Supreme Court Dismisses Texas Lawsuit Which Attempts to Invalidate Votes in Four States

Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit December 7 directly with the Supreme Court calling on the court to invalidate the elections in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which would put Biden below the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win. The lawsuit asked the court to vacate the votes cast and instead let the legislatures of each state decide the slate of electors for the Electoral College. On December 11, the Court dismissed the case.

Unlike the more than 50 other lawsuits filed, and lost, by Trump and allies claiming fraud, this one attempted to make it a constitutional issue which, as such, was a matter which pertains to the Supreme Court. Given that the case involved a dispute between states, it bypassed lower courts and went directly to the Supreme Court.

The lawsuit argued: "The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud but whether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity so that fraud becomes undetectable." It said it was not necessary to prove that fraud occurred, "it is only necessary to demonstrate that the elections in the defendant States materially deviated from the 'manner' of choosing electors established by their respective state Legislatures."

It is notable that changes made in the four states, such as expanding use of mail-in ballots, were also made in Texas and most states across the country. Furthermore, the challenge was only for the presidential election, not Congressional and state elections, even though each voter gets one ballot for all the elections. It is a self-serving irrational argument meant to draw everyone into an irrational debate. Thinking about a rational solution favouring the people is blocked while various divisions -- between states, between states and the federal government, and among the electorate -- are fomented.

While other lawsuits involved claims of fraud in specific states, the Texas lawsuit directly served to pit groups of states against each other. It was joined by State Attorneys General from 17 other states, about half southern states.[1] In addition, 126 of the 196 Republicans in the House of Representatives also filed a brief in support.

The four states targeted -- Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- all challenged the lawsuit. State Attorneys General from 20 other states and Washington, DC filed a brief in support of the four states. These included North Carolina, Virginia, California and New York.[2] Lead Connecticut Attorney General Tong said: "This is nothing less than an attempted legal coup that risks the destruction of the union. This suit will undoubtedly fail because it is a fact-free disgrace to the judicial system. But before it fails, it will cause immense and lasting harm to the legal profession and the community of attorneys general..."

Pennsylvania wrote, "The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated." Georgia's Republican Governor and Attorney General, who have faced threats and harassment from Trump and his forces, said Georgia had done "what the Constitution empowered it to do."

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn rejected the lawsuit, saying he did not understand why Texas is seeking to dictate how other states run their elections.

The Republican Attorney General of Ohio refused to support the lawsuit as did Republican Governors of Utah and Wyoming. The Governor of Wyoming, where Trump won 70 per cent of the votes cast, said he and his attorney general, "Believe that the case could have unintended consequences relating to a constitutional principle that the state of Wyoming holds dear, that states are sovereign, free to govern themselves."

In this manner the role of the states, their election laws, legislatures, Electoral College electors, and federal government is being raised, with elected officials on both sides claiming support from the Constitution. As well, state Attorneys General are sworn to uphold the Constitution and state laws yet here they are vying against each other, often in an irrational manner that puts into question the very laws they are sworn to uphold. Their own system of justice is in disarray and threatening "destruction of the Union."

On December 11, the Supreme Court did not allow the case to be filed, saying that Texas did not have standing to dispute election law in other states. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, raised a technical issue, saying the lawsuit could be filed, but not that the Court should agree to hear the case. Alito added, "I would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."

Trump, in support of the Texas lawsuit, said: "This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!" and "We will soon be learning about the word 'courage', and saving our Country." After the ruling he condemned the Supreme Court saying, "No Wisdom, No Courage."

Prior to this, on December 8, the Supreme Court issued another ruling in which it refused to provide injunctive relief for one of Trump's Pennsylvania lawsuits. That lawsuit, also asking for the state legislature to decide the slate of electors, had been dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It is rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a state court ruling on state law.

Trump's persistence in striving for federal intervention into state-based elections is indicative of the restructuring of elections he and allies are striving for. The lawsuits, even when lost, are a means to promote the need for greater federal control over elections, including the casting, counting and certifying of votes.

Trump and allies are continuing their efforts to secure the power of the presidency. This includes issuing threats of violence against state officials, Republicans and Democrats alike. Trump is also in a position to foment violence using armed militias to attack the people and try to justify declaring a national emergency prior to the January 20 Inauguration Day for Biden. Already, one of these militias, the "Proud Boys," has torn down and burned Black Lives Matter banners at African-American churches in Washington, DC. Militia members are roaming the streets there and attacking people, with little interference from police. The many who have been fighting for justice and equality and defending the right to vote continue to stand ready to act if Trump acts to more broadly foment violence or refuse to leave the White House. 

Demonstrations in many cities are already planned for December 31 and January 20.

Voice of Revolution is a publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization.


1. States whose Attorneys General supported the Texas lawsuit include: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

2. States whose Attorneys General opposed the Texas lawsuit include: California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, DC.

This article was published in

Volume 50 Number 49 - December 19, 2020

Article Link:
Supreme Court Dismisses Texas Lawsuit Which Attempts to Invalidate Votes in Four States - Voice of Revolution


Website:   Email: