Texas sues Michigan, other states over election procedures in lawsuit Nessel calls ‘publicity stunt’

Poll workers sort ballots

FILE - In this Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020, file photo, poll workers sort out early and absentee ballots at the Kenosha Municipal building on Election Day, in Kenosha, Wis. Republicans are grasping for ways to reverse Joe Biden’s win in Wisconsin over President Donald Trump, despite there being no evidence of widespread fraud or voting irregularities in the state. The effort appears aimed at sowing doubt in the election results among Trump supporters ahead of a possible recount.Wong Maye-E | AP Photo

The state of Texas is suing Michigan along with several other states, claiming violations of the Constitution because voting rules were established by court orders and executive actions rather than the legislative action.

The lawsuit, filed directly with the Supreme Court by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, argues that there were “voting irregularities” because Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin changed election procedures in ways that would violate the Electors Clause of the Constitution. Paxton is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislators to freely choose electors, potentially reversing the vote of the people in the presidential election.

The Board of State Canvassers certified Michigan’s November election results on Nov. 23, including Joe Biden’s 2.8% statewide victory over Trump.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel issued a statement Dec. 8 in response to the lawsuit filed by Paxton seeking to overturn election results in Michigan and other states.

“The motion filed by the Texas Attorney General is a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading,” Nessel said. “The erosion of confidence in our democratic system isn’t attributable to the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, or Pennsylvania but rather to partisan officials, like Mr. Paxton, who place loyalty to a person over loyalty to their country.”

Paxton’s lawsuit says the defendant states “presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting.”

“The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted,” Paxton said. “Whether well-intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States.”

Michigan voters approved no-reason absentee ballot access in a statewide vote in 2018.

The lawsuit is another of numerous attempt to upend Michigan’s electoral process. On Dec. 3 Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani starred in a roughly five-hour legislative hearing where he offered testimony in an effort to convince state lawmakers to “take back your power” and disregard election results that showed Biden winning the state’s popular vote, calling those results a “complete falsehood.”

Related: Giuliani’s pitch to upend electoral process isn’t convincing Michigan legislative Republicans

Nessel stated Paxton’s allegations against Michigan have already been resolved by the courts.

“The Michigan issues raised in this complaint have already been thoroughly litigated and roundly rejected in both state and federal courts – by judges appointed from both political parties,” Nessel said. “Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of the Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Sept. 16 affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson acted lawfully when she sent absentee voter ballot applications to all registered voters ahead of primary elections. In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court found that state law allows Benson the authority to provide unsolicited applications for absentee ballots.

Michigan voters in 2018 approved Proposal 3, allowing voters to request absentee ballots without providing a specific reason. The court found that Benson acted within her authority and furthered the purposes of informing qualified registered voters of their right to vote by absentee ballot – if they so choose.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.