Texas reply in motion for interim injunctive relief against GA MI WI PA Dec 11,”Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would”
“Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would”...Texas response to defendants motions
” This must be about stopping Trump”…Gabriel Sterling , GA election official
“The certification of Arizona’s FALSE results is unethical and knowingly participating in the corruption that has disenfranchised AZ voters,” …Jenna Ellis
One of the most important statements in the Texas response below is:
“Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would”
The elephant in the room.
Let’s add more clarity to that.
Due to the documented disregard for state election laws, rampant ballot and voter fraud, machine malfunctions and manipulations and human error, we do not know who lawfully won the election.
This affects every citizen in the US and indeed of the world.
It certainly disenfranchises every voter.
Any illegal ballots tossed disenfranchise no one.
STATE OF TEXAS,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF
GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND
December 11, 2020.
“REPLY IN SUPPORT OF INTERIM RELIEF
The State of Texas respectfully replies in support
of its motion for interim injunctive relief against the
States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the
“Defendant States”) and their agents, officers,
presidential electors, and others acting in concert.
Defendant States do not seriously address grave
issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other
court venues and decisions in which Texas could not
participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that
Texas seeks and the justification for that relief. An
injunction should issue because Defendant States
have not—and cannot—defend their actions.”
“Second, Texas does not ask this Court to reelect
President Trump, and Texas does not seek to
disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’
voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to
recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’
maladministration of the 2020 election makes it
impossible to know which candidate garnered the
majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike
unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that
the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for
the next step. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2; 3 U.S.C. §
2. Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as
taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting
decisively will not only put lower courts but also state
and local officials on notice that future elections must
conform to State election statutes, requiring
legislative ratification of any change prior to the
election. Far from condemning this and other courts
to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the
flood of election-season litigation.”
The motion for interim relief enjoining Defendant
States from certifying Presidential Electors and from
having such electors vote in the electoral college until
further order of this Court should be granted.
Alternatively, this Court should summarily vacate
Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors
and remand to Defendant States’ legislatures
pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and the Electors Clause.”