Changes

The filing was quite unexpected: Texas is a fairly solid Republican state and (despite polls to the contrary) voted in the majority for President [[Donald Trump]], and was not involved in any significant controversy in the conduct of its election (in fact, the Texas Secretary of State refused to certify any of the [[Dominion Voting Systems]] machines for use in the election due to its own testing, which found significant issues with potential hacking).  As the matter involves one sovereign state suing another (or four, in this case), the Supreme Court has not only original jurisdiction, but exclusive jurisdiction (i.e. the suit could not be filed in a Federal District Court).  The case was docketed shortly after it was filed and the defendants were given until 3PM EST on December 10 to respond.

The filing was quite unexpected: Texas is a fairly solid Republican state and (despite polls to the contrary) voted in the majority for President [[Donald Trump]], and was not involved in any significant controversy in the conduct of its election (in fact, the Texas Secretary of State refused to certify any of the [[Dominion Voting Systems]] machines for use in the election due to its own testing, which found significant issues with potential hacking).  As the matter involves one sovereign state suing another (or four, in this case), the Supreme Court has not only original jurisdiction, but exclusive jurisdiction (i.e. the suit could not be filed in a Federal District Court).  The case was docketed shortly after it was filed and the defendants were given until 3PM EST on December 10 to respond.

Unlike the many other cases which contained allegations of fraud (e.g. ballot stuffing, secret algorithms in the voting machine software), the Texas case centered on the Electors Clause of the [[United States Constitution]], specifically that the Legislatures of each State have the sole province of determining how Presidential Electors are chosen (and, by extension, the election laws of the state).  Texas argued that the actions taken by members of the Executive and Judicial branches (by "amending" electoral laws, either by "settlements" of "friendly lawsuits" filed by partisan organizations, or unilateral changes under the guise of a "public health emergency" from the COVID-19 pandemic), not ratified by the Legislatures of those states, violate the Electors Clause.

Unlike the many other cases which contained allegations of fraud (e.g. ballot stuffing, secret algorithms in the voting machine software), the Texas case centered on the Electors Clause of the [[United States Constitution]], specifically that the Legislatures of each State have the sole province of determining how Presidential Electors are chosen (and, by extension, the election laws of the state).  Texas argued that the actions taken by members of the Executive and Judicial branches (by "amending" electoral laws, either by "settlements" of "friendly lawsuits" filed by partisan organizations, or unilateral changes under the guise of a "public health emergency" from the COVID-19 pandemic), not ratified by the Legislatures of those states, violate the Electors Clause.  By doing so, it has denied the voters of Texas [[due process]] and [[equal protection]] by allowing states to change their election laws without legislative consent for the benefit of a preferred political candidate.

Pennsylvania has already hinted that its arguments will include: 1) the filing doesn't address Act 77, a 2019 bill which allowed state-wide voting by mail, 2) the suit should be barred on the doctrine of [[laches]] (since in their opinion the suit should have been filed ''before'' the election), and 3) the case at hand wouldn't result in a "circuit split" (the possibility that two different Circuit Courts of Appeal may rule differently), one of the factors that the Court considers when deciding to hear a case.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election</ref>

Pennsylvania has already hinted that its arguments will include: 1) the filing doesn't address Act 77, a 2019 bill which allowed state-wide voting by mail, 2) the suit should be barred on the doctrine of [[laches]] (since in their opinion the suit should have been filed ''before'' the election), and 3) the case at hand wouldn't result in a "circuit split" (the possibility that two different Circuit Courts of Appeal may rule differently), one of the factors that the Court considers when deciding to hear a case.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election</ref>