Hey EW, you're posting misinformation again. Your math is, unsurprisingly, badly off.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/202...5c6fa53d86
Texas filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin’s voting rules and attempting to invalidate their election results, which six states and Trump are trying to join and 11 other states have supported.
In a response to Texas’ complaint Thursday, Pennsylvania said the litigation is “legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy” that adds to a “cacophony of bogus claims” about the election, with claims that are “moot, meritless and dangerous.”
Wisconsin similarly said the litigation is “devoid of a legal foundation or a factual basis” with “flat out wrong” claims about Wisconsin state law, while Michigan said the lawsuit is “without factual foundation or a valid legal basis.”
Georgia, whose Republican attorney general submitted a response, also opposed Texas’ claims, saying they “violate the principles of federalism and separation of powers, are incompatible with Congress’s...mechanisms for resolving presidential election disputes, and would do more damage to legislative prerogatives than anything alleged in the proposed Complaint.”
23 states and territories, led by Washington D.C., filed an amicus brief opposing Texas’ arguments, which they said “would upend a century’s worth of this Court’s precedent; render unconstitutional routine and critical election administration; and supplant states’ sovereign power to structure their own systems of government.”
Despite its conservative tilt, the Supreme Court has already rejected one lawsuit targeting the election results, however, and legal experts have broadly condemned the complaint as entirely meritless and certain to fail.
“The litigation is legally incoherent, factually untethered and based on theories of remedy that fundamentally misunderstand the electoral process,” University of Washington law professor Lisa Marshall Manheim wrote for the Washington Post, predicting the lawsuit “will die an ignoble death.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/202...5c6fa53d86
Quote:More than 25 states and U.S. territories blasted Texas’ plea for the Despite its conservative tilt, the Supreme Court has already rejected one lawsuit targeting the election results, however, and legal experts have broadly condemned the complaint as entirely meritless and certain to fail.
“The litigation is legally incoherent, factually untethered and based on theories of remedy that fundamentally misunderstand the electoral process,” University of Washington law professor Lisa Marshall Manheim wrote for the Washington Post, predicting the lawsuit “will die an ignoble death.” U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the presidential election results in court briefings Thursday, including the four battleground states targeted by the lawsuit, after more than a dozen GOP-led states and President Donald Trump backed the long-shot lawsuit, which experts say is far-fetched.
Texas filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin’s voting rules and attempting to invalidate their election results, which six states and Trump are trying to join and 11 other states have supported.
In a response to Texas’ complaint Thursday, Pennsylvania said the litigation is “legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy” that adds to a “cacophony of bogus claims” about the election, with claims that are “moot, meritless and dangerous.”
Wisconsin similarly said the litigation is “devoid of a legal foundation or a factual basis” with “flat out wrong” claims about Wisconsin state law, while Michigan said the lawsuit is “without factual foundation or a valid legal basis.”
Georgia, whose Republican attorney general submitted a response, also opposed Texas’ claims, saying they “violate the principles of federalism and separation of powers, are incompatible with Congress’s...mechanisms for resolving presidential election disputes, and would do more damage to legislative prerogatives than anything alleged in the proposed Complaint.”
23 states and territories, led by Washington D.C., filed an amicus brief opposing Texas’ arguments, which they said “would upend a century’s worth of this Court’s precedent; render unconstitutional routine and critical election administration; and supplant states’ sovereign power to structure their own systems of government.”
Despite its conservative tilt, the Supreme Court has already rejected one lawsuit targeting the election results, however, and legal experts have broadly condemned the complaint as entirely meritless and certain to fail.
“The litigation is legally incoherent, factually untethered and based on theories of remedy that fundamentally misunderstand the electoral process,” University of Washington law professor Lisa Marshall Manheim wrote for the Washington Post, predicting the lawsuit “will die an ignoble death.”
1
