The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

More states back Texas election lawsuit

by Lynde Langdon
Posted 12/09/20, 06:12 pm

President Donald Trump and attorneys for 17 U.S. states filed briefs with the Supreme Court supporting Texas’ bid to keep Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin out of the upcoming Electoral College vote. The lawsuit accuses officials in those states, all of which have certified Joe Biden as winner, of making unconstitutional changes to voting procedures and undermining the integrity of the presidential election. If those four states sat out the Electoral College vote, neither Trump nor Biden would have the 270 electors needed to win, and state delegations to the House of Representatives could be tasked with picking the next president.

Does Texas have a case? The lawsuit raises questions about whether the executive branch of a state government can legally change election rules governing things like absentee ballot requests. Texas argues officials in Pennsylvania and its co-defendant states violated the U.S. Constitution’s provision giving power over the selection of presidential electors to state legislatures. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia agree with Texas. The Supreme Court could refuse to take the case for several reasons, including that the safe harbor deadline for states to certify their results and pick their electors has passed. It’s also unclear whether the justices would allow one state to sue another for how it enforces its laws. The high court requested a response from the defendant states by Thursday. The Electoral College vote is set for Monday.

Dig deeper: Read Kyle Ziemnick’s report in The Stew about what happens if no presidential candidate wins 270 Electoral College votes.


Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Lynde Langdon

Lynde is a WORLD Digital's managing editor. She is a graduate of World Journalism Institute, the Missouri School of Journalism, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Lynde resides with her family in Wichita, Kansas. Follow Lynde on Twitter @lmlangdon.

Read more from this writer

Comments

You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • NEWS2ME
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 07:54 am

    Voter Fraud Never Happens! (Except in These 10,000 Cases) by Ann Coulter

      https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2020/12/09/draft-n2581319

  • HANNAH.
    Posted: Fri, 12/11/2020 10:16 pm

    And check this out: "Hammer and ScoreCard switch 19,958 votes live on TV from Trump to Biden in the Pennsylvania Presidential Race. At the 00:04 mark, the video shows Trump 1,690,589 and Biden 1,252,537. The video then cycles through Wisconsin, Arizona and Michigan. It returns to Pennsylvania at the 00:40 mark. Trump now has 1,670,631 a loss of 19,958 votes and Biden is now at 1,272,495 after magically gaining the same amount."
    Hammer and ScoreCard in action. 20 000 Votes flip live on TV from Trump to Biden (bitchute.com)

  • NEWS2ME
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 08:02 am

     'The Big One': Trump Vows to Intervene in Texas Election Case

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/12/09/the-big-one-trump-...

  • Georganne
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 11:52 am

    To me it seems pretty simple.  If an executive branch has the power to change provisions in a law passed by the legislature , then what is the role of the legislature?

    In Pennsylvania, the legislature passed laws with the intent of making the election process as secure as possible.  Someone in the executive branch  decided the laws were unfair and changed aspects of the laws that directly affected the security of the election process.   Did the executive branch have the authority to do this?  If the executive branch has the power to do this, then we no longer have three co-equal branches of government.  We have a much more powerful executive branch than legislative branch.

    In addition,  Article II Section 1 (2) says "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 to in Congress:..."  In other words the Constituion specificly says that it is the legislature that has the authority to determine the voting process that determines the electors who are sent to the electoral college to vote for the president.

    This makes this issue a national issue rather than just a state issue, and I think it gives weight to the argument that Texas does have the authority to sue another state for violating the provisions of our national constitution.  States should not be able to opt out from following the constitution when it comes to the election of our national leaders.

  • My Two Cents
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 01:37 pm

    The article doesn't mention that Ken Paxton, the Texas AG who initiated this lawsuit, is under indictment himself for securities fraud. Could it be he is vying for a full presidential pardon? 

  • OldMike
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 02:50 pm

    This is a startling development, to me!  From a small group of Trump partisans and lawyers, active opposition to the election outcome has grown to a pretty large minority of the U.S!

     

  • TIM MILLER
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 03:07 pm

    I hope, for the sake of future elections, that this lawsuit is roundly repudiated by the Supreme Court. I think it's a dangerous precedent to have one state (or multiple states) try to overturn other states' election outcomes.

  • Allen Johnson
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 03:41 pm

    Does anyone realize that if the election is overturned and awarded a second term to Donald Trump, that violent civil war will break out in America to its ruin? The cities would burn, which would then bring out armed right-wing militias. It is impossible to believe that awarding the election to Trump would settle things peacefully.

    Donald Trump's psychotic narcissism prevents him from conceding defeat. But those who idolatrously follow Trump should recognize that they are willing to risk a civil war in order to salve Trump's sick ego. 
    Christians, please evaluate your loyalties. Jesus first as Lord? Or, Jesus get me to heaven but here on earth I have other masters, so stay out of the way?

  • Georganne
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 08:31 pm

    Allen, I don't "idolatrously follow Trump".  To be honest, his manner and his tweets turn me off.  But I am very concerned about following the Constitution.  If the Constitution is not the law of the land, then what is?  I also realize that overturning the apparent results of this election could cause all kinds of disruptions in this country including violence.  However, losing our constitution and losing our faith in the integrity of our electoral process could also cause very great disruptions and violence down the road.  There are no easy answers. 

  • Big Jim
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 06:25 pm

    This is a very interesting case. While I do not expect the US Supreme Court to change the election results, the suit does raise some very serious questions, some of which Georganne has pointed out. Simply, what happens if states "break the law" by changing election procedures in a way that is contrary to their own laws, their own state constitutions and/or the US Constitution?

    If states are allowed to do this, what's the limit? Are we just making up things as we go along? When is the law the law? On the other hand, if we repudiate the election results (at least for the states in question) what's the remedy? A new election? Or the disenfranchisement of millions of voters in those states?

    A very delicate issue. My guess is the US Supreme Court sidesteps the whole thing and makes up an excuse not to take the case. Which I think would be a shame because there are real issues here that need to be addressed.

    Allen Johnson brings up some real concerns, although I must say that the cities have already been burning and it's the Left that has been doing it.

  • OldMike
    Posted: Thu, 12/10/2020 11:06 pm

    If the election results are thrown out in certain states because election laws were broken, there is an issue of the voters being disenfranchised in those states.

    And I agree that IF the election was "won" unfairly, it should be overturned. Allowing lawbreakers to win because we are afraid of what they might do only opens the gate for far more abuses. It makes us a nation where force and fear determine who rules, like Cuba or Venezuela or China, rather than a Nation where fair laws apply equally to all. Yes, I'm sure there will be riots. Rioters will have to be arrested and punished. 

  • TIM MILLER
    Posted: Fri, 12/11/2020 04:51 pm

    I agree that if the election was won illegally it should be overturned. I do not agree on using another state in the US Supreme Court as the mechanism. In our federalist system, there is no "national election." The states appoint electors, and every state has chosen to do so by using its popular vote. How that operates is up to the voters and legislatures of that state, and complaints about fraud should go through that system. If they wind their way up to the Supreme Court through the system, or if they involve violation of federal law, that's one thing. This is not that.

    If Texas wants to challenge the electors from other states, their representatives are free to do that in Congress. They are free to work to amend the Constitution so that votes from Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc., do not count. Just be honest about what you're trying to do. (And Ken Paxton bringing this lawsuit is rich irony ... that's the equivalent of Biden appointing Hunter to root out fraud in the State Department.)

    And, by the way, I'm disappointed in the politicians who were willing to destroy our system and disenfranchise voters to curry favor with Trump. I like Marco Rubio, Tim Walberg, Mike Pence, etc. But these guys were willing, for political expediency, to join the conservative Antifa and throw bricks through the window and burn down our system. And then they're going to want our primary support in 2024!

    (I draw a huge distinction between voters, who don't and shouldn't have to spend countless hours investigating these claims, and politicians with law degrees who know better. I never appreciated Rush's cracks about "low information voters," because I think our system depends on an electorate not composed of professional pundits.)

    Anybody can say what your base wants to hear. Real leaders say what we need to hear, and these guys have miserably failed. I don't wear a red hat, but I love America. So do my Detroit neighbors. They have parents and grandparents who marched and suffered to gain their right to vote, and they take it seriously. Just because they don't vote the way you or I do doesn't make their vote illegitimate.

    The Trump campaign has lost repeatedly in court, by both conservative and liberal judges. They've circulated demonstrable falsehoods in public but not provided evidence in court (according to reasonable evidentiary standards). They have attempted to destroy careers of their supporters, like Georgia's governor and secretary of state, who weren't sufficiently convinced of the fraud claims.

    Why are they still running the party?

ADVERTISEMENT