Attorneys representing Michigan argue that a lawsuit asking the Supreme Court to invalidate presidential election results would disenfranchise millions of voters in favor of “a handful of people who appear to be disappointed with the official results.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a brief opposing a lawsuit brought by the state of Texas and backed by President Donald Trump that seeks to prevent Michigan’s 16 electors from casting their votes for President-elect Joe Biden. Texas claims Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin violated their own election laws, making the Nov. 3 election results unconstitutional.
Certified results show Trump lost Michigan by 154,000 votes. Michigan’s 16 electors are statutorily obligated to cast their votes for President-elect Joe Biden on Dec. 14.
“The election in Michigan is over,” Michigan attorneys wrote. “Texas comes as a stranger to this matter and should not be heard here.”
Related: Ohio AG Dave Yost files brief criticizing Texas’ lawsuit challenging Biden win
Attorneys representing Michigan argued in the Thursday filing that Texas has no right to throw out the vote of 5.4 million people who participated in Michigan’s elections. Michigan attorneys said Texas also failed to prove its claims that state officials violated election laws.
“The challenge here is an unprecedented one, without factual foundation or a valid legal basis,” Michigan attorneys wrote. “This Court should summarily dismiss the motion to file the bill of complaint. To do so otherwise would make this Court the arbiter of all future national elections.”
The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, has the support of Trump and 17 other states won by the president. Twelve Michigan state lawmakers also filed a motion to join the case, citing “rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States election officials’ or judges’ unconstitutional acts.”
The lawsuit does not make specific fraud allegations, instead focusing on changes made by the four states to expand absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic. Texas attorneys argue the changes unlawfully eliminated protections against fraud and needed the approval of state legislatures.
Plaintiffs argued that Michigan’s election results are unconstitutional because Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson mailed absentee ballot applications to every registered voter. Michigan attorneys refuted the claims, pointing to a September Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that found Benson was within her right to mail unsolicited applications to registered voters.
Related: Appeals court rules sending absentee ballot applications to all registered voters was legal
Texas attorneys alleged that Benson also violated the law when she launched an online platform for voters to request an absentee ballot. Plaintiffs claimed this violates Michigan law regarding the process of matching signatures.
Through the online platform, registered voters had to input their Michigan driver’s license or state ID and their Social Security number, then send the handwritten signature they provided for their driver’s license or state ID card through the qualified voter file. Clerks verified signatures after the online application was filled out.
Michigan attorneys disagreed that “any part of this process is unlawful,” and noted that voters still must sign their absentee ballot before casting a vote. Another lawsuit challenging the process along similar lines is pending in the Michigan Court of Claims.
Another part of the lawsuit deals with allegations about the process of counting votes in Detroit, specifically, where absentee ballots were processed at the TCF Center. Allegations of unfair processes in the TCF Center count have been at the center of numerous unsuccessful lawsuits filed by Trump and his allies.
Texas attorneys repeated a variety of claims about the process of counting votes in Wayne County that have appeared in other lawsuits. Michigan attorneys noted that state courts have already ruled on a number of these issues and found no evidence of illegal activity.
Michigan attorneys said Texas failed to explain how it is impacted by the result of the election in another state.
“Nothing that happens in Michigan would add or remove a single electoral vote for Texas, and Texas has no entitlement to any of Michigan’s electoral votes. It is not a pie.”
Ultimately, Michigan’s attorneys argued that Texas has no right to get involved in its electoral process.
“It is difficult to conceive of a greater intrusion upon Michigan’s sovereignty than to have another state hale it before this Court to answer whether Michigan has followed its own laws in its own elections where its own courts have found no violation,” Michigan’s attorneys wrote. “Yet, Texas has done just that.”
Nessel, in a statement after the filing was turned in, said she is confident that the Supreme Court will reject the Texas lawsuit.
“Trump and his ambassadors – like the Texas Attorney General – have used our court system to wage a disinformation campaign baselessly attacking the integrity of our election system,” Nessel said. “In addition to just spreading falsehoods on social media platforms, through media channels, and from seats positioned before our state legislatures, they’ve now done so at our country’s highest court ... Michigan voters will decide the outcome of their elections, not Texas politicians.”
READ MORE ON MLIVE:
Dominion Voting Systems agrees to testify before Michigan Senate Oversight Committee
Michigan set to perform its most in-depth post-election audit
Michigan Supreme Court declines to hear Republican election fraud lawsuit
Trump raises $1.7M from Michiganders to overturn election, but most donations go elsewhere
"right" - Google News
December 11, 2020 at 10:24AM
https://ift.tt/33ZXPEq
Texas has no right to interfere in Michigan’s elections, lawyers argue in Supreme Court case - mlive.com
"right" - Google News
https://ift.tt/32Okh02
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Texas has no right to interfere in Michigan’s elections, lawyers argue in Supreme Court case - mlive.com"
Post a Comment