The Supreme Court is rejecting Texas’ efforts to cancel the election in a fatal blow to Trump’s legal offensive to stop Biden

On Friday, the US Supreme Court annulled the lawsuit filed by the state of Texas that sought to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory in four glamorous states.

President Donald Trump He called the “big issue.”126 out of 196 Republicans in the House of Representatives urged the court to take it. But the judges moved quickly to reject it.

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially recognized interest in the way another state conducts its elections,” the court said in a brief, unsigned opinion.

Judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said the court did not have the authority to dismiss a case that was filed in its original schedule, with one country suing another. But they said this was not giving Texas any further waiver and they have not expressed an opinion on any of the issues raised in the lawsuit.

So the ruling was essentially a unanimous rejection of the Texas claims.

See Trump campaign supporters Texas suit As their best hope to derail Joe Biden’s victory before the actual presidential vote by the Electoral College on Monday.

No state has asked the court to do what Texas has proposed, to nullify election results from other states. The lawsuit sought to delay the presidential vote in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, arguing that voting procedures in those states violated their state laws.

Texas said they were allowed to cast their electoral vote.Entrenching a potentially illegal election result.

Both conservative and liberal legal experts alike said the lawsuit had a fatal flaw, because Texas does not have the power to claim that it was injured or that its voters were affected in any way by another state’s election procedures.

READ  Tennessee fired soccer coach amid investigation

Pennsylvania made this point when it urged the court to dismiss the case.

“Texas hasn’t been hurt just because it doesn’t like the election result,” Pennsylvania said, “and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the way four other states conduct their elections.” .

Other battlefield states said allowing the lawsuit to continue would trigger lawsuits over any future federal elections.

In its response to the lawsuit, the state said, “Texas proposes extraordinary interference in the elections of Wisconsin and the other defendant states, a task the constitution leaves to each state.” “Wisconsin has held its elections and its voters have chosen a winning candidate for their state. Texas’s attempt to overturn this choice is devoid of any legal basis or factual basis.”

The lawsuit was filed on Monday by Ken Paxton, a Texas attorney general. Among her claims was that Biden’s chances of winning were “less than one chance in a quadrillion”. This statement was widely mocked, as it was based on a statistical assumption that voters showed exactly the same party preferences as they did in 2016.

“Fabulous!” David Post of the Libertarian Cato Institute has written in a conservative legal blog. “If email voters had the same preferences as personal voters, then Trump must have won !! And if my aunt had four wheels, it would be a car!”

The four battlefield states, joined by friends of the court briefs from Democratic prosecutors from 20 states and the District of Columbia, said Texas had waited far too long to present its claim to court.

READ  Nigeria: Gunmen kidnap students in a new kidnapping operation

Several new voting procedures, such as the step taken by the Pennsylvania legislature to allow unexcused voting by mail, were adopted months ago. They were also challenged without success in the courts of the four states, which is another point against the Texas suit.

The Texas lawsuit attracted support from prosecutors in 16 other red states. One notable exception was Ohio’s Republican Attorney General, Dave Yost. He said that the federal courts “lack the authority to change the legislatively chosen method for appointing presidential electors.”

Mark Gordon, the Republican governor of Wyoming, where Trump received 70% of the vote, said he and his attorney general refused to sign the Red State Memorandum.

“We believe the issue could have unintended consequences in relation to a constitutional principle dear to the state of Wyoming, which is that states are sovereign and free to govern themselves,” he said.

Trump and Republicans in seven states have so far filed nearly 60 lawsuits challenging the election procedures, but not a single outcome has changed.

Once voters cast their ballots on Monday, lawsuits face greater odds against a reversal of Biden’s victory, said John Furter, an election law expert at the Center for Bipartisan Policy in Washington.

“I think the answer is that the judicial appeals went well.”

Written By
More from Wesley Mack

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *