New York Attorney General Letitia James has joined 21 other state/ territory Attorney Generals and the Attorney General for Washington D.C. in a filing against the recent Texas lawsuit that seeks the invalidation of the presidential election results in four key swing states, all of which Biden won.
On Twitter, James insisted that the people’s “voices will be heard.” She commented as follows:
‘I’m taking action at the Supreme Court with a coalition of AGs to fight back against the Texas Attorney General’s baseless attempts to invalidate the #2020Election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The people have spoken, and their voices will be heard.’
I’m taking action at the Supreme Court with a coalition of AGs to fight back against the Texas Attorney General's baseless attempts to invalidate the #2020Election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
The people have spoken, and their voices will be heard.
— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) December 10, 2020
Texas alleged that the states under consideration improperly changed their election procedures because updates went through state courts and other officials outside of formal state legislative bodies. As a new filing against Texas’s position noted, they’re essentially asking the U.S. Supreme Court (where the case is filed) to meddle in states’ interpretations of their own state laws. The coalition of Attorney Generals behind the recent filing against Texas’s position also explained how the demand in the Constitution for state legislatures to handle election-related policy-making doesn’t confine this policy-making to the legislative bodies currently in place. Instead, the point is for whoever happens to set official policy in respective states to handle electoral policy issues. Under Texas’s theory, what meaningful role would state courts even have? They’re supposed to be checks on the legislative bodies, not pushed to the side.
President Donald Trump has asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to argue the Texas case before the Supreme Court if the court agrees to hear arguments in the proceedings, and Cruz has apparently agreed. (Trump sought to join the case in support of Texas’s position.) There’s no particular indication that the court will actually rule in the GOP’s favor, no matter the current presence of three of Trump’s own nominees on the bench. Just recently, the court rejected a challenge to election results in Pennsylvania from Republicans in the state, and across the country, Trump-allied legal challenges against the election results have failed in front of conservative and liberal judges alike.
Check out Twitter’s response to James below:
