Eighteen States Support Texas' Lawsuit Against Four Battleground States for Unconstitutional Election Rule Changes
(Minghui.org) Texas filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court on December 7, requesting to overturn the election results in four swing states, including Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. On December 9, 17 states led by Missouri filed an amicus brief and joined Texas' efforts to postpone the electors' nomination.
An amicus brief is a brief filed by an amicus curiae, who is “one (such as a professional person or organization) that is not a party to a particular litigation but that is permitted by the court to advise it in respect to some matter of law that directly affects the case in question,” according to Merriam-Webster.
Arizona filed a separate amicus brief on the same day, making it 18 states in total to support the lawsuit from Texas.
President Donald Trump also filed a motion on December 9 to challenge the election results from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” he wrote in a tweet in early December 9.
In the motion he filed, Trump said our nation had not been so divided since the election in 1860. Citing a poll from Rasmussen, he said 47% of the population (including75% Republicans and 30% Democrats) think the election has likely or very likely been stolen.
The amicus brief filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt was supported by the attorneys general in 16 states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisianan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
Texas' lawsuit accused the four swing states of violating the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates that only legislatures can set rules on electors' appointment and elections. The four battleground states' changing rules by court and state executive decisions not only violated the Constitution and legal rights of residents, but also jeopardized the election's integrity and led to severe fraudulence.
“Election integrity is central to our republic. And I will defend it at every turn. As I have in other cases - I will help lead the effort in support of Texas’ #SCOTUS filing today,” Schmitt wrote in a Tweet on December 8, “Missouri is in the fight.”
After filing the amicus brief on the following day, Schmitt explained it in a statement on the Missouri Attorney General’s website. “There are three main arguments in the brief. First, the separation of powers provision of the Constitution’s Elector’s Clause is a structural check on government that safeguards liberty. Second, stripping away safeguards of voting by mail can create risks of voter fraud. And, finally, the defendant states abolished critical safeguards against fraud in voting by mail,” he wrote.
"When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the ‘Legislature thereof’ in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election—including the citizens of amici States," wrote the brief.
“The Bill of Complaint alleges that non-legislative actors in each Defendant State unconstitutionally abolished or diluted statutory safeguards against fraud enacted by their state Legislatures, in violation of the Presidential Electors Clause,” the brief explained.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a separate brief also on December 9. “‘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...’ Given this paramount importance, the State of Arizona, through its Attorney General, vigilantly fights to ensure election integrity, including for the 2020 election,” he wrote in the filing.