvested Democrat ballots in
    Minnesota, DAILY MAIL, Sept. 28, 2020.

The case goes on with specifics for each of the States. Firstly we have Pennsylvania

  1. Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes,
    with a statewide vote tally currently estimated at
    3,363,951 for President Trump and 3,445,548 for
    former Vice President Biden, a margin of 81,597 votes.
  2. The number of votes affected by the
    various constitutional violations exceeds the margin
    of votes separating the candidates.
  3. Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Kathy
    Boockvar, without legislative approval, unilaterally
    abrogated several Pennsylvania statutes requiring
    signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.
    Pennsylvania’s legislature has not ratified these
    changes, and the legislation did not include a
    severability clause.
  1. On August 7, 2020, the League of Women
    Voters of Pennsylvania and others filed a complaint
    against Secretary Boockvar and other local election
    officials, seeking “a declaratory judgment that
    Pennsylvania existing signature verification
    procedures for mail-in voting” were unlawful for a
    number of reasons.

What did the state do? they settled quickly

  1. The Pennsylvania Department of State
    quickly settled with the plaintiffs, issuing revised
    guidance on September 11, 2020, stating in relevant
    part: “The Pennsylvania Election Code does not
    authorize the county board of elections to set aside
    returned absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on
    signature analysis by the county board of elections.”
  1. This guidance is contrary to
    Pennsylvania law. First, Pennsylvania Election Code
    mandates that, for non-disabled and non-military
    voters, all applications for an absentee or mail-in
    ballot “shall be signed by the applicant.” 25 PA. STAT.
    §§ 3146.2(d) & 3150.12(c). Second, Pennsylvania’s
    voter signature verification requirements are
    expressly set forth at 25

“Shall” means it is required and there is no discretion.

But wait there is more!

  1. The Pennsylvania Department of State’s
    guidance unconstitutionally did away with
    Pennsylvania’s statutory signature verification
    requirements. Approximately 70 percent of the
    requests for absentee ballots were from Democrats
    and 25 percent from Republicans. Thus, this
    unconstitutional abrogation of state election law
    greatly inured to former Vice President Biden’s
  2. In addition, in 2019, Pennsylvania’s
    legislature enacted bipartisan election reforms, 2019
    Pa. Legis. Serv. Act 2019-77, that set inter alia a
    deadline of 8:00 p.m. on election day for a county
    board of elections to receive a mail-in ballot
  1. In addition, a great number of ballots
    were received after the statutory deadline and yet
    were counted by virtue of the fact that Pennsylvania
    did not segregate all ballots received after 8:00 pm on
    November 3, 2020. Boockvar’s claim that only about
    10,000 ballots were received after this deadline has no
    way of being proven since Pennsylvania broke its
    promise to the Court to segregate ballots and comingled perhaps tens, or even hundreds of thousands, of illegal late ballots.

Is the SCOTUS going to let the officials just ignore ruling?

  1. On December 4, 2020, fifteen members of
    the Pennsylvania House of Representatives led by
    Rep. Francis X. Ryan issued a report to Congressman
    Scott Perry (the “Ryan Report,” App. 139a-144a)
    stating that “[t]he general election of 2020 in
    Pennsylvania was fraught with inconsistencies,
    documented irregularities and improprieties
    associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and
    canvassing that the reliability of the mail-in votes in
    the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is impossible to
    rely upon.”
  1. The Ryan Report’s findings are startling,
    • Ballots with NO MAILED date. That total is
    • Ballots Returned on or BEFORE the Mailed
    Date. That total is 58,221.
    • Ballots Returned one day after Mailed Date.
    That total is 51,200.
    Id. 143a.
  2. These nonsensical numbers alone total
    118,426 ballots and exceed Mr. Biden’s margin of
    81,660 votes over President Trump. But these
    discrepancies pale in comparison to the discrepancies
    in Pennsylvania’s reported data concerning the
    number of mail-in ballots distributed to the
    populace—now with no longer subject to legislated
    mandated signature verification requirements.

and so finishing off with Pennsylvania the suit claims

  1. According to the U.S. Election
    Assistance Commission’s report to Congress Election
    Administration and Voting Survey: 2016
    Comprehensive Report, in 2016 Pennsylvania received
    266,208 mail-in ballots; 2,534 of them were rejected
    (.95%). Id. at p. 24. However, in 2020, Pennsylvania
    received more than 10 times the number of mail-in
    ballots compared to 2016. As explained supra, this
    much larger volume of mail-in ballots was treated in
    an unconstitutionally modified manner that included:
    (1) doing away with the Pennsylvania’s signature
    verification requirements; (2) extending that deadline
    to three days after Election Day and adopting a
    presumption that even non-postmarked ballots were
    presumptively timely; and (3) blocking poll watchers
    in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in violation of
    State law.

In the Next installment we will look at the case against Georgia

Loading spinner
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x