Mike Huckabee: Here Are 4 Major Points About the Texas Lawsuit the Establishment Media Won't Tell You
All 50 states have now certified their votes, but the electors have yet to meet.
As of this writing, Arizona has become the 18th state to join Texas’ lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, seeking to delay the selection of their slates of electors.
If you look at the states that have joined the lawsuit blocked out on a map, it looks like about half the landmass of the U.S.
I would hope that would make the Supreme Court reluctant to simply turn them down, because it’s obvious that the fury over the voting practices in, basically, four Democrat-run cities, is rising, and we’ve already learned it’s not going away just because the people are told, “You’re wrong, shut up.”
If you do a Google search for the Texas lawsuit, you get back a lot of sneering articles from liberal media outlets dismissing it as a “Hail Mary” pass or a “doomed stunt.”
But I assume that my readers would rather get factual information than overheated opinions masquerading as news. So I’m referring you to this excellent analysis for The Federalist by Margot Cleveland, who spent 25 years as a law clerk to a federal appellate court judge.
She explains clearly what the lawsuit says, what the basis of it is (including quotes from case precedents that make it obvious that this is something the court should address) and why Texas and the other states have standing to claim that they have been damaged by the actions of the states they’re suing.
And despite what you’re hearing from other media outlets, she’s impressed by what an excellent job the Texas attorney general’s office did in writing this lawsuit.
You should read the whole article, but here are just four of the major points you’re probably not hearing from most media outlets:
1. This case doesn’t hinge on showing evidence of vote fraud, which could have been wiped or shredded by now.
It’s based on the defendant states letting officials unilaterally change voting laws that only the legislature has the power to change, which means the vote tallies, whether fraudulent or not, were derived through illegal and unconstitutional means.
In this case, the argument doesn’t depend on whether fraud can be proven beyond a doubt, but on the undeniable fact that laws that made fraud easier to commit were created unconstitutionally.
2. Texas is not asking that the election be handed to Trump.
They are asking the court to order the states to give the duty of selecting electors to their legislatures because that’s what is required under the Constitution when the vote is tainted by illegal and unconstitutional actions, which the lawsuit clearly describes (for instance, officials unilaterally changing ballot laws that can only be changed by the legislature, or imposing different standards for accepting ballots in Democrat-run counties than in Republican counties.)
The legislatures are free to choose Trump or Biden electors, but at least then, the choice will be made legally.
3. Texas has standing to sue the other states over this because, just as the House represents individual citizens, the Senate represents states.
The national election also picks the vice president, who settles any tie votes. That means that any illegal actions that affect the results of this election also affect all states through control of the Senate.
4. As for the argument that the SCOTUS would be taking unprecedented action to interfere in a national election, the suit cites numerous quotes showing precedent for the plaintiff’s arguments.
It sounds as if the SCOTUS might have a harder time simply dismissing this case than media people who haven’t read it do.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
