Texas response to Pennsylvania brief
Some gems:
2. Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would.
Allowing people do vote is disenfranchisement… according to Texas.
Third, Defendant States’ invocation of laches and standing evinces a cavalier unseriousness about the most cherished right in a democracy—the right to vote.
They’re trying to claim that they’re protecting the right to vote by throwing out millions of people’s votes.
Asserting that Texas does not raise serious issues is telling.
Telling of what? The response just leaves us hanging. Is the court supposed to read between the lines?
Suggesting that Texas should have acted sooner misses the mark—the campaign to eviscerate state statutory ballot integrity provisions took months to plan and carry out yet Texas has had only weeks to detect wrongdoing, look for witnesses willing to speak, and marshal admissible evidence. Advantage to those who, for whatever reason, sought to destroy ballot integrity protections in the selection of our President.
The things they are calling wrongdoing were known long before the election, long before the first person voted. They should have challenged it then rather than challenging them only after they lost the election. And it goes into wild conspiracy theory with “sought to destroy ballot integrity protections.” They aren’t just alleging that the law wasn’t followed (it was followed) but that there was a conspiracy, for which they provide no evidence.
They also go on to reference King George. It’s madness, I tell you, madness.