Changes

'''[[Texas]] v. [[Pennsylvania]]''' (official style: '''State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of [[Georgia]], State of [[Michigan]], and State of [[Wisconsin]]''') was a [[United States Supreme Court]] case filed on December 8, 2020 by Texas Attorney General [[Ken Paxton]], seeking relief in the ongoing 2020 United States Presidential Election.

'''[[Texas]] v. [[Pennsylvania]]''' (official style: '''State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of [[Georgia]], State of [[Michigan]], and State of [[Wisconsin]]''') was a [[United States Supreme Court]] case filed on December 8, 2020 by Texas Attorney General [[Ken Paxton]], seeking relief in the ongoing 2020 United States Presidential Election.

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.  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.

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.

===Wisconsin===

===Wisconsin===

Compared to the other states named in the suit, Wisconsin is presented as something as an outlier; its Secretary of State is not identified as an especially culpable official, and the case notes that it has on record some very strongly-written laws to prevent election fraud. The alleged violation of these laws came from other quarters, particularly on the local level.  

Compared to the other states named in the suit, Wisconsin is presented as something of an outlier; its Secretary of State is not identified as an especially culpable official, and the case notes that it has on record some very strongly-written laws to prevent election fraud. The alleged violation of these laws came from other quarters, particularly on the local level.  

The case focuses on a particular statute (Wisc. Stat. § 6.84(1)) which clearly states that while a number of drop-off locations for absentee ballots may be set up in individual localities, each must be staffed by responsible officials; they cannot be left unmanned. Nonetheless, a combined total of around five hundred unmanned drop-boxes were set up by the mayors of Green Bay, [[Kenosha, Wisconsin|Kenosha]], [[Madison, Wisconsin|Madison]], [[Milwaukee, Wisconsin|Milwaukee]], and Racine--Wisconsin's five largest cities, all of them predominantly Democratic. Beyond the fact of their being unmanned, the very use of drop-boxes, as opposed to drop-off sites, violates another law (Wisc. Stat. § 6.85(3)), which specifies that such locations must be fully functional sites, staffed by the municipal clerk, the board of election commissioners, or their employees. Any ballot mailed or delivered via drop-box (per Wisc. Stat. § 6.87(6)) "may not be counted." And yet another law (Wisc. Stat. § 6.84(2)) stipulates that "ballots counted in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any location."

The case focuses on a particular statute (Wisc. Stat. § 6.84(1)) which clearly states that while a number of drop-off locations for absentee ballots may be set up in individual localities, each must be staffed by responsible officials; they cannot be left unmanned. Nonetheless, a combined total of around five hundred unmanned drop-boxes were set up by the mayors of Green Bay, [[Kenosha, Wisconsin|Kenosha]], [[Madison, Wisconsin|Madison]], [[Milwaukee, Wisconsin|Milwaukee]], and Racine--Wisconsin's five largest cities, all of them predominantly Democratic. Beyond the fact of their being unmanned, the very use of drop-boxes, as opposed to drop-off sites, violates another law (Wisc. Stat. § 6.85(3)), which specifies that such locations must be fully functional sites, staffed by the municipal clerk, the board of election commissioners, or their employees. Any ballot mailed or delivered via drop-box (per Wisc. Stat. § 6.87(6)) "may not be counted." And yet another law (Wisc. Stat. § 6.84(2)) stipulates that "ballots counted in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any location."