Texas’ response is even juicer than the original lawsuitThe defendant states weren’t expecting the suit, given their responseImage
Texas filed a response to Pennsylvania’s challenge of the election lawsuit brought by Texas, meaning that the Supreme Court can now act at any time.
Texas’ response is even juicer than the original lawsuit, and it’s obvious that Pennsylvania and the other swing states weren’t expecting the suit given their lukewarm counter-arguments.
In the original suit, Texas referred to evidence by a Dr. Cicchetti who pointed out the statistical improbabilities of Biden pulling far ahead in all four swing states late on election night, given that Trump was leading with a plurality of votes – if not the majority – already counted.
“Pennsylvania’s rebuttal to Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis consists solely of ad hominem attacks, calling it “nonsense” and “worthless,” Texas responded. “Notably, a subsequent analysis by Dr. Cicchetti, comparing Mr. Biden’s underperformance in the Top-50 urban areas in the Country relative to former Secretary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 election, reinforces the unusual statistical improbability of Mr. Biden’s vote totals in the five urban areas in the Defendant States.”
Given the popularity and voter enthusiasm for President Trump – combined with the fact that it’s historically difficult for an incumbent president to lose re-election – it would have been expected for Biden to underperform compared to Clinton in 2016, which makes election fraud even more obvious.
“Notably, Pennsylvania says nothing about the 118,426 ballots that had no mail date, were nonsensically returned before the mailed date, or were improbably returned one day after the mail date,” Texas continues. “Lastly, Pennsylvania argues that it did not break its promise to this Court to segregate ballots received after November 3, 2020. Justice Alito’s order dated November 6, 2020 belies that argument.”
“And because Pennsylvania broke its promise to this Court, it is not possible to determine how many tens, or even hundreds of thousands of illegal late ballots were wrongfully counted.”
Additionally, Texas also pointed out that Georgia tried to obfuscate the difference between mail-in ballots and absentee ballots when trying to discredit Dr. Cicchetti.
“Indeed, in 2018, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots was actually 3.32% or more than twenty times higher than the rejection rate for the absentee ballots that Georgia incorrectly compares to dispute Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis,” Texas adds.
Perhaps even more damning, Texas points out that Michigan admitted that it “is at a loss to explain the allegations” showing that Wayne Co. in particular has nearly 175,000 ballots with no connection to registered voters.
The rest of Texas’ response reinforces how each swing state made “non-legislative changes” to its voter laws in violation of the US Constitution.
“The Electors Clause [of the US Constitution] does not contain a proviso permitting judicial modification of the state legislature’s manner for appointing Presidential Electors,” Texas concludes. “A State’s Electors are to be appointed ‘in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.’ U.S. Const, art. II, § 1, cl. 2.”
“‘[T]he state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary,’ Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).”
Quite possibly the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution by directing state legislatures to decide on the electors, which is precisely the roadmap the Constitution lays out for a disputed election.
That would also allow the Supreme Court to refute the optics that it is overturning an election because the court would simply be allowing state legislatures to decide, as outlined by the Constitution.