Dec 7, 2020 — Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant election, Plaintiff State seeks declaratory relief for all 08/Drop%20Box%20Final.pdf. at p.
52 KB – 154 Pages
PAGE – 1 ============
No. ______, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS , Plaintiff , v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA , STATE OF GEORGIA , STATE OF MICHIGAN , AND STATE OF WISCONSIN , Defendants . MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT Ken Paxton * Attorney General of Texas Brent Webster First Assistant Attorney General of Texas Lawrence Joseph Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, TX 78711 -2548 firstname.lastname@example.org xas.gov (512) 936 -1414 * Counsel of Record
PAGE – 3 ============
No. ______, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS , Plaintiff , v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA , STATE OF GEORGIA , STATE OF MICHIGAN , AND STATE OF WISCONSIN , Defendants . MOTION FOR LE AVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § Rule 17, the State of Texas respectfully seek s leave to file the accompanying Bill of Complaint against the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the challenging the ir 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 Defenda nt States: Non- purported amendments to , in violation of the Electors Clause with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
PAGE – 4 ============
Intrastate difference s 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 St ates. The appearance of voting irregularitie s in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity . 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 Elect ors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore , 531 U.S. 98, 1 13 ( 2000) departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional State respectfully submit s that the foregoing types of electoral irregulari ties 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. Take n together , these flaws affect an outcome -determinative 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 c omplaint and, ultimately, enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and and remand to the Defendant State respective
PAGE – 5 ============
legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2. December 7, 20 20 Respectfully submitted, Ken Paxton * Attorney General of Texas Brent Webster First Assistant Attorney General of Texas Lawrence Joseph Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, TX 78711 -2548 email@example.com (512) 936 -1414 * Counsel of Record
PAGE – 6 ============
No. ______, Original In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS , Plaintiff , v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA , STATE OF STATE OF GEORGIA , STATE OF MICHIGAN , AND STATE OF WISCONSIN , Defendants . BILL OF COMPLAINT Ken Paxton * Attorney General of Texas Brent Webster First Assistant Attorney General of Texas Lawrence Joseph Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, TX 78711 -2548 firstname.lastname@example.org (512) 936 -1414 * Counsel of Record
PAGE – 8 ============
1 secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is John Adams BILL OF COMPLAINT Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archive s. We ask the Court to choose the former. Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President any Presidentis legitim ate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election. Here is what we know. Using the COVID -19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michig an, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little
PAGE – 9 ============
2 or no chain of custody 1 and, a t the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote signature verification and witness requirements. Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily. And, to be sure, the two presidential candidates who have garnered the most votes have an interest in assuming the duties of the Office of President without a taint of impropriety threatening the perceived legitimacy of their election. However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020. That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm a storm that is of the Defendant States own making by virtue of thei r own unconstitutional actions. This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presi dential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of t on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under 1 See https://georgiastarnews.com/2020/12/05/dekalb -county -cannot -find-chain -of-custody -records -for-absentee -ballots -deposited -in-drop -boxes -it-has-not-been-determined -if-responsive -records -to-your -request -exist/
PAGE – 10 ============
3 the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST . amend. XX. Against that background, the State of Texas Defendant States based on the following allegations: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1.Plaintiff State challenges Defendant Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant Stat es violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by takingor allowing non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown a cross the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison , this the law is and to restore public trust in this election. 4.As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, [Con during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long – Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo , 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case i s no different.
PAGE – 11 ============
4 5.Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern. State officials, sometimes through pending litigation ( e.g. sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 electi on that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote. 6.Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conformity with the le gislatively set rules and which were not. This is especially true of the mail -in ballots in these States. By waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to follow the state statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately presidential electors. 7.The rampant lawlessness arising out of scribed in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including: Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about : the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run mult iple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more
52 KB – 154 Pages