Texas Election Lawsuit – Explained by a Lawyer

(TheDonald.win)

What happened?

The State of Texas just filed a lawsuit against Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin.

Why is this relevant and how is it different from the other lawsuits?

The other lawsuits have mostly been filings made by or on behalf of the voters in each state with the claim that they have been disenfranchised. For instance, a Georgian voter or the Georgian Republican Party filing a lawsuit. The first court for these is the state-level courts, which are (as we know) infiltrated by leftist activist judges. The state-level judges have been throwing out the lawsuits claiming procedural issues like filing too late or that the person filing it has “no legal standing” (can explain these issues later if there is demand!). These lawsuits thus have to be appealed to the Supreme Court on various points of law (mostly regarding constitutionality) and the states themselves will start arguing that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear some of these matters which should be left to state courts.

The new Texas lawsuit however is the State of Texas itself making a claim that if these phony results are certified and electors are selected on the basis of the phony results in these states, Texas’ own electors are being fucked over. Since the State of Texas is the claimant, the only appropriate court is the Supreme Court which means we don’t have to deal with the bullshit of the individual states trying to block us from going to the Supreme Court!

What is the remedy Texas is asking for?

Texas is asking for (in summary):

1. An injunction stopping the states from certifying the results
2. An injunction stopping the states from appointing electors based on those results
3. Direction to each state’s legislature to appoint new electors if electors have been appointed based on the phony results or appoint no electors at all
4. Direction to conduct a special election to appoint electors

Essentially, Texas seems to be asking for a special election (a do-over) in each of these states. The legislature can appoint Trump-electors too of course but they would never have the balls to do that.

What are the grounds on which the lawsuit is brought?

You all know this! But this lawsuit provides a very helpful overview and summary of the cases which are being brought. If people want, I can follow up with an explanation of the claims in each state but in summary:

Pennsylvania

1. Unlawful changes to voting rules (removing signature verification)
2. Poll workers kicked out / not allowed to observe in breach of election rules
3. Curing ballots which was against state law – only allowed in mostly Democrat counties
4. On Nov 2nd (day before election!), records show that 2.7m mail-in ballots were sent out. On Nov 4th (day after election!), records show 3.1m mail-in ballots were sent out. How is this possible?!
5. Late / problematic ballots were not segregated (contrary to Alito’s order), mixed in with legitimate ballots making it impossible to trace.

Georgia

Unlawful changes to the process of verifying/counting absentee ballots – I wrote a longer comment on this but basically it became so annoying to the point of almost impossible to reject absentee ballots. This was covered in Lin Wood’s lawsuit and also in the Georgia Senate Hearings (an old professor covered this to the confusion of the Democrat senators).

Due to this, the rejection rate on mail in ballots was 0.37% in 2020 versus 6.42% in 2016!

Edit: Since this post is getting some views – I’ll briefly explain the Georgia changes in laymen terms. I literally started laughing at how ridiculous this is when I first saw it in Lin Wood’s lawsuit.

Before the Democrats sued Georgia (what is called a “friendly lawsuit”) and they entered into an illegal “settlement”, in order to reject an absentee ballot:

1. The registrar realizes the signatures do not match records
2. The ballot is rejected and the registrar signs off on it.

After the “settlement”:

1. The registrar realizes the signatures do not match
2. The registrar must find two other registrars (who are obviously also busy counting votes!) to look at the signatures
3. The three registrars must then look at the signatures together
4. The registrars must agree by majority that the signature is wrong
5. All three registrars must sign off on the rejection.

They made the process so hilariously inefficient that any registrar who wants to go through the thousands of ballots would just squint a bit and let a dodgy signature go… What used to be a 30 second process became like a 10 minute process!

Michigan

1. Unlawful changes to voting rules making it easier to vote by absentee ballot and destroying safeguards (are we starting to see a pattern here?!)
2. Secretary of State technically had no power to distribute a single absentee ballot!
3. Poll watchers and inspectors kicked out
4. Rules were not followed when opening and counting the ballots, statutory signature verification requirements were completely ignored.
5. 174,000+ absentee ballots counted without a registration number, probably because the same ballots were run through machines multiple times at the TCF counting center
6. Threats of violence to the Republican canvassers that initially voted not to certify but were threatened by the leftist mob and later recanted via affidavit.

Wisconson

1. Unlawful changes to voting rules… You don’t even need me to repeat this first one do you…
2. Hundreds of unmanned dropboxes in the 5 biggest Democrat cities
3. Election officials literally encouraged people to declare themselves as “indefinitely confined” to get around signature verification and photo ID.
4. Addresses were written onto envelopes where there was none in order to accept some absentee ballots with no addresses
5. Ballots were backdated

What are the merits / are we likely to be successful?

I left this out initially but decided to edit my post to add it in since lots of people were asking this question. The answer is that the merits are there but the only obstacle is whether the SC thinks the remedy Texas is asking for is appropriate.

To explain briefly, it is almost beyond doubt that these states completely fucked with the election by changing rules unlawfully, kicking vote watchers out etc. Like there is literally no way the Democrats / States can say that there was no fuckery without calling every witness a liar, every video doctored and somehow justifying what the election officials literally declared (I can think of no possible way!).

The problem is the remedy. It is open for the judges to say that there was fuckery afoot but not enough fuckery to require a revote, or an injunction against certification/electors. This is why you see in every case/hearing, Rudy / Lin / Sidney emphasizes the number of illegal ballots. So the challenge for Texas is to prove that the harm done by the illegal ballots is enough for the SC to provide the remedy that it wants.