Late Monday night, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against four swing states for unconstitutionality in the general election. If the Supreme Court takes up the case, Trump invited Senator Ted Cruz to argue the case, and Cruz readily agreed.
Senator Cruz’s spokeswoman, Lauren Aronson, told the “Washington Spectator” on Wednesday that Trump asked Cruz on Tuesday if he would argue the case.
The New York Times also reported Wednesday that Trump asked Cruz if he would be willing to hear oral arguments in the case if it reached the Supreme Court. Cruz agreed.
On Monday night, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court accusing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin of making unconstitutional changes to the way they voted during the election and hoping the Supreme Court will rule that state legislatures can send electors to vote for Trump.
“Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. These states violated the official election statutes enacted by their legislatures and thus violated the Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement.
Trump filed a motion to join the lawsuit on Wednesday (Dec. 9).
As of Wednesday night, at least 18 states had joined Texas in the lawsuit against the four swing states. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said Wednesday that mail-in ballots taken by the four states being sued significantly increase “the risk of (election) fraud.”
Before joining the GOP in 2013, Cruz argued nine times before the Supreme Court, mostly in his capacity as Texas attorney general.
On Monday (Dec. 7), Cruz tweeted that he was willing to argue the Pennsylvania vote-by-mail case if the Supreme Court agreed to take it up. The case, brought by Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Mike Kelly and Republican congressional candidate Sean Parnell, challenges the expansion of “no reason” mail-in ballots in this election as unconstitutional in Pennsylvania.
Cruz explained his willingness to argue on the grounds that the case “raises very serious questions” and is a “purely legal question.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied the emergency injunction sought in the case, which would have prevented certification of the state’s election results. I am disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case challenging Pennsylvania’s election results,” Cruz tweeted Tuesday evening. This appeal raises important and serious questions of law, and I believe it is the court’s responsibility to ensure that our elections comply with the law and the Constitution.”
Recent Comments