Go to home page

Gigantic Battle over Election Fraud Shapes Up Around Texas Suit

Dec. 9, 2020 (EIRNS)—Today, the Attorneys General of seventeen states, led by Missouri’s Eric Schmitt, filed briefs before the Supreme Court in support of Texas’s suit against the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin for the massive irregularities and illegalities documented in their conduct of the Presidential election. Joining Missouri in the brief are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

President Donald Trump had tweeted in the morning that he, too, would intervene in the Texas case, because, as he put it, the Texas suit is “the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” And so he did this afternoon, filing a separate “Motion to Intervene In his Personal Capacity as Candidate for Re-election to the Office of President,” presenting his own Bill of Complaint in support of the Texas suit. His motion opens by situating the import of this fight: “Our Country is deeply divided in ways that it arguably has not been seen since the election of 1860. There is a high level of distrust between the opposing sides, compounded by the fact that, in the election just held, election officials in key swing states, for apparently partisan advantage, failed to conduct their state elections in compliance with state election law, in direct violation of the plenary power that Article II of the U.S. Constitution confers on the Legislatures of the States.”

The Supreme Court had already placed the Texas case on its docket, and ordered the four defendant states to submit their responses to Texas’s filing by 3 pm on Thursday, Dec. 10.

The Wall Street/City of London enemies of the American Republic were already hysterical before today’s new filings. Bloomberg published an op-ed yesterday afternoon by Harvard law Professor Noah Feldman, who had been dismissing the Trump campaign’s lawsuits as going for weeks, now screaming that Texas was “ask[ing] the Supreme Court for a coup.” A group of 17 fervent “Never Trumpers” representing the Anglophile Establishment then rushed to file their own brief before the Supreme Court as amici of the four Democrat-run defendant states, urging the Supreme Court to deny any injunctive relief for the Trump campaign.

By later in the day, two more had been filed, one by Constitutional lawyers in support of the Texas initiative, another by the Attorney General of Arizona seeking leave of the Court to file a brief which will first argue “every voter” in a federal election “has a right under the Constitution

to have his [or her] vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes,” and second, that should the Court hear the Texas motion, it is critical that the Court resolve the matter “quickly to give the Nation certainty.”

In their Amici Curiae brief, the 17 states shape their arguments around three “strong interests” which they consider to be constitutional questions of such great public importance that they warrant Supreme Court review. Those interests are: “preserving the proper roles of state legislatures in the administration of federal elections, and thus safeguarding the individual liberty of their citizens; ... ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not diluted by the unconstitutional administration of elections in other states; safeguarding against fraud in voting by mail during Presidential elections.”

President Trump’s filing concludes by asking the Supreme Court to take the following principal measures of relief:

“A. Declare that Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause.

“B. Declare that any Electoral College votes cast by such Electors appointed in the Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and cannot be counted.

“C. Enjoin Defendant States and their respective officials from using the constitutionally-infirm 2020 election results for the office of President to appoint Electors to the Electoral College, unless the legislatures of Defendant States review the 2020 election results and decide by legislative resolution to use those results in a manner to be determined by the legislatures that is consistent with the Constitution”; and

“D. If any of the Defendant States have already appointed Electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct that such States’ legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, §1, cl. 2, have the authority to appoint a new set of Electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause, or to appoint no Electors at all.”

Back to top    Go to home page clear