[ad_1]
US President Donald Trump (right) and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton – Photo: AFP
The lawsuit alleged that the changes made to the related vote-by-mail procedures were illegal.
“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, government officials from the states that filed a lawsuit, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia, invaded the authority of state legislatures and made state election laws unconstitutional” – the lawsuit It was introduced by Attorney General Ken Paxton (a Republican) from the state of Texas.
There is no precedent
Paxton asked the Supreme Court of the United States to annul a total of 62 electoral votes for Biden in the four previous states, a step that, according to the AP news agency, would change the situation in favor of President Donald Trump and is unprecedented. in American history. However, that’s just theory and follows a smooth scenario for Trump.
President Trump praised the state of Texas as “brave and talented,” and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called the demand “huge.”
The Attorney General of some US states such as Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri have expressed their support for the state of Texas to protect the integrity of the elections.
In contrast, officials in the four states mentioned above called the Texas lawsuit a bold attack on American democracy.
Ms. Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General and Democrat, called the lawsuit a “promotional game” unworthy of the dignity of Mr. Paxton’s office and the people of Texas.
This lawsuit is based on a content of the United States constitution, which allows a state to sue the other state directly in the Supreme Court of the United States without having to initiate litigation in the lower courts.
In the past, Trump’s legal team also contested election results with some of the same content that Texas stated, but it had to go through lower-level courts and largely failed despite having filed nearly 50 lawsuits.
Opportunities for success?
The Supreme Court asked four states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to respond to the measure from the state of Texas before 3 pm 10-12 (US time). It is unclear how the court will process or review Mr. Paxton’s complaint.
The Supreme Court now leans toward the conservative side with a ratio of 6 (conservative) – 3 (liberal), including three Trump-nominated justices. Before the election, Trump said he expected the Supreme Court to decide the winner.
However, the judges are not required to resolve the case. The court has made it clear that “first jurisdiction”, which allows it to deal directly with interstate disputes, must be used without waste.
According to the New York Times, when the supreme court exercises first jurisdiction, it generally resolves disputes between the two states on issues such as water rights.
Or in 2016, judges rejected requests from Nebraska and Oklahoma to challenge the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado.
According to Reuters, legal experts assessed the lawsuit as having little chance of success. And Forbes magazine pointed out a number of reasons why the lawsuit may fail: There is a chance that the court will decide that Texas does not have a “disputed position” to sue, the lawsuit is too late, and there is no evidence to prove the public. Elections in unconstitutional states …
Meanwhile, the Trump faction saw this as a great opportunity, as Trump had previously predicted that “a lot of important things will happen in the coming days.”
The Bloomberg news agency cited experts who warned that the loss of the electoral status of the four battlefield states, as required by the lawsuit, would push the United States into a constitutional crisis.
“That will be the end of democracy in the United States. Nine Supreme Court justices will replace 330 million people as justices,” Noah Feldman wrote on Bloomberg.
On December 8, the United States Supreme Court rejected a request by Republicans in Pennsylvania to avoid the state’s election results, under which Democratic candidate Joe Biden won. victory over President Donald Trump.
The judges made a quick decision with a high consensus as soon as the final court summary was presented.
The above decision was made before the midnight deadline for US states to complete resolution of post-election legal challenges before the day the electoral college officially voted to select a new president.
