The Pennsylvania case describes the move by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, backed by Donald Trump, who claims that the judicial process uses a “cocoon of pseudo-claims” in support of “treason abuse” and believes in a “surreal alternative reality.”
State Attorney General Josh Shapiro writes: “Texas is trying to invalidate elections in four states. The claim that this Court must exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’ presidential candidate is legally inalienable and disrespectful to the principles of constitutional democracy. “
Donald Trump lost four key states, and Texas’ move is an attempt to invalidate millions of votes that could change the election for him.
The Pennsylvania filing further states: “Texas’ attempt to elect the next president of this court has no legal or factual basis. The court should not follow this treacherous abuse of the judicial process and should send a clear and vague signal that it should never reflect such abuses. ”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel described her challenge as “unprecedented” and “without a true foundation or proper legal basis.” He wrote: “The election in Michigan is over. Texas is becoming a stranger in this matter, which cannot be heard here.”
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul called the case “extraordinary intrusion into the elections of Wisconsin and other defendants, a task that the Constitution leaves to each state.”
Georgia’s Attorney General Chris Carr argued that the case did not meet the standards required by the court: “Texas presses a common grievance that does not involve direct state-to-state disputes necessary for the original jurisdiction.”
He continued: “In any case, there is another forum where parties (unlike Texas) can challenge compliance with Georgia’s own election laws: Georgia’s own courts.”
In addition to the four states named in the case, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court Thursday against the Texas case. Mr Trump won the state of Ohio, while Mr Yost was a Republican.
Mr. who filed in his state that the court does not have the power to order state legislatures to appoint presidential voters as desired by Texas.
Mr Yost wrote, “The relief Texas seeks will undermine the very foundations of our federal system: the states are sovereign and free to govern themselves.”
“There is no more business than the courts ordering people’s representatives on how to choose voters, rather than dictating how people choose their dinner,” he said.
There is a difference between filing Ohio and others. Mr Yost urges the court to rule on whether changes in electoral laws made by states to accommodate the realities of the corona virus epidemic are constitutional.
“It is unreasonable to wonder whether hastily implemented changes have exposed electoral systems to vulnerability – and so do millions of Americans -” he wrote.
“It will be difficult at this late date to design a solution that does not create equivalent or major harm,” Mr Yost added. “But there will be an election in 2024, four more years after that, and so on.”
The president and his allies have been pursuing increasingly pessimistic legal tactics in the weeks leading up to the election.
The Texas lawsuit has been described by Mr Trump as “the biggest thing everyone can wait for”.
However, legal experts question whether this case meets the requirements to be observed by the Supreme Court.
Mr Shapiro wrote: “Whatever the standard, Texas cannot meet it.”
It is not known when the Supreme Court will consider what action to take in this case.