2020 Presidential Election, TEXAS v. PENNSYLVANIA, et. al.

Back to Articles

Both the media and the courts have been dismissive of numerous claims of election irregularities and even fraud. In a divided nation where millions of people question the validity of the past election, the lawsuit filed by the State of Texas gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to weigh-in and hopefully to provide clarity.

The State of Texas has brought a suit in the Supreme Court against the States of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, challenging their method of conducting the 2020 presidential election. The complaint and supporting brief are 92 pages, but of great importance to all of us. The complaint alleges that each defendant State violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment in that they took or allowed non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these violations, the integrity of the election results is now in question, citing a number of irregularities that have been cited in lawsuits that were brought in these States.

The complaint states that the State of Texas and its voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes form each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state, See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983). In a presidential election, “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U.S. at 795. The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 105 (2000).

The complaint further alleges that non-legislative actors lack authority to amend or nullify election statutes, that equal protection prohibits the use of differential standards in the treatment of tabulation of ballots within a State, and by failing to comply with the standards of existing election law, these States violate the Due Process Clause.

The prayer for relief is 1) Declare the Defendant States administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the electors clause and the 14th Amendment, 2) Declare that electoral votes cast by electors appointed in these States to be in violation of the Constitution and cannot be counted, 3) Enjoin the Defendant States from using the election results to appoint electors, 4) Authorize Defendant States to either conduct a special election or by other means appoint electors in a manner that does not violate the Constitution or to appoint no electors at all.

The accompanying brief deals with arguments as to Standing, Mootness, Ripeness, Laches, and Non-Judiciable Political Questions.

Unlike many of the previous State lawsuits claiming acts of fraud which were summarily dismissed by State and federal courts without discovery and hearing before the court on the merits, this suit is different. It claims that the issues presented are not fact-bound nor complex, but are of vital importance and present a question of law that can be quickly decided.

The Court has given Defendant States until 3 PM December 10, 2020 to file responses.

So far, the State of Missouri has submitted an Amicus brief in support of Texas’ position. This brief has been adopted by the States of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. With Texas, this makes a total of 18 States that are requesting the Supreme Court address the issues raised by the complaint filed by Texas.