The Texas Law Suit Case By Chris Knight

The Texas case before SCOTUS has now been joined by 23 states and territories:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/10/nation/mass-joins-22-other-states-territories-court-filing-against-texas-lawsuit-seeking-overturn-election/

So, what is the Texas case? Here is the 154 page case:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Here is a summary:

“MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) and this Court’s Rule 17, the State of Texas respectfully seeks leave to file the accompanying Bill of Complaint against the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Defendant States”) challenging their administration of the 2020 presidential election. As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States: • Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors. • Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States. • The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws. All these flaws – even the violations of state election law – violate one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections. Taken together, these flaws affect an outcomedeterminative numbers of popular votes in a group of States that cast outcome-determinative numbers of electoral votes. This Court should grant leave to file the complaint and, ultimately, enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the Defendant States’ legislatures and remand to the Defendant States’ respective legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2. December 7, 2020.”

Here another summary, somewhat easier for the non-legally trained mind:

“Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures.  Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.

Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur.  The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts.

Pennsylvania

Facts:

1. Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump - margin 81,597.
2. Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.
3. Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.

Violations of Election Law:

1. The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
2. PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.
3. Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.
4. The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots.  This was done only in Democrat majority counties.
5. Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots.

Evidence of Fraud:

1. Ballots with no mailed date: 9,005 (no evidence they were sent to a voter)
2. Ballots returned on or before the mailed date: 58,221
3. Ballots returned one day after the mailed date: 51,200 (Perhaps not impossible, but highly unlikely for the average voter to receive a ballot, fill it out, place it in the mail and have it returned the next day.)
4. On Nov 2, the day before the election, PA reports that 2.7 million ballots had been sent out.  On Nov 4 that number had increased to 3.1 million -- an increase of 400,000 mail-in ballots at election time with literally no reasonable chance of them being used by legitimate voters.

Georgia

Facts:

1. Vote Tally: 2,472,098 for Biden and 2,458,121 for Trump - margin 12,670.
2. Mail-in ballots: 65.32% for Biden and 34.68% for Trump.
3. Mail-in ballots increased from 213,033 in 2016 to 1,305,659 in 2020.

Violations of Election Law:

1. The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
2. The Secretary of State authorized opening and processing mail-in ballots up to three weeks before election day when the law prohibits that until after the polls open on election day.
3. The Secretary of State materially weakened the security requirements for ballot rejection based on signature verification or other missing information.

Evidence of Fraud:

1. Mail-in ballot rejection rate for missing or inaccurate information or for non-matching signatures decreased from 6.42% in 2016 to .36% in 2020.  Rejecting 2020 ballots at the same rate as 2016 would have resulted in a net gain of 25,587 votes for Trump – twice the number needed to overcome Biden’s count.  With a six-fold increase in the number of mail-in ballots, reason would indicate that the rejection rate would increase, or at least stay the same, with so many first-time mail-in ballots.

Michigan

Facts:

1. Vote Tally: 2,796,702 for Biden and 2,650,695 for Trump - margin 146,007.
2. In 2016 587,618 voters requested mail-in ballots.  In 2020 3.2 million votes were cast by mail-in ballot.
3. Democrats voted by mail at a rate approximately two times that of Republican voters.

Violations of Election Law:

1. The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
2. The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
3. The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
4. Local election officials in Wayne County -- containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump -- opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
5. Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.

Evidence of Fraud:

1. 174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
2. 71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.

Wisconsin

Facts:

1. Vote Tally: 1,630,716 for Biden and 1,610,151 for Trump - margin 20,565.
2. Mail-in ballots increased from 146,932 in 2016 to 1,275,019 in 2020.

Violations of Election Law:

1. The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) positioned hundreds of unmanned illegal drop boxes to collect absentee ballots.  (The use of any drop box, manned or unmanned, is directly prohibited by Wisconsin statute.  Any alternate mail-in ballot site “shall be staffed by the municipal clerk or the executive director of the board of election commissioners…”  “Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election.”)
2. The WEC encouraged voters to unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely confined” in order to avoid security measures like signature verification and photo ID requirements.  Nearly 216,000 voters said they were indefinitely confined in the 2020 election, nearly four times as many as in 2016.
3. Strict laws requiring mail-in voters to certify by signature including the signature of an adult witness were ignored or circumvented by election officials.

Evidence of Fraud:

1. One hundred thousand ballots were supposedly missing and directed to be “found” after election day.

Conclusion

Significant violations of election law that were put into place to protect against election fraud is sufficient to invalidate the results of the elections, apart from whatever evidence is able to be gathered in a short time to show actual numbers of fraudulent ballots.  Reason would indicate that there is a high number of fraudulent ballots that are impossible to identify, which is why the election laws pertaining to mail-in ballots were established to begin with.

There is no remedy to correct the Nov 3^rd election because ballots that did not adhere to election law cannot be identified as separate from those that did.  An accurate count of legal ballots that were cast cannot be made.  Therefore, as directed in the Constitution, it falls to the legislature of each state to choose electors as has been done in the past.  Failing that, each state may determine not to submit any presidential electors.

The Texas lawsuit claims the odds of Biden overcoming Trump’s lead and winning any of the states after the point indicated was one in a quadrillion.  And therefore, the odds of winning all four was one in a quadrillion to the fourth power.  The lawsuit did not provide information on how that number was determined.  This may seem an exaggeration to some.  It is enough to state that the odds of winning any one of the states was highly unlikely and the odds of winning all four were extremely unlikely.  For example, if the odds of winning any one of the states was numerically much less extreme but still highly unlikely, say something like one in twenty, then the odds of doing that in all four states would be 1 in  160,000.  Twenty beans in a jar: 19 white and 1 black.  Reach in without looking and be lucky enough to pull out the one black bean.  Chances of doing that again is 1 in 400.  Clearly indicative of cheating if someone claims to have done that four times in a row.  As I said the statistical analysis behind the claim of odds of 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 are not given so I cannot speak to that.  But even if the odds were orders of magnitude better than that, they were still astronomically small.  At any rate, the merits of the lawsuit do not depend on any certain level of odds of Biden overcoming a lead that had been established by 3:00 A.M. the day after election.”

The limitation here is with respect to the mathematical analysis, where the author does not seem to have read up on opinions that have been published by mathematicians, but as stated that the case does not hinge on any exact probability assessment, since the allegations are that fraud is the cause of results that would otherwise be cosmologically improbable.