Texas is quickly becoming my favorite state.
It has no state income tax, it supports second amendment rights, free markets, small government, and is our nations hedge against the left wing radicalism of California.
The southwest state stayed true to its colors on Monday, when it filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Texas alleges that because election rules were changed by executive orders, rather than by state legislators, the entirety of the elections in these swing states are unlawful and unconstitutional.
Here are the latest developments:
News West 9 had more on the story:
TEXAS, USA — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, stating that the states exploited the COVID-19 Pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws.
The lawsuit also states that the states enacted last-minute changes, skewing the results of the 2020 general election.
Attorney General Ken Paxton believes that the states flooded the citizens with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements, involving how they were received, evaluated, and counted.
Breitbart went deeper, revealing more:
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:
Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.
This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts.