Filing a frivolous lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court, Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton argued that because battle ground states deviated from state election laws to accommodate Covid-19, they should invalidate Electoral College votes won by 78-year-old President-elect Joe Biden. Thinking that there’s a 6-3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court, it’s work the Hail Mary pass, not knowing yet whether the High Court would even take up the case. Knowing the same suit would fair poorly in the U.S. District Court, Paxton thought why not go directly to the Supreme Court. Paxton’s suit claims that accomondations for the global coronavirus pandemic were illegal, even though every state in the Union made accommodations. Approving universal mail-in ballots was also an accommodation for the Covid-19 crisis, making it much easier for ordinary voters to cast ballots.
Whatever 74-year-old President Donald Trump’s claims of fraud, one thing’s for sure: More citizens voted in 2020 than any time in U.S. history. Using universal mail-in ballots made voting a snap, giving Biden the numerical advantage over Trump because Democrats enjoy a 31% to 25% advantage in registration over Republicans. If there were significant voter fraud in the Nov. 3 election, it hasn’t been demonstrated by Trump’s legal team in any court of law. General rules of thumb over elections didn’t apply in 2020 because of universal mail-in balloting, where votes kept trickling in well-beyond Nov. 3. When voters went to sleep in the wee hours of Nov. 4, Trump held a commanding lead in battleground states. By the time everyone awoke, Biden was leading or surging to the lead, suggesting either massive voter fraud or just normal delayed ballot counting.
Texas now files for injunctive relief in the Supreme Court, hoping the 6-3 conservative majority would prevail to invalidate the Nov. 3 election. But before the Supreme Court would disenfranchise millions of American voters, they would have to see compelling evidence of fraud, not just Paxton’s claim that battleground states did not follow their own voting rules prescribed by state law. Whether admitted to or not by Paxton, the Supreme Court could refuse to hear their case. Conservative majority or not, the court’s not in the business of reversing a national election. Whenever Republicans claim that liberal justices want to legislate from the bench, what’s Paxton asking the court to do: Invalidate presidential election. Paxton’s lawsuit accuses battleground state of violating their own election rules to safeguard the integrity of the vote, something Republicans can’t show proof of fraud.
Saying that you know fraud happened without showing evidence, other than some incredulous testimony, doesn’t make a compelling case to any court, let alone the Supreme Court where the bar is set much higher. Paxton’s suit claims that mail-in ballots diminished “the weight of votes case in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set for in the Constitution.” Paxton’s lawsuit seeks to block the Electoral College from meeting to vote Dec. 14 to cast 62 votes for Biden from battleground states, vacating his 306 vote total. Judging by precedent, the Supreme Court isn’t likely to take the Texas case because it deviated from the “original jurisdiction.” Georgetown University election law expert Paul Smith doesn’t think Paxton’s had a legitimate suit. “There is no possible way that a the state of Texas has the standing to complain about how other states counted votes and how they are about to cast their Electoral Votes,” Smith said.
Election disputes are more appropriately handled in Congress said Ohio State University Prof. Ned Foley when they meet Jan. 6 to certify the election. “I would think the court would not want to be dragged into the middle of this,” Foley said, most likely what Paxton will hear after filing the suit. Calling the Texas lawsuit a ‘publicity stunt,” Michigan Atty. Gen. Dana Nessel (D-Mich.) blasted Paxton for using the courts to advance his political agenda. “The erosion of confidence in our democratic system isn’t attributable to a the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia or Pennsylvania, but rather to partisan officials like Mr. Paxton, who place loyalty to a person over loyalty to their country,” Nessel said. Paxton didn’t file for injunctive relief in the Supreme Court as a publicity stunt, he filed the case as a last ditch effort to overturn the Nov. 3 election before it’s too late.
Trump final gasps involve a flurry of Hail Mary legal maneuvers, especially Paxton’s lawsuit in the Supreme Court. Without compelling evidence of widespread voter fraud, there’s no way the Supreme Court would want to repeat the fiasco of Bush v. Gore in 2000. No one at the Supreme Court is in any position to rule on how states preside over local, state and federal elections. However insulted Democrats feel about Trump’s challenges, it’s the American way to seek injunctive relief in the courts. But if there’s no compelling evidence of illegal or irregular activity, there’s nothing a court can do to change anything. Asking the Supreme Court to invalidate a national election with near 150 million votes cast goes above-and-beyond the rule of any court, let alone the Supreme Court. You can bet your last dollar that even a wildly conservative court won’t take up Paxton’s case.
