Texas Files Lawsuit at SCOTUS Against GA, PA, MI, and WI

[LordBrownTrout]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.

www.breitbart.com

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:​

​

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.​

…​

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 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. 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.​

​

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.​

Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.

No, you're wrong again. Illinois gets that honor. I don't think you've ever been right.

 

[Cellblock2429]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

/———/ Of course they have standing if the other state violates the constitution.
Article III of the Constitution has a small number of categories of cases where the Supreme Court has what’s called “Original Jurisdiction.” One of the categories involved “Controversies between two or more states,” and the suit Texas has filed is precisely that.
Read it here: Texas 2020 Election Lawsuit Against Four States Goes Directly To US Supreme Court

 

[Claudette]

Good for Texas. Lets hope the SC takes a look at this fraudulent election cause there is all kinds of evidence out there. And those states did indeed not follow the constitution.

"Evidence" you say. Do you have a law degree and years of legal experience in the American court system? If so, explain to us why American courts and American judges are pitching Trump's suits and claims of fraud into the dumper. Bigly!!!

LMAO What those states did is on another thread on this board. Look it up. What they did was totally unconstitutional. Alito is already looking at PA.

 

[Billiejeens]

Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.

www.breitbart.com

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:​

​

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.​

…​

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 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. 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.​

​

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.​

Texas is the crookedest state in the union. Texas has no standing as they cannot prove any harm.

Asking for more consistency and uniformity in the Electors Clause is “crooked”? How? The lawsuit brought on by Texas will most likely not change the outcome of the ‘20 Election but it will give US some necessary structure around voting integrity moving forward and not having future elections be conducted like some third world, banana republic.

The state of Texas has no standing and cannot demonstrate any harm. Any structure is up to the individual states Texas has no say in this. You are the ones who are trying to turn this into a third world banana republic. These arguments have been rejected by federal and state judges. Republican and Democrat and even judges appointed bt Trump.

The process is being worked. Again, I am more concerned with future elections and having integrity in place and not ad hoc extensions surrounding Mail-In Ballots from Battle Ground states. The ad hoc , changing of rules outside of process and structure is what I feel is third world. We as a Nation are better than that.

We can also talk about the corruption of the Post Office. Trump deliberately tried to slow down the mail so a few days extension was more than justified.

There is simply absolutely no evidence for that,

 

[Billiejeens]

The moron with an Augusto Pinochet avatar is advocating a coup d’etat. Will wonders never cease?

"Coup d'etat" in crook speak means stopping the theft of the presidential election through the Supreme Court.
Go change your diapers, little baby. Crying will do you no good.

That doesn't ever stop him.

 

[Skylar]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.

That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.

Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.

And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.

It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.

Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.

If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.

The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.

Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.

Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.

Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?

All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.

Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.

Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.

This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.

No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.

There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.

Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.

Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.

Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER

The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.

I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.

it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.

What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.

The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.

The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.

Yes, they have.

So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?

The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.

The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.

The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.

Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.

You're still stuck at square one.

It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.

You are just flailing now.

Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.

yet the arguments are being heard.

WAH.

No, they aren't. No writ has been issued.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.

People calling it fraud are way off base.

Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?

After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?

I do not think so.

And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?

Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?

There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.

Voters Constitutional rights were violated. That is the issue. All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction. That did not happen.

This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights. This should not be about team politics.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.

Try again.

Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.

Oh... a state court. I can't think of one. Of course there could be some case in RI or New Mexico
I'm not aware of. It's not pertinent, however in this context. So you really have no point at all, in reality.

 

[Billiejeens]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

Did you ever stop to think that they didn't look???

The issues were thoroughly adjudicated in the state courts. They found no such violations.

Factually false

 

[Claudette]

Allowing citizens to vote by mail during a pandemic emergency is not fraud.

People calling it fraud are way off base.

Will the candidates in the primary using this method be invalidated, and special election winners be evicted, along with all the candidates in the Nov 3 election be invalidated?

After the citizens were told by their govt that it was legal and to vote that way?

I do not think so.

And if it did go to the legislature or house, wouldnt they be obligated on their electors chosen, to be the electors of the citizen's choice...who clearly did choose Biden, not Trump, but a technicality and not fraud by the citizens, is the complaint?

Why weren't the constitutionality complaints brought and settled during the primaries and before the Nov elections?

There is no way the SC would change and usurp the will of the people at this point.

Voters Constitutional rights were violated. That is the issue. All legally cast votes should be considered exactly the same regardless of jurisdiction. That did not happen.

This is a very serious Constitutional question that must be resolved to protect all of our Rights. This should not be about team politics.

Yup those States, by doing what they did, disenfranchised the entire election.

 

[Billiejeens]

No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

Right .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.

Jesus he's thick. LOL

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

 

[Billiejeens]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.

That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.

Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.

And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.

It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.

Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.

If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.

The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.

Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.

Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.

Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?

All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.

Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.

Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.

This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.

Factually false

 

[Billiejeens]

Or....anyone with an even casual understanding of how the law works.

You bluff so well.

Factually False

 

[iceberg]

Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.

Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.

Remember?

Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.

Try again.

Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-supreme-court-rules-florida-top-court-violated-constitution-1.252175

wonder if they had a "writ".

 

[Claudette]

No, it isn't. The Supreme can, and most likely will....just ignore it. They are under no obligation to rule on any of Texas' suit.

Right .... the Supreme Court will just ignore this all like it never happened.

Jesus he's thick. LOL

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

Alito is already looking at PA and because its a direct violation of the Constitution you can bet the SC will look at every State Texas named. What those States did disenfranchised the entire election.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It is true that the SCOTUS could decide to not take the case.

Yes. It's literally possible. But very very unlikely given the consequences of letting the left cheat their
way to victory. The rest of the country would be devastated and dispirited.

And it sets a precedent that is deadly for a so called nation of laws. The Supreme Court would be
slitting their own wrists.

 

[Thunk]

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court

"Texas brought a suit against four states that did something they cannot do: they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election. And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted. The four defendant states are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.”

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

Thus, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause. Similarly, when Georgia’s Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release (i.e. a consent decree) with the Democratic Party of Georgia, and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Electors Clause."


Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law. It is not dependent upon disputed facts. Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.

Kobach: Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court

On Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court that is the most important election challenge yet.

www.breitbart.com

 

[martybegan]

This can't be serious. Texas has no standing to sue another state on that state's conduct under state law. Texas has no interest in another state's decision to send out ballot applications, nor any interest in whether those who received ballots in response to submitting the application returned those ballots, or how these ballots were handled once received. The pols who run the Texas government become more and more bizarre each day.

They have standing if they believe fraudulent practices in other States made their EV's worthless.

No do not haqve standing and they cannot demonstrate any harm. The arguments are the same ones that Trump has beem making ad nauseum and been thrown out ad nauseum.

Their EC votes have been countered by illegal changes to voting laws in the States in question.

Illegal according to who? Not the States in question. The issues of the legality of the election have been adjudicated and found to be within the authority of State officials. With the elections being legal, authoritative and certified.

Texas is demanding the Supreme Court to overrule the Pennsylvania on its OWN rulings on its OWN laws.

Good luck with that.

So State officials said they did things legally because they said they did things legally.

A circular argument from a circle jerk.

Save of course, that the states in question have their own courts to adjudicate such issues in. And none of those courts have found any such 'violations'.

So I ask again, illegal according to who? Not the States in question. And Texas has no authority to rule on the elections of other States.

So where is the violation?

The SC gets to answer this. The SC has constitutional authority to determine if the legislatures set the election rules, or some other branch.

Why are you so scared of all this?

So no violation. That was easy.

And the Supreme Court overruling say, Pennsylvania on the application of Pennsylvania election laws, delaying the electoral vote, and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters on behalf of the people of Texas seems.....wildly unlikely.

The courts added rules the legislature didn't. violation.

Says who? Again, no State court in any of the named States has found any such violation.

The same State courts that said it was OK to do it. More circular reasoning.

That's called due process. If you feel a state law wasn't implemented correctly, the state courts adjudicate the issue and come to a ruling.

Which is exactly what happened in every state. And no violation was ever found.

And yes, State courts get to rule on State laws.

It's amazing the corruption you put up with when it suits your interest.

Disagreeing with your pseudo-legal chatter isn't 'corruption'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Except when the procedures in question are dictated by the US Constitution, and thus why Texas went to the SC, which is the sole arbiter of disputes between the States.

If the suit were filed by a State Legislature from one of the named States, you might have a point. But it isn't. There are no parties with standing claiming any violation.

The issues have been adjudicated within the state and no violations have been found.

Again, Marty.....you're buying into Theater for Dipshits. And you are most definitely among the target audience.

Some State legislators are filing actions or trying to pass resolutions.

Why does that preclude Texas from going this route if they feel their constitutional rights as a State have been violated?

All of your posts equate to "nothing to see here, move along" Because you wouldn't want to find out any fraud even it it happened, because you won.

Because Texas lacks standing for the application of other states election laws.

Members of the state legislature of a given state may have standing for election laws in their own state.

This suit is theater for dipshits, Marty. And you're front row, center.

No, they don't because the Constitution guarantees them equal footing with regards to how EC processes are supposed to be implemented. By the legislatures of each State.

There have been no violations ever found of any state election law by any state court.

Texas doesn't have a say in other states laws.

Again, Texas's point is the State courts and executives have no ability to change the election laws and regulations, and again, you are saying the foxes are guaranteeing the security of the henhouse.

Btw, I got OCD I can keep this circle up FOR FUCKING EVER

The 'point' is laughably, comcially wrong. As Texas doesn't have any standing in how another state implements its own election laws.

I'm saying there has never been a 'fox' ever found. No state has ever found a violation of their state election laws in regards to the complaint by Texas.

it does because it is impacted by fraudulent or illegal procedures done by other States, which negate it's EV's.

What fraud? What 'illegal procedures'?

Again, these issues have been thoroughly adjudicated in the respective states. And neither has ever been found.

The States are the ones being accused of not following US Constitutional Procedures. They don't get to say they didn't break the rules.

The rules are internal to the States themselves. And the question of whether or not the rules have been followed has been asked and answered by the States themselves.

Yes, they have.

So again, what fraud are you talking about? What 'illegal procedures'?

The rules are made by the US Constitution, which Texas says is violated by these States.

The EV process is mandated by the US Constitution, and the SC has the duty to adjudicate disputes based on this.

The States used courts and executives to change election practices, without legislative changes. Only the legislatures in the States can set election laws with regards to presidential elections for electors.

Again, no violations of state election law have been found. No fraud has been found. Nor does Texas have standing to challenge any such issues in another State.

You're still stuck at square one.

It's up to the SC to find that the changes violated the US Constitution's assignment of EV laws and procedures to the State legislatures.

You are just flailing now.

Given that no writ has been issued, I'm just acknowledging what is.

The case is being made, asking for a writ at this point is just trying to ignore the merits.

 

[Billiejeens]

Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.

Bush v Gore was the last case I can remember in which basic matters of election fraud and denied equal protection was addressed by the court.

Remember?

Bush V. Gore wasn't adjudicated by a State court.

Try again.

Feel free to show us a case in which the election was found to be illegal by any State court.

Damn you're dumb

 

[BlindBoo]

Officials in Georgia — where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the state's election results again Monday after a recount — were quick to dismiss Paxton's allegations, as were leaders in the other three states named in the lawsuit.

"The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible," Georgia's deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. "Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen."

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton's suit as "a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading."

"Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas," she said

In new lawsuit, Texas contests election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the battleground states from casting "unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes" in the Electoral College. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, experts say.

www.texastribune.org