As December 14 draws near, two GOP election challenge lawsuits remain pending. Can another four years of President Trump be attained, and, if so, at what cost?
As December 14 quickly approaches when state electors cast their ballots likely certifying a doddering and corruption-laden Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. as the forty-sixth President of the United States, two GOP election contest cases remain pending. While many conservatives along with anti-establishment Republicans, disenfranchised Democrats, and Libertarians strongly desire four more years of President Trump — who, just this past week, continued down the path of successfully brokering an unprecedented Middle East peace accord by adding Morocco to the Israel, UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan alliance — a closer look at the remaining GOP challenges, particularly the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, shatter any hope of this unlikely outcome.
Earlier this week, Texas AG Ken Paxton filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated their own state legislative dictates governing the sanctity of the elections, and, by extension, violated Texans’ rights, since, after all, the POTUS election decided by disparate local election policies impacted everyone, including Texans. The alleged infringing state legislative provisions included new voting procedures promulgated during the course of this past year that eliminated requirements for proving necessity when voting absentee and extended the deadlines for the post-marking and receipt of mail-in ballots. While many Trump supporters (including this writer) were initially encouraged by the bevy of other states that joined Texas in this lawsuit, a closer inquiry reveals that the success of this lawsuit would irreparably damage principles of federalism and state autonomy that conservatives — and really any American wishing to fend off the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the Democrat party — would quickly bemoan.
Pictured above: Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton.
From a practical standpoint, several of the challenges to local legislative provisions that are the focal point of Paxton’s litigation — such as those in Georgia and Pennsylvania — have already been summarily disposed of by GOP-appointed federal judges. Trump appointee and Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephanos Bibas dismissed the challenge to Pennsylvania’s relatively new voting provisions — passed by a bipartisan coalition on October 31, 2019 — as untimely and ultimately not impacting enough votes to change the state’s outcome. Bush appointee and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Pryor dismissed attorney Lin Wood’s lawsuit charging Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger with what were tantamount to unsubstantiated claims of “potential” voter fraud, and will also likely affirm the recent dismissal of Sidney Powell’s “Kraken” lawsuit, which is similarly comprised of claims that amount to the possibility of voter fraud rather than actual fraud. It is unfortunate that Trump’s official legal team of Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis spent so much time and effort presenting what appeared to be compelling evidence of voter fraud and irregularities before state legislative assemblies rather than working to establish those claims with evidence in courts that had the power to act on those claims. These are just some of the reasons why “success” for the Paxton litigation is likely impossible.
But why put “success” in scare-quotes if such litigation has the potential for turning the 2020 election to Trump’s favor? One word: Federalism. If Texas and other states joining this litigation have the power to flip election outcomes in other states based upon Texas citizens’ qualms with local Pennsylvania polices and procedures promulgated by Pennsylvania citizens, the door would swing wide-open for other states to engage in this practice over just about any conceivable local law or policy. Imagine if California and New York could enforce upon Alabama and Florida the same draconian lockdown provisions that California and New York State governors and legislatures believe are necessary to combat COVID-19. Imagine if the door was opened for New York to sue Georgia for the “harm” caused by Georgia’s refusal to allow abortion up to point of birth. The flurry of state on state litigation would be endless and quite possibly the death-knell to an already completely ideologically divided nation.
Considering the dire implications of the “success” of Paxton’s lawsuit along with its weak merits as demonstrated by the repeated failure of the existing GOP litigation, many observers believe this Paxton-led effort to be nothing more than an attempt to garner favor with Trump and, perhaps, a last-minute pardon. For the last five years, Ken Paxton has been under the specter of an FBI securities fraud investigation in addition to a recent criminal inquiry alleging that he used his power of office to help large campaign donors dodge criminal prosecution.
Whatever the case and whatever the implications, the left-wing media pundits yelling at the sky claiming that the GOP election litigation somehow undermines the democratic republic of the United States is delusional nonsense. The American judicial branch exists for the very purpose of litigating alleged election irregularities. Use of the court system by the GOP to challenge the election results is the right and proper way of doing so. If the remaining challenges do not succeed in court - which they will almost certainly not -- there will be a peaceful transfer of office to Biden. If Democrats and media were genuinely concerned about the sanctity of US institutions, they would not have spent the last four years attempting to undermine the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency through endlessly airing debunked allegations of Russian collusion.
Pictured above: Democrat election lawyer, Marc Elias.
It is noteworthy that Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias - the Perkins Coie attorney who was instrumental in obtaining the now-debunked Steele Dossier that served as the impetus behind the four-year Russian collusion conspiracy theory that haunted Trump’s presidency — was the very same attorney who led the Democrat litigation efforts across the country that changed local voting laws prior to the 2020 election in order to facilitate the unprecedented mass use of mail-in ballots. Mail-in voting has historically been shown to be rife with fraud and typically favors Democrat candidates. Conservative coalitions should learn from Judge Bibas’ ruling and the proactive efforts of left-wing activists like Marc Elias by immediately challenging future efforts to normalize mass use of dubiously secure voting methods.