Thread by @MarinaMedvin

Texas v. PA, WI, GA, & MI

"Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives."

Texas: "Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states ... usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes."

Texas: "They accomplished these STATUTORY revisions through EXECUTIVE fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity." {Emphasis added}

Texas: "Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily."

Texas: "This action against multiple State defendants is the only adequate remedy for Plaintiff States, and this Court is the only court that can accommodate such a suit."

Texas: "Individual state courts do not—and under the circumstance of contested elections in multiple states, cannot—offer an adequate remedy to resolve election disputes within the timeframe set by the Constitution ..."

Texas: At the time of the Founding, most States did not appoint electors through popular statewide elections. In the first presidential election, six of the ten States that appointed electors did so by direct legislative appointment. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 29-30 (1892)

Texas: "in Defendant States, Dem. voters voted by mail at 2 to 3 times the rate of Republicans. Former Vice President Biden thus greatly benefited from this unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority, and the weakening of legislative mandated ballot security measures."

Texas: "The outcome of the Electoral College vote is directly affected by the constitutional violations committed by Defendant States."

Texas: "Defendant States violated the Constitution in the process of appointing presidential electors by unlawfully abrogating state election laws designed to protect the integrity of the ballots and the electoral process ..."

Texas: "... and those violations proximately caused the appointment of presidential electors for former Vice President Biden. Plaintiff State will therefore be injured if Defendant States’ unlawfully certify these presidential electors."

Texas: "The Pennsylvania Department of State’s guidance unconstitutionally did away with Pennsylvania’s statutory signature verification requirements."

Texas: "These non-legislative modifications to Pennsylvania’s election rules appear to have generated an outcome-determinative number of unlawful ballots that were cast in Pennsylvania."

Texas: "The effect of this unconstitutional change in Georgia election law, which made it more likely that ballots without matching signatures would be counted, had a material impact on the outcome of the election."

2020 GA rejection rate: 0.37%
2016 GA rejection rate: 6.42%

Texas: "These non-legislative modifications to Michigan’s election statutes resulted in a number of constitutionally tainted votes that far exceeds the margin of voters separating the candidates in Michigan."

Texas: "In direct contravention of WI law, leading up to the 2020 general election ... local officials unconstitutionally modified WI election laws—each time taking steps that weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the WI legislature ..."

Texas: "The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the Constitution makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors. The pertinent rules here are the state election statutes..."

Texas: "Non-legislative actors lack authority to amend or nullify election statutes."

Texas: "conscious and express actions by State or local election officials to nullify or ignore requirements of election statutes violate the Electors Clause to the same extent as formal modifications by judicial officers or State executive officers."

Texas: "Electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President."

Texas: "The actions .... violated the one-person, one-vote principle in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin."

Texas: "By the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the President & VP, equal protection violations in one State can & do adversely affect & diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution."

"[Texas] is therefore harmed by [the defendant states'] unconstitutional conduct in violation of the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses."

Texas: "Defendant States acted unconstitutionally to lower their election standards— including to allow invalid ballots to be counted and valid ballots to not be counted—with the express intent to favor their candidate for President and to alter the outcome of the 2020 election."

Texas thus asks SCOTUS to "Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College"

And, Texas asks SCOTUS to "Enjoin the Defendant States from certifying presidential electors or otherwise meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 5, 3 U.S.C. § 7, or applicable law pending further order of this Court."

Texas: "Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards, see Bush II, 531 U.S. at 103-105, and executive branch government officials cannot subvert these constitutional requirements, no matter their stated intent."

"Taken together, these non-legislative changes [by executive & judicial officials] did away with statutory ballot-security measures for absentee and mail-in ballots such as signature verification, witness requirements, and statutorily authorized secure ballot drop-off locations."

Texas: "if Defendant States are unable to certify [their] 37 or more presidential electors, neither candidate will have a majority in the electoral college, in which case the election would devolve to the House of Representatives under the Twelfth Amendment."

“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 II, 531 U.S. at 105.

In presidential elections, “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983).

Texas: "While Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tie- breaking vote in the Senate."

Texas: "While Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tie- breaking vote in the Senate."

Texas: "If Defendant States are permitted to violate the requirements of the Constitution in the appointment of their electors, the resulting vote of the electoral college not only lacks constitutional legitimacy, but the Constitution itself will be forever sullied."

"Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election violated the Electors Clause, which renders invalid any appointment of electors based upon those election results, unless the relevant State legislatures review and modify or expressly ratify those results as sufficient..."

"In addition to ensuring that the 2020 presidential election is resolved in a manner consistent with the Constitution, this Court must review the violations that occurred in Defendant States to enable Congress and State legislatures to avoid future chaos and con. violations."

Texas: "Regardless of how the 2020 election resolves and whatever this Court does with respect to the 2020 election, it is imperative for our system of government that elections follow the clear constitutional mandates for all future elections."

Texas:"[SCOTUS] should now provide a clear statement that non-legislative modification of rules governing presidential elections violate the Electors Clause. Such a ruling will discourage in the future the kind of non-legislative election modifications that proliferated in 2020."

🚨 SCOTUS just responded: