Earlier this week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit suing Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in the Supreme Court. The lawsuit claims these four battleground states violated the constitution when they changed voting procedures before the 2020 election. Ken Paxton also included several claims of voter fraud that have already been rejected in the state and federal courts. Shortly after Texas filed the lawsuit with the Supreme Court, 17 Republican-led states and Donald Trump joined the suit. Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania did not take this lawsuit lying down. In several statements issued on Thursday, the four battleground states accused Texas of having no authority to determine how other states conduct their elections. The four battleground states also accused Texas of abusing original jurisdiction, which is the basis of the Texas lawsuit. Twenty-two states, along with the District of Columbia, showed their support for the four battleground states on Thursday. This article will go over the merits behind the lawsuit filed by Texas. We will also show you the arguments being made against the lawsuit. Finally, we will discuss if the Supreme Court will even agree to hear the case.
The Case Brought by Texas
Before we can talk about the merits of the lawsuit brought by Texas, we must first discuss original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction is a legal precedent that allows cases to skip the state and federal courts and go straight to the Supreme Court. In the past, original jurisdiction was used to handle border disagreements between states or issues that cannot be held on the state or federal level.
Using original jurisdiction, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed his lawsuit directly to the Supreme Court. Mr. Paxton claims that the four battleground states directly harmed Texas; therefore, Texas can use original jurisdiction.
So what decisions did these four battleground states make that made Texas feel personally harmed? Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania made changes to their election laws, making it easier for people to send in mail-in and absentee ballots. According to Attorney General Ken Paxton, these changes led to a surplus of mail-in and absentee ballots. With so many ballots coming into the state, election officials could not responsibly verify signatures or meet witness requirements. Therefore Mr. Paxton claims the election “suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in those four states.”
The lawsuit filed by Texas also includes dozens of claims of voter fraud. These claims are not new, but they are already being dismissed on the state and federal levels. Such accusations include dead people casting ballots, the destruction or tampering of mail-in ballots, and the final vote count exceeding individual districts’ total population.
The Arguments Against the Texas Lawsuit
After Texas filed its lawsuit, the Supreme Court allowed Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to submit briefings defending their actions. On Thursday, all four states issued briefings condemning the actions of Texas. The Attorney General of Georgia, Chris Carr, had this to say about the lawsuit, “with all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally, and factually wrong about Georgia.”
The biggest argument against the Texas lawsuit has to do with Texas’s authority to use original jurisdiction. To use original jurisdiction, you must first prove that the suit in question cannot be decided on the state and federal level. According to legal experts, this is where Texas runs into issues. Since the 2020 election, there have been over 50 lawsuits filed all over the country on both the state and federal levels. Much, if not all, of the evidence presented in these lawsuits was deemed insufficient to overturn any key votes. The Texas Lawsuit relies heavily on much of the evidence that has already been discarded to make its case. Therefore, it is challenging to argue that the Texas lawsuit cannot be decided by state and federal courts when most of the lawsuit has already been decided by those same courts.
What Happens Next
It is important to note that the Supreme Court has not decided whether it will rule upon the Texas lawsuit at the time of this article being published. However, based on the Supreme Court’s past decisions, we can understand their thought process. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against hearing a lawsuit filed in the state of Pennsylvania. In the Pennsylvania lawsuit, Representative Mike Kelly requested the Supreme Court block the electoral college certification in the state. With this ruling in mind, it is safe to assume that the Supreme Court is putting politics aside and deciding on cases based on constitutional merit. There is no time table on when the Supreme Court will make a ruling on the Texas lawsuit.
Bibliography
Cornell. “Original Jurisdiction.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/original_jurisdiction.
Howe, Amy. “Texas Tries Hail Mary to Block Election Outcome (Updated).” SCOTUSblog, 9 Dec. 2020, www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/texas-tries-hail-mary-to-block-election-outcome/.
Vogue, Ariane de, and Dan Berman. “Explaining the Supreme Court Lawsuit from Texas and Trump.” CNN, Cable News Network, 10 Dec. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/trump-texas-supreme-court-election/index.html.
