Thread by @bradheath

Seventeen states filed a brief in the Supreme Court just now in support of Texas' request that the justices throw out the results of the presidential election in four other states that didn't support President Trump.

Here's the amicus brief, which is led by Missouri.

This is the product of a lot Republicans in a lot of states using their offices to try to throw out the votes of millions of people in other states who failed to support President Trump.
supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…

A lot of this brief is people in glass houses casting stones. It argues that allowing absentee ballots to arrive after Election Day undermines faith in democracy. But Kansas and Mississippi, which both signed on, also count mail-in ballots that arrive late.

The brief also argues that executive officials shouldn't be able to mess with voting rules. But Texas -- the plaintiff in this case, the state they're supporting -- did that very thing. The governor used executive power to extend the early voting period, among other things.

The states' argue that changes to voting procedures in GA, MI, PA and WI "undermined the liberty of all Americans," including the voters in other states.

A *lot* of this brief is an argument that the 17 states that are not GA, MI, PA and WI don't like the voting rules that were adopted in GA, MI, PA and WI because they don't think they're rigorous enough. It'd be, err, unprecedented, to let states sue each other for that.

I could be wrong, but I suspect a lot of these Republican states would've been been a lot more reluctant to sign on to these kinds of legal arguments -- which would expose them to tons of litigation over their own laws -- if they thought it had any chance of success.

The states' brief reads like an effort by Republican officials to use their elected offices to try to win support from the ride-or-die Trump base by seeking to disenfranchise millions of people in other states that failed to support Trump.