106 House Republicans gave their support to a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last Wednesday. The group, led by Representative Mike Johnson (La), submitted an amicus brief yesterday. They urged the Supreme Court to act on the suit on behalf of the American public.
Paxton filed the suit on behalf of the state of Texas. He alleged that the election irregularities in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, tainted the overall integrity of the elections. As a result, they also undermined the efforts of states who didn’t change rules on absentee voting. Thus, the SC should invalidate the results in the four states. Instead of basing electors on vote results, Paxton asked that state legislatures appoint electors.
An Amicus Brief
An amicus curiae brief is also known as “friend of the court.” It consists of unsolicited information or insight by people or groups that are not a party to the suit. The information often contains bearing on the case. The courts can decide on whether to accept an amicus or not.
In this case, the amicus said their “concern as Members of Congress” echoes with their constituents. They expressed concerns about unconstitutional irregularities that happened in the 2020 presidential election. These actions cast doubt upon the outcome and integrity of the elections. It argued that the American public had “serious doubts” about the conduct of the elections. Consequently, the Supreme Court’s solemn duty is to determine the election’s integrity.
Earlier, Johnson emailed House party mates that President Donald Trump asked him to support recruiters. He managed to gather signatures from 54% of House Republicans. In contrast, 23 Republican Senators and Representatives accepted the election results. They already acknowledged Democrat Joe Biden as the president-elect. Aside from Congress, 17 states also gave their support to Paxton’s filing.
Johnson later tweeted his action. “Today I made arrangements to file an amicus brief in the Texas case now pending at the Supreme Court on behalf of House Republicans who are all deeply concerned about the integrity of our election system,” he posted Tuesday. “Also today, my friend, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, agreed to join our state as a party to the case in support of Texas. Stay tuned for big developments …”
Not everybody was on board with the move. Representative Chip Roy of Texas said last Thursday that he will not sign the amicus. He said the Texas lawsuit “represents a dangerous violation of federalism & sets a precedent to have one state asking federal courts to police the voting procedures of other states.”
Roy did acknowledge the existence of problems. “The American people are raising legitimate questions & they deserve answers. I strongly support the continued pursuit of litigation where most likely to succeed – such as Georgia to bring to light any illegal votes & encourage, if necessary, state legislatures to alter their electors accordingly,” he tweeted. “But, I cannot support an effort that will almost certainly fail on grounds of standing and is inconsistent with my beliefs about protecting Texas sovereignty from the meddling of other states.”
Four States Fire Back
The four defendant states, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, fired back. And, they didn’t mince words criticizing the lawsuit. Pennsylvania Attorney General John Shapiro said that the lawsuit resides in a “surreal alternate reality.” In his reply to the suit, Shapiro said that “Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide by this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.” Michigan AG Dana Nessel wrote that “the election in Michigan is over. Texas comes as a stranger to this matter and should not be heard here.” She added that Texas’ challenge is “without factual foundation or a valid legal basis.”
Meanwhile, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr said the suit crosses into federalism issues. He wrote: “Texas presses a generalized grievance that does not involve the sort of direct state-against-state controversy required for original jurisdiction.” He advised Paxton to air his grievance on the proper venue, saying “there is another forum in which parties who (unlike Texas) have standing can challenge Georgia’s compliance with its own election laws: Georgia’s own courts.” Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul called out the seeming intrusion. He wrote the suit was an “extraordinary intrusion into Wisconsin’s and the other defendant States’ elections, a task that the Constitution leaves to each State.”
View the MSNBC news feature reporting that 106 House Republicans and 17 State Attorneys General back the Texas lawsuit that seeks to overturn election results:
As House Republicans showed up en masse to back Texas up, the ball is now in the Supreme Court’s hands. Do you agree with the Texas lawsuit? Do you think the SC will take the matter up? Share your opinions on the matter. Leave your comments below.